Emma, all that has nothing to do with multiculturalism. Multiculturalism was a bureaucratic regime established by the Australian government in the 1970s, taking the concept from the Canadians, and inappropriately dumping it onto Australia, which had never faced the same ethnically-based federal tensions that Canada had.

Canada was a country made up of multiple Indigenous nations that were dislocated by the invasion of European settlers that represented citizens of warring countries, France and England.

But somehow, Australia was never a country made up of multiple Indigenous nations that were dislocated by the invasion of European settlers that represented citizens of warring countries, Ireland and Brittan.

Emma, Canada's multiculturalism also had nothing to do with injuns and eskimoes. Canada's multiple conflicting cultures were English and French

Isn't proselytising within SRI forbidden? So can't the volunteers who are said to be doing this be dealt with under existing regulations and stopped or are kids much smarter than we give them credit for i.e. we don't have armies of little vegemite evangelicals emerging from SRI lessons so if the evangelicals are trying to subvert society through SRI then they are pretty hopeless at it.

However, I don't buy the idea, repeated in your piece, that volunteers from Access Ministries are setting out to deliberately proselytise through SRI as its been a long standing idea amongst the various christian traditions that just being a good christian in the community and to do this publicly is a way they see as serving their God. If you were familar with the gospels texts used by all the christian traditions you would see this is something direct from Jesus's words so its no wonder what's her name from Access Ministries would use language referring to SRI as a 'god given opportunity'.

I think teaching ethics alongside comparative religion would be great but whose ethics? The other thing is that you would have to still have very strict regulations against proselytising as everyone convinced of the correctness of their own worldview falls into proselytising so you might have to ban Richard Dawkins from taking a comparative religion and ethics class.

If comparative religion replaces SRI then the various christian traditions, evangelicalism, would still need to be included. To make your point for ethics classes and teaching comparative religion you seem to be trying to paint evangelicals as the 'villain-du-jour' and I don't think its an honest way to do that. Evangelicals are people, like you and me, and so have every right to participate in the public square, even if you don't like them, so its a bit over the top of you to declare they can't be in a public school system.

As to 'Faith is a family matter', in declaring that you are going against the ideals of the secular public square and/or you make the mistake that only 'religious' people make do with the concept of faith.

Jeremy, you are arguing against your own case. Yes proselytising is forbidden but as there is no supervision of the volunteers how is anyone to know if SRI is being conducted according to the agreed guidelines or not? As you rightly, if contradictorily, point out later 'everyone convinced of the correctness of their own worldview falls into proselytising'. They can't be stopped if it is just assumed that no one is doing it. Any parent who sees the material that kids bring home can see for themselves that it is selling acceptance of a particularly narrow world view. Christians are indeed exhorted to convince others to join them, but so are many other people who hold different even opposing world views - just because they feel the need to recruit to their cause is no reason to allow them access to every child in a state school to do so. Why are evangelical Christians privileged by being allowed this access to a captive audience? You say 'whose ethics' should be taught - well, why is a decision made to privilege the particular ethics of evangelical christianity? Let's have ALL the religions and philosophies that are current in the community presented equally to the kids - there obviously won't be any time left for studying anything else. Yes, all these points of view 'have every right to participate in the public square' and that is where they should do their recruiting which they have ample opportunity to do, not in state schools, to minors, without their parents, in a context where they should reasonably expect to be presented with objective facts not your (or my) interpretation of them. Of course 'having faith', or not, is a family matter - faith is a concept peculiar to religion. I don't have 'faith' in gravity or sodium chloride - the 'ideals of the secular public square' of necessity preclude 'faith' that is why they are secular i.e. without allegiance to ANY faith based world view.

as David said in his previous reply to you, 'religion' as you define it here is already covered, in context, as part of a structured curriculum in a number of subject areas. The number, types, impact (for good or ill), influence and so on of the wide variety of religions (and philosophies) developed by human societies are discussed at the appropriate level, in formal lessons by trained teachers, in History, English, Classics, Geography, Social Studies, Economics, English Language, French, German, Indonesian (and the other foreign languages), Health and Human Development and so on. 'Religion' as a human phenomenon is by no means ignored in the current curriculum. The objection to RI/SRE is that a portion of the school week's instructional time is currently given over to untrained volunteers who deliver 'information' of dubious quality, out of context, on the particular dogma and beliefs of one particular brand of one particular religion without accountability. In the process children as young as 5 are divided from their classmates on the basis of whether their parents have opted in or out, or, if more than one religion is presenting its dogma, on the basis of their parents' stated religious preference. Whether or not meaningful activities are provided to the children who do not participate in the dogma delivery program/s is entirely at the whim of the school or the classroom teacher involved but if an activity is provided it must be 'busywork' (my children usually did colouring, reading their own books, running messages etc - nothing too exciting or everyone else would want to do it too) as it is explicitly stated that regardless of the number involved they cannot proceed with classwork while their classmates are elsewhere being indoctrinated. This is clearly a practice that should be stopped sooner rather than later.

"as David said in his previous reply to you, 'religion' as you define it here is already covered, in context, as part of a structured curriculum in a number of subject areas."
Sue, if government school teachers are teaching religion in their classes, they are breaking the law.

If evangelicals are allowed into schools you also need to allow atheists, to put the rational argument.

How many state schools have Islamic or Jewish instructors? Or any other non Christian ones?

Or what % of state school teachers are MALE, of any religion, whatsoever?

We used to have a Buddhist and a Bahaii class at our SS, but now everyone who does not attend Christian RI is placed in a Virtues study group - I really don't see why studying virtues or philosophy and spirituality and its manifestations should not be the best instruction for all students - forget the Christian indoctrination :)

David, it is puzzling how your animus started off against "religion" in general, but has now morphed into "evangelicals". Just another quick tip about Christianity; it was born as an evangelical religion. The whole purpose of the religion is to 'spread the word of Christ'. As for principals being DIRECTED, well there's a whole circus of 'untrained' and 'unaccredited' special interest ideologues and proselytisers constantly streaming through the front gates and into the class rooms of government schools: Transsexual 'mirls'; gay and lesbian parents, aboriginal smoking ceremony and rain dancers; soft kiddy-porn photographers. Even the compulsory state Science curriculum shoves down our kids throats, 'indigenous knowledges and science'.

Suzy, nearly all parents would agree with you. Hence the stampede out of the values vacuum of government schools into religious schools; even among parents who are atheists. That's how bad the government schools have become.

Kim, as others have pointed out, the 'values vacuum' that you posit isn't the cause of the stampede (overdramatise much?) you claim. It's probably more to do with the fact that state schools receive less funding than private schools. *This* is how bad the government allocation of school funding has become: if the state funded state schools and left private schools to be funded solely by private sources, there might well be another stampede back to the state schools.

Kim, your reference "to soft-kiddy porn photographers" et al reveals just how "conservative" you are and how far and wide your extremism and fear of "the other" goes.

You're not talking about "spreading the word of Christ", you're talking like a fully-paid-up member of the American Taliban.

What's your position on teaching creationism in schools?

I can't understand what you have against gay and lesbian parents: should they not be parents? Should they not be gay or lesbian?

I also can't see what's wrong with "indigenous knowledges and science". Funny how you describe that as being "shoved down throats" but don't use the same invective for religion classes in state schools.

Alison if you truly believe that state schools receive less funding than private schools, then you are beyond being able to participate in this debate. I cannot believe there are still adults in this country who swallow this innumerate baloney.

"You're not talking about "spreading the word of Christ", you're talking like a fully-paid-up member of the American Taliban."
If you think atheists are the American Taliban, then that must be me. Except, I am Australian atheist, not an American.

I'm trying not to laugh at that but finding it very difficult. I think I might pass a note instead.

You have to admit, Thor did have the better movie. Plus he was in The Avengers as well. What has Jesus done lately?

"The teaching of any type of faith-based program has no place in any government funded school."
This just shows ignorance of both our Constitution and laws. Stop trying to Americanise every debate that happens among AUSTRALIANS.

Sue, what on earth does colonial NSW legislation from 160 years ago have to do with anything? Hanging was on the books back then too.

Because, Kim, those Acts as amended are what still runs education today. Education is a state matter which receives some Federal funding (that's why all the systems are different) but they were all begun as secular institutions, explicitly so, at a time of great rivalry between the Protestants and the Catholics. In the UK Catholics could not attend university, or take jobs in the public service (or marry the sovereign) among other things and Protestantism was an established religion. First the states in their constitutions and then the Federal constitution (S.116) explicitly did not want that kind of divide perpetuated in Australia. No one wants it now either, I'm fairly sure, when we have even more religions to add to the mix. Societies are most stable when people keep their religious views (or lack of them) to themselves. The pernicious arrogance of these evangelical Protestants, only a tiny section even of Christianity, in demanding a captive audience of children every week because THEY think that the children's parents are neglecting them by not indoctrinating them with THEIR preferred form of Christianity is staggering. They are perfectly entitled to their views but their right to bang on about them ends where my right to think differently begins.Their views have no place being expounded by untrained amateurs in a secular classroom.

I'm assuming you're focusing on protestant evangelicals in state schools because the catholics can indoctrinate children in their own school system?

Sue, unfortunately, this is the kind of of "history" you get from the AEU - WRONG history. See my response to George above. Oh, and on the 1850s, there was no legislation mandating secular instruction. But there was ONE piece of education legislation that might interest you - Sydney University Act (1850) (NSW)

"WHEREAS it is deemed expedient for the better advancement of
religion and morality and the promotion of useful knowledge
to hold forth to all classes and denominations of Her Majesty's
subjects resident in the Colony of New South Wales without any
distinction whatsoever an encouragement for pursuing a regular and
liberal course of education"

yes, Emma, the overwhelming number of volunteers to present RI/SRE in schools are from ACCESS Ministries specifically set up for the purpose by a group of evangelical Protestants very committed to saving children at state schools from their parents who are too slack to see to saving their souls by committing the whole familly to evangelical Protestantism. Any other religious group is free to send a volunteer to take students from that identified group (Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Seventh Day Adventist, Bahai - whatever) and if they present themselves, provided they have a working with children check the Principal is obliged to accept their offer. In practice however very few other religions are set up to do it or get the volunteers. It is almost impossible to get volunteers of any type for high schools for instance. At the last couple of high schools i taught at in NSW no one was game to take 40 minutes of RI with our little hooligans so it was timetabled to last period Thursday and the kids all went home early and we staff got an early start on faculty or staff meetings. If a volunteer had appeared however we would have had to keep the kids and hand them over (metaphorically speaking) Many of our students at the last school i was at were Islander background and their parents were very religious but also did not want the school providing anything but their kids' secular education. Almost all the families were involved in religious observances of one kind or another all weekend.

I will merely point out that you are reading the wrong legislation and reading that incorrectly. Your arguments and objections are all over the place - I really don't see your point other than merely to divert and sideline and set up straw men. You appear to have no coherent case for whatever you are arguing for or against and what appear to be the definitions you are using keep changing to enable you to confront whatever you disapprove of in any particular comment. I am no longer interested in picking nits with you.

You have been exposed Sue. Deal with it.

It would appear from your reply that

1. Interest in and resources to evangelise appears to be denomination specific
2. Parents at your school aren't particular interested in evangelising occuring at the school, even when they are religious or perhaps have a similar religion to the evangelisers in question

Would I be correct in understanding that by Islander families, you mean people of Polynesian background? As I recall there are multiple religions in Polynesian communities but in previous centuries, these regions had Christianity introduced? So these students would likely have a Protestant or Catholic religious affiliation?

Sounds like the program is redundant.

yes, it does seem to be the evangelical Protestants that are keen on 'saving souls' and gathering recruits in this way and , yes, there appeared to be zero interest in RI from students, parents or the providers - I think the latter prefer their charges not big enough to talk back or ask questions. The Islander families are from Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, often via NZ. Almost all fervent Protestant Christians after being thoroughly missionaried in the 19th century. The RI programs being objected to are mostly run in primary schools.

"I will merely point out that you are reading the wrong legislation and reading that incorrectly."
Sue, you haven't 'pointed out' anything of the sort. I have addressed every claim made by you, George, and others. I have addressed your errors on the Constitution; 19th century legislation on the founding of secular government schools; changes since the 1950s; and the position in 2013. I have actually cited and linked to real data, real legislation; real evidence. I have shown that the claims made by you, George, David, and others on each of these points, are not only wrong, but the exact opposite of what you say.
Sue, you have not used any evidence at all, except vague hand-waving. In your mind, you are confusing the world as you would like it to be with the way the world is, and has been. That's fine. But just be careful when you try to justify yourself, that you don't start citing evidence from the real world past and present, because you will be called out on it..

Or at the very least, if SRI is a necessity, they probably shouldn't be attempting to convert the kids of one religion to another.

That's not Christian bashing, that's avoiding discrimination against non Christians who seem to be the ones on the receiving end of this.

"That's not Christian bashing". So then I take it that volunteers from other faiths are not welcome either? Or is focusing on Christians when the program is meant to include all faiths the only way to avoid being non-PC, since it's okay to say anything about them but not others? What about future community-focused' programs, where (as in some US places at the moment) we will invite homosexuals to "tell" the kids about such things as S&M. Would that be okay?

Meant to include all faiths? No, actually. RI wasn't designed for that.

But, if it was to be in accordance with secular principles, the schools would either

> Have religious education open to all faiths. Which they more or less do through the curricula - RE, (and this is separate from religious instruction- RI, the main topic)

OR

> Not weigh in on religion at all. Which would be preferable, considering even teaching RE in the curricula can be divisive/inaccurate to minority faiths or minority opinions within religions

Also, your homosexual bashing needs to stop. It's not a topic on this thread and you're making that up.

"Also, your homosexual bashing needs to stop. It's not a topic on this thread and you're making that up"
I am not "bashing" anyone, and it is very topical since we're talking about who we allow to talk to our children while they are at school.
I don't make things up, here is an example of what's happened elsewhere:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/gaycomm_030708/index.html

That article, as speculative and skewed as it is, doesn't even mention S&M.

If anything, the skew of the article is towards describing what might be a simple case of the LGBTIQ community reaching out to teenagers to prevent homophobia related suicide.

I don't know all the details, but telling teenagers that it's okay to be gay and that things get better is not the same as talking about S&M.

Speaking of S&M, whilst it's not something to teach at a school, it's also not something that's specifically a homosexual activity. Actually, some people who practice S&M have told me that it's not even a strictly speaking, sexual activity.

Once again, you're ranting about gays and distorting the facts.

Not to mention, that article doesn't even cover Australia, or the topic of religious instruction.

Okay, whatever. I think the ranting is on your part, especially as you seem to misunderstand what the link I have provided exemplifies (Some states in the US are more "advanced" than us in "sex education" - an indication of the future for Australia). So all those leather, chain and whipping at "pride parades" means that S&M is not practiced by some homosexuals? I would invite you to read a bit more about the practice, or maybe ring one of the men's "bathouses" in Sydney or Melbourne and ask about their harnesses and wrist manacles for those who like it "rough". Now, we don't want all this to be left out of the sex ed we impart to our children, do we? If you'd like, I can link you to some of the literature used in some parts of the world where the GBLTIQetc. have been put in charge of children's sex ed. But that would be just ranting, I guess.

Dania, you're full of it.

If you had basic knowledge of the history of gay pride movements, you'd notice that the reason why people get dressed up (or down) in such extreme fashions is because it's satire.

People - and I think it's now fair to include you in this - spread stereotypes about homosexual people, such as that they all practice S&M or want to 'convert' people to homosexuality.

The 78ers (Australian first parade group) responded to a long history of discrimination and stereotyping by going out on the street and owning the stereotype comically - satire - in a similar way to how some rappers own the word 'nigger'.

If you take this literally, it's because you don't know anything about the history of this situation and quite possible, lack a sense of humour.

If you wish to provide links to groups who are taking the rights movement too far, however, go ahead.

But so far you've proven nothing but that you choose skewed articles that promote a one sided, and more than likely, inaccurate, view of homosexuality.

And on top of that, you're skewing those articles even further.

I guess it's time you took your infantile ravings elsewhere.

Why? Is this a private club?

"If you take this literally, it's because you don't know anything about the history of this situation and quite possible, lack a sense of humour [sic]"
I see, you know me so well from just a few postings. Amazing telepathic abilities there. Actually, I have studied the homosexualist movement for quite some time now. And I know satire when I see it or read it. For instance, Michael Swift's 'Gay Manifesto' may pass as 'satire', but Carl Wittman's 'Refugees from Amerika: A Gay Manifesto' is definitely not (http://www.againstequality.org/files/refugees_from_amerika_a_gay_manifesto_1969.pdf). You may like to read closely section V(5), especially that bit where it says " e.g. sado/masochism, when consensual, can be described as a highly artistic endeavor, a ballet the constraints of which are the threshold of pain and pleasure" (it's right under the sex with animals bit).
"But so far you've proven nothing but that you choose skewed articles that promote a one sided, and more than likely, inaccurate, view of homosexuality"
Really? Here's your opportunity to do what no one has done before in this publication or others like it. So, care to give us an 'accurate' view of homosexuality?

"SRE and the national school chaplaincy program both violate the fundamental democratic principle of the separation of church and state."
I can hear the ancient Athenians pissing themselves laughing in Hades from here.

I couldn't agree more. An hour of pointless boredom. I remember sitting in one of those religious classes - back in the 1950s at high school we had no choice - and watching with envy the lone Jewish boy sitting on a bench by the empty quadrangle. He was allowed to sit in the sun and read a book.

Did that boy feel left out? What good is missing a class if you can't play with your friends?

To my knowledge he didn't feel "left out" - it was only an hour a week after all.

I don't really agree that what we called "scripture" was a "class". It was an imposition and most of us bad boys took little or no notice. I can still remember the smell of the cigarette that was passed along the back row on at least one occasion.

"The objection I, and many other parents have to RI/SRE etc, is that it is 'taught' by volunteers with little or no training..."
If that were really your concern, Sue, you'd be up in arms about the teaching of Maths and Science in so many government schools.

Please stop putting up strawmen, Kim.

John, everyone in Australia is talking about the crisis in Australia's government schools, particularly, the low level of academic ability of teachers entering the system, and the chronic shortage of Science, but especially Mathematics, teachers, which results large numbers of Maths classes being taught by teachers, whose training was in something else; same situation in Science. It even extends to Social Sciences, where HSC students are taught by Geography teachers!

In that case, Kim, I think you'll find that a number of people on the progressive side of politics (who oppose CRE for all the reasons outlined on this page) would agree and are outspoken about that very serious shortage. But conflating that with untrained, very ignorant (I have sat in on a few of those CRE classes myself) people who are teaching badly is not helpful to the discussion: at the very least (and oh yes, it's a far from even adequate situation) those Geography teachers are university trained in content and pedagogy.

John, sorry, I meant HSC HISTORY students are often taught by Geography teachers, because that school can't get enough History teachers.

No. It is because they have made 'feminist multiculturalism' the official state religion. Result? Stampedes out of the government schools, into private religious schools. You do the math. You're doing it wrong.

Kim have you gone to a religious school and asked the parents why they are sending their kids there?

I know several atheist families who are sending their kids to a religious school because of the quality of teaching and facilities that they find in those schools. They are also instructing their children to politely listen and toe the line in religious classes i.e. the kids are learning how not to 'rock the boat' in RE. They would prefer to send their kids to a secular private school, but there are very, very few of those about.

For myself I am considering private religious education for my children because I am buying a place in an institution where my children would be surrounded by other kids with parents with similar aspirational values as myself. I am agonising over the RE classes and would prefer them not to be there. I might even consider paying extra so my kids don't attend RE if that option would be available.

As for feminism I'd be very happy for my children to learn about the systematic cultural oppression of 50% of the population and especially to recognise the signs of dehumanising language used against certain groups in the population. If only this was taught instead of RE - it would be a far better way to spread the Christian message of love and acceptance of all than compulsory RE classes!

So in conclusion, the stampede to religious schools has almost nothing to do with religion being taught there but everything to do with what I and Emma Anderson has also told you. I can assure you that if state schools had the resources that private schools have, there would be a stampede back to state education.

Even Christopher Hitchens agrees.

"Turns out Hitchens’ daughter attends Sidwell Friends School in DC, a Quaker institution where they have silent worship most mornings. I asked him why he would choose a religious school for his daughter, to which he replied, “Well it is a good school.”

Sorry, no reference.

Lydia, you say you are student in Finland. Does that mean you are talking about the Finnish religious school system? Well my comments are only about the Australian school system. It is VERY different here compared to Finland. Finland has only 1/4 the population of Australia. It is about the same size and population of one of our states, Victoria. But unlike Victoria, Finland is one of the world's most monocultural nations. Finland is more like Japan, than Victoria.
There is absolutely no religious, or even ethnic diversity in Finland. The State Church - the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland - has about 75% of the population. About 22% identify with no religion. That leaves less than 3%. Half of those are Finnish Orthodox, leaving about 1% of the population made up of all the rest. Basically, none whatsoever, or only a handful of Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, and so on. No equivalent of our Aborigines (except for about 2,000 Sami/Lapps). Less than 5% of the Finnish population speak any other language apart from Finnish.
In other words, Finland is just so different from Australia, to make any comparisons between religious school systems useful.

David, each of legislation, religious structures, and Australian education history, show you are wrong on all these points.

David, I have already explained to you above your errors about religion.
1. Religion IS a public affair and institution, and has been since recorded history.
2. Legislaton since the 1860s until today has provided for religious instruction in secular government schools by instructors/clergy from that religion.

**sigh** ... David, Kim appears to be dead set on proving a point that Australian state schools were originally set up to provide an hour of religious education each day, something something ...

My understanding is that this was a compromise reached with the powerful churches who, previous to public schooling being enacted by law, were in control of school education and who were fearful of losing their influence. However, this is not my field of expertise, unlike you.

Could you please give us the full story on what the situation actually was so that Kim stops bringing it up every few hours?

G'Day Colin, I am a CRE Relief Teacher from WA & just received my curriculum and so far 3 schools appear to need me starting in March. (Last year 15 classes per week in 5 schools.)
I had the Morgan Gallop Pollster come to my door some time ago: second question was "do I support the teaching of RE in government schools?" Apparently I am among 62% of Australians that DO. Also note that when the stats were limited to parents of school aged children - the positive response went UP to 71%.
Which is about the 70% percentage you mentioned.

70%?

I read somewhere it was less than 28% of Australian adults, or it may have even been less than 18%.

And I bet when asked if they were "really, really believed in God?" the answer would be less still.

And then when you do quiz someone they go on about "not the guy in the sandals, the beard and the white robes, but I have a bit of a vibe". Yeah, really?

So I would say 4% at most actually "believe" in the traditional Christian god, and they'd probably be riddled with doubt too.

Also I believe belief would be even less prevalent amongst the clergy. Talk to some of them, and they'll freely admit even they don't believe in god.

I'm pretty sure the total number of Christians of all denominations was less than 60% in the 1990s. The number of atheists were roughly 20% at the same census, and the remaining persons came from a wide variety of other faiths to which Judaism and Islam had 2% each.

Currently, according to a mate of mine who works with this data, the fastest growing religion on the census is the option "No Religion".

In NZ it's Jedi, lol

Ahhh David, so you are another person that misinterprets the OT, perhaps you should look at what Jesus said when someone expressed the same presuppositions as you have above.

In responding to Colin's claim that our "whole national ethos is based on Judeo-Christian ethics", David said: "Judeo Christian is shorthand for Old New Testament dogma - fortunately we no longer stone to death adulterers, homosexuals or banish women when they are menstruating, put to death people who pick up sticks on the Sabbath."

To which Jeremy replied: "Ahhh David, so you are another person that misinterprets the OT, perhaps you should look at what Jesus said when someone expressed the same presuppositions as you have above."

Sorry, Jeremy, but David is *not* misinterpreting the OT. It's chock-full of prescriptions for living that may have worked in the Middle East in the Bronze Age 3,000 years ago, but don't at all suit a modern world. It's also chock-full of violent bigotry, genocide, misogyny, incest, and a worldview that essentially states "my tribe is good and deserves to live, all other tribes are bad and deserve to die".

And regardless of what appears in the collection of writings put together at the Council of Nicaea in about 327, which you would call the New Testament, when people cite Judeo-Christian ethics, they necessarily include the OT.

I wouldn't limit those concerns to the OT. The NT has numerous examples of proscriptions that are antithetical to modern values. Corinthians and Romans (chapters) come to mind.

Such as..........

I'm pretty sure a proscription against homosexuality is in Corinthians.

Also

1 Corinthians 11:3-7

3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a] is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife[b] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man

-----
In other words

God's the boss
Jesus is his 2IC
Males are the next best thing
Women are subservient to men

Is it a proscription against being gay or is it a proscription against sex outside marriage?

It's both adultery and males lying with males. The wording varies between translations but the same verse covers both adultery and homosexuality.

I think you wil find it its a proscription against sex outside marriage - doesn't matter what the gender is of the person you or I are having sex with. Loving someone of the same gender is not proscribed in the bible.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

This article provides a discussion on some of the translation issues with the passage in question.

It would appear that homosexuality is proscribed but it's a matter of definition. The issue seems to vary as to whether it refers to the act of homosexuality, or the orientation.

Long and short, if one takes the view that orientation is okay, the act is not; then the modern view that orientation is not a choice (and the act is natural) is proscribed.

If one takes the view that orientation is not okay, and neither is the act, then homosexuality as an identity, and not just a behavior, is proscribed.

I am sititng in a cafe and I don't have a useful NT in front of me so I can't go through the passage and its context as I'd like to but what about the following:

Whats the rest of the passage about that provides a context to this and going onto -

you and I read it through 21st century eyes so what does Paul's choice of descriptive words mean e.g. is this order or status he is talking about here?

Don't forget when Paul wrote this women were regarded as little more than chattels in many sections of society so this stuff would've been revolutionary to his readers.

Saying Paul regarded women as subservient is contradicted by Paul writing in other places of how he preached the gospel alongside particular christian women, not with them under him or subservient to him but alongside in what he saw as his most important task.

Then finally if you go back to Jesus, who stayed with him right to the crucifixion and who were first to see him after the ressurrection, hardly something if they were just subservient?

My original reply to the article you linked to disappeared?

Did you find this as a result of googling? The article doesn't really come to any conclusion but it is a useful example of how difficult it can be to interpret words and phrases and so adds weight to my earlier comment from your bit from Corinthians.

I think you are going to have to show me that the bible says you can't love someone of the same sex alongside it saying sex outside marriage is wrong. Sex and love are different, in our society its more by accident if they coincide.

Yes, we do read it through 21st century eyes which is why I found that website so useful. Actually on other pages there's a pretty good discussion on issues of translation. It would appear, according to that website anyway, that every English translation is inaccurate in part because the concepts referred to did not have an English equivalent at the time, additionally the word Paul used wasn't even a real Greek word, but a sort of vague portmanteau word from two Greek terms.

That's on the sexuality debate in Corinthians anyway. The website seems to be arguing, or at least implying, that both the conservative and liberal perspectives on the 'clobber phrases' are wrong because the English translation was wrong to begin with.

As for the women's issues. Well, there are plenty of examples in unequal societies where the party on the crappy end of the deal occasionally gets a treat. The UK was no less sexist on the many occasions when their serving regent has been female. The ancient Greeks had female goddesses and priestesses, but did not extend democratic rights to their women. Ancient Jews a similar story, women were revered for their child bearing capacity and often little else, the practice of head covering in Corinthians passage is drawn from Judaism and was transferred to Islam.

Paul makes reference in Corinthians (quoted earlier) to a philosophy where women are essentially below men. And even if Paul himself was less sexist than that, there are documented cases in history where the early Christians (among others might I add) that raise questions. For example, the murder of Hypatia (correct my spelling).

Hypatia was a greek scientist (to use a modern term) and a female. This was a rare combination and apparently, a really offensive one.

As far as I can tell, whatever the bible's intended meaning was at writing, sexism and homophobia was present then and the bible, mistranslated or not, is vague enough but specific enough to have been used as a 'justification' for that hatred in the past and is being used now.

And considering all my examples are NT, it demonstrates my original point that anachronistic values aren't limited to the OT.

After reading that website I am not convinced that the bible is against same sex love. However, it is possible, albeit potentially inaccurate, to interpret it as being against the expression of that love in a sexual manner.

You haven't demonstrated that the values in the NT and OT are 'anachronistic'.

If early christians and late christians and non christians from whatever background did wrong things, hated etc then you can't blame the OT and NT for that rather you have these two collections of documents providing down the ages the corrective to wrong or evil behaviour.

However, I just want to again raise one of my original points about the piece for this thread which is in order to bring about change a particular group has to be reframed as the 'enemy' and I don't think this is an honest way by the author to frame the discussion.

You might be surprised that there is a debate amongst evangelical christians on 'sex outside marriage', its not just limited to liberal christians.

I think evangelicals have made stupid mistakes in the way they have framed the issue of same sex attraction, I think they have stuck to mid twentieth century language and attitudes, some evangelicals in an attempt to do the right thing can get locked into their own little world.

I think the issue comes down to sex outside marriage nad don't forget the website you refer to is not the bible nor is it the sum total of academic literature investigating the OT and NT on this topic.

However, this piece is about SRI in schools and I have again stated my my concerns in my reply to your previous point.

Pardon spelling and grammar. As a human my sentences are often unclear. I meant "ask yourself" not "As yourself" in the other reply

That website isn't the sum total of literature on the subject, I agree. But it is by far the most balanced source of information I've seen on the subject thus far.

It does acknowledge that there's debate within Christianity for one thing, and this is no surprise to me. The detail the website goes into, however, was insightful.

Sex outside of marriage, well, let's say that this is all the bible was referring to. For arguments sake. To stop homosexuality being proscribed, legalise gay marriage. Apparently liberal christians are okay with that. I've met a few myself. Perhaps it's the other ones you call evangelical who are fuddy duddy. Nonetheless the fight is somewhat defininitonal and translational. In both cases relying on a document that may well not reflect what God or Jesus actually thought, and even if it did, this doesn't reflect what everyone else thinks. Not everyone is Christian, in fact, most people in the world aren't.

Thus, should we be pushing any given religion if even a given religion has its schisms and is undecided on what to believe? Is the place for that in our education system, especially state based where all faiths are represented? How are we going to teach accurately if picking sides that haven't really sorted themselves out yet?

I don't know your thoughts on that because I see in your reply you have commented elsewhere but I do not know what that other comment was.

Emma,

Coming back to David Zyngler's article I don't think he has demonstrated widespread and deliberate or systematic prosletysing by christians conducting SRI, but I am willing to see any evidence. Now, he doesn't want SRI, thats OK but instead of arguing for a change he comes across as accusing particular groups undertaking SRI of an underhanded agenda, resorting to running down their worldview and in replies on this thread making statements that reveals an ignorance of this group's belief set. This comes across as achieving change not by a superior argument but by doing a Tony Abbott on people you have decided are opponents.

In you above post you have presented a grab bag of thoughts and assertions on the judeo/christian worldview and its founding documents so I'm not sure how to answer them.

Jeremy,

I invite you to attend any SRI class at a Victorian school and have a thorough read of the course booklet. One is Titled 'Me and Jesus' and have the following instructions...You must obey Jesus, Jesus wants you to do 'X', etc...Not prosletysing??? I was appalled when my daughter bought home this type of text. More evidence? Go to www.religioninschool.com - here you will see exactly what Access Ministries agenda is.

Roslyn and Sue,

Do the regulations governing SRI/RI disallow people conducting those classes from personal proselytising, which is separate from the content of the material itself which is instruction in the tenets of a religion (as also stated in the FAQs section on the FIRIS website)?

As I said above, if the christian material presented in SRI by such 'underhanded' and 'fervent' proselytising bunch is such a powerful combination of evil brainswashing where are the thousands of little vegemite christian identikit children being turned out by SRI?

Comparative religion and ethics as a replacement for SRI is a good idea so instead of arguing for this why instead are people and groups , such as David Zyngler and or FIRIS , framing evangelicals as an enemy and using accusatory terms to do so? If they have acompelling case its doesn't need to do such framing. Don't forget the historical component that brought about SRI/RI was by a government minister, its not as if, oh, say, 5 years ago or so evangelicals invaded schools forcing headmasters to open class rooms to them and that now we are bravely repelling them. Things have changed, and good thing to, but there is no need to make this group of people into an enemy - thats not honest and its actually using the tactics that the evangelicals are being accused of.

Sue, seeing you hit out above at christianity with a rant about so-called dogma , if comparative religion replaces SRI won't you still have a problem? Won't the the tenets of christianity that you object to will still be presented along with the tenets of other religions, (but one wonders whether the actual state sponsored religion of Australia i.e. economic growth will be taught)?

@Jeremy, the regulations governing the conduct and practice of trained teachers does indeed disallow the putting forth of personal opinions or beliefs in the course of classroom teaching, the 'volunteers' who present SRI/RE in Victorian schools are not teachers and so are bound by no such regulation. They should be told in their half hour of 'training' that they are given that they are to present only the agreed material and not to proselytise etc but it seems to not impress itself on a substantial number of them and they get (I presume) carried away and do so anyway as any number of testimonies can attest to.

The group that 'employs' and 'prepares' the vast majority of volunteers in Victoria is ACCESS which claims to be merely sharing 'good news' via SRI/RE however if you look at the statements made by their senior members and leaders as well as the actual practice in classrooms this is not the case. They blatantly state that they are fishing in fertile fields for converts and, indeed, thank their god for the opportunity to do so, more than once. THIS is the activity that makes them 'underhanded' and hypocritical. If these volunteers were to present the same material on a soapbox on a street corner to adults with the appropriate permissions to block traffic and so on there could be little objection.

The fact that, as far as we can tell, there are not 'thousands of little vegemite christian identikit children' around is not for lack of trying on their part - they are certainly fervent. However, the fact that they seem to be not very effective is hardly a good reason to continue to waste classroom time on this endeavour. While they are not very successful in generating their hoped for hordes of evangelical christians they are certainly effective in traumatising individuals for life as you can see from posts here (with individuals recalling poor experiences with SRI/RE from decades back, often ironically, reinforcing their decision to have nothing whatsoever to do with the church) as well as on other sites that collect such testimony such as FIRIS where there are also accounts of the harm the policy is doing to current students who are being excluded and labelled due to their participation, or non-participation, in this program.

Comparative religion and ethics (as is done in NSW I presume you mean) is NOT a good idea as a 'replacement for SRI' as that would only serve to justify the use of this time for volunteers to 'teach' something else. Evangelicals are only singled out (which is what I presume you mean by 'framing them as the enemy') as shorthand because they are the vast majority of people used by ACCESS, which is also responsible for providing and 'training' the few volunteers from other faiths who present SRI. Those of us who object to this time being allowed in the school timetable object to ANY religion or philosophy being proselytised in it by volunteers. SRI is only in schools at all as a compromise to stop the major religion taking over all education (see the article by Byrne that David provided a link to earlier for the history)

As I have pointed out on more than one occasion in this forum, I have myself, taught about Christianity, Islam, ancient mythology, animism,Greek and Roman religion and so on as a teacher of History, Classics, Indonesian and English Language and Literature as well as of Comparative Religion. I have no objection to the tenets of Christianity (or any other religion) per se only to them being presented, selectively, by untrained volunteers to small children who have little choice in the matter. The key is ABOUT - all students should know and appreciate what humans have believed to be religion in the past and in the present and this is more than adequately covered in existing curricula. This is NOT instruction in dogma as presented in SRI i.e. that the things believed in X religion are absolutely true and should be believed by everybody or else. Such instruction belongs in the church, temple, mosque or meeting hall of the chosen religion not in a state school.

Sue,
During SRI classes isn't there supposed to be a teacher present amongst whose formal responsibilities is to ensure that the regulations against personal proselytising are adhered to?

I have also pointed out to you in previous posts how christians such as evangelicals see just interacting with the community at large as christians is a way of doing what God wants and so SRI is just an example of that. If you have taught abiut christianity as you say you have then you would be aware of this attitude. That they say this publicly rather undermines your assertion they are being underhanded.

Cathy Byrne's article repeats myths about what chrsiatinaity says to make her argument, e.g. christian theology equals creationist and that Galileo being persecuted by the catholic church, things you will know from your teaching about christianity are either not true about it or not central to the propositions that make it up. She does not need to do that to make a valid point.

You seem to contradict yourself about teaching or not teaching the tenets of christianity and other worldviews/belief sets (perhaps including yours) in schools as comparative religion or whatever.

It does annoy me that people accuse christian/christian groups of saying inaccurate things and object to them saying things and yet they feel it is OK to make fact free assertions about christianity.

It is hard to know whether you are being deliberately obtuse, not paying attention or just not very bright. I have repeatedly said to you that it is NOT the responsibility of the teacher present to vet the presentations of the volunteers. In NSW the teacher cannot even be present without the permission of the volunteer.The teacher has no foreknowledge of the content or the syllabus. There is no mechanism for reporting any concerns the teacher might have and no one to report them to except the provider - the Education Department explicitly states that it doesn't want to know. The 'volunteers' are thus not accountable to or supervised by anyone. If you take the trouble to look at the testimony gathered at http://religionsinschool.com/ you will see that numbers of these untrained volunteers are guilty of the proselytising for their religion that they are accused of.

If you look at the evidence there you will also see why the people who run the program are described as underhanded. The documents that outline what they say they are going to be presenting in classrooms do not match their actual practice. They also do not match the stated intentions announced by the leaders of the organisation ACCESS who blatantly state that they are taking a 'god given opportunity' to make converts and spread the gospel. They are explicitly told by the state that allows them access to schools that they are NOT to do this. This would have to qualify as hypocrisy and underhandedness.

The volunteers are NOT 'christians such as evangelicals ... just interacting with the community at large' They are addressing groups of 4 1/2 to 12 year olds (chiefly) who have little choice in hearing them and little or no knowledge or experience with which to judge what they are hearing which is far too often the personal views of the volunteer. Even Anglican priests acknowledge that what happens in SRE is proselytising and wrong - it is a 'strategic ministry' and dishonestly practised by people who think that their ends justify any means. See: http://humanecatholic.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/different-sort-of-access.html

You seem to have seriously misread Cathy Byrne's article. No 'fact free assertions' have been made about christianity. It does not say that christian theology equals creationism anywhere that I can see. In practice, many of the fervent individuals who offer themselves as volunteers to present SRE, and who have time during the day to do so, are not moderates and are in fact from the whacko end of the christian spectrum and are creationists and present this to students (which they should not do - any teacher who did that would be facing grounds for dismissal). Galileo was most certainly persecuted by the catholic church. They excommunicated and imprisoned him and forced him to recant his scientific observations that did not accord with their bible in fear of his life. If you don't believe me and the many historians who have researched and written about this perhaps you would believe the Pope and the apology he delivered to Galileo for the persecution he had been subjected to? Google it.

I don't understand what you mean when you say I am contradicting myself 'about teaching or not teaching the tenets of christianity'. I have attempted, more than once, to delineate for you the difference between teaching ABOUT a religion - what its main beliefs are, its history and development, its influence on the world and so on - and teaching the religion itself - which is what they are doing in SRE. As a teacher I would certainly never explain or explore my beliefs in a classroom because that would be highly inappropriate and unprofessional. Teaching that beliefs such as, for example, that 'there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet', that 'jesus loves you', that prayer will influence events in your personal life, that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of god and so on as though they are unquestionable fact is proselytising. It is asserting that that religion, to the exclusion of all others, is true and must be accepted. This is clearly not acceptable in a secular state school.

Sue, You haven't said to me repeatedly, "NOT the responsibility of the teacher present to vet the presentations of the volunteers"

As to "in NSW the teacher cannot even be present without the permission of the volunteer.", thats what the gudielines say and is that the same as you not being able to be present in a science class unless the teacher gives permission? You didn't say that the emphasis is on the teacher not being required to be in the classroom which is wider than you make out? And again, "The teacher has no foreknowledge of the content or the syllabus." this is set out in the NSW guidelines. You are right that its up to the provider to provide information on the curriculum according to the guidelines but no where does the NSW DoE say it doesn't want to know. It comes across as you being perfectly aware of the guidelines but are twisting them. You are also unable to tell me if there are or are not regulations against personal prosletysing by SRI teachers/volunteers yet Access ministries briefing notes say they are not allowed to prosletyse. Yet you accuse them of being underhanded when its only one man's view, i.e. Friar Craig, that people can't compartmentalise how they present their viewpoints. Your acuusation of underhandedness is just that, an empty accusation with nothing to back it up.

You contradict yourself in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the reply previous to the one above.

The evidence you talk about consist only of the FIRIS making accusations against SRI and Access ministries combined with howlers (e.g god created equals creationism) and lots of videos of people talking of how they don't like the content of SRI but the website is manifestly inadequate in its attempt to provide a reasonable viewpoint against SRI and it provides no evidence of prosletyising on a sustained basis by the teachers of SRI.

CathyByrnes starts talking about creationism in science classes in the middel of her article with no context and no evidence. On Galileo, he was not persecuted for his stance on the Copernican model according to the Oxford Historian of Science professor Alan Chapman in his book Slaying the Dragons (2013, pp 104 to 106, Lion Hudson) but that according to the NYT 2005 review of Porfesso Maurice Finocchiaro's 2005. Retrying Galileo: 1633-1992. the charge was of teaching contary to scripture and not heresy. The charge was carried because Jesuit scientists weren't convinced at that time that there was evidence for the Coopernican theory and they didn't believe Galileo had evidence. Professor Maurice Finocchiaro is regarded as the most meticulous complier of documents surronding Galileo and his trial. What is really surprising is that secular scientists opposed Galileo on Copernicism because it overturned the Aristotleon view of the univers to which they were wedded, yet catholic priest scientists were looking for evidence to see whether the idea was true or not, a bit far from catholics being wedded to dogma over science. Sure, I've only provided tertiary sources but it underlines how happy you are to rant against christian tenets and propositions while calling christian beliefs myth yet assert myths about christianity.

Just a hodgepodge of assertions to build prejudice rather than valid input to the debate about SRI in schools.

Its not worth my time reading anymore of what you may write.

this is such a 'hodge podge' that I don't know where to start. I HAVE repeatedly said to you (and others) in reply to that same question asked, that the teacher (in Victoria) is not responsible for the presentations of the volunteers, it is not their responsibility to know the ACCESS 'lesson' plans or anything else about them. They are required to hand over their grade during this time and remain with them because the volunteer is not a registered teacher. In NSW the teacher is to leave the room while the 'lesson' is given. In neither case (and I don't know what the rules are in other states but I imagine they are one or other of these) is the teacher accountable for what the volunteer says or does. There is NO official mechanism to check what the volunteers are presenting or whether they are following the guidelines. The evidence from parents and teachers is that some or perhaps even many of the volunteers are not presenting the 'lessons' according to the guidelines. The guidelines of ACCESS (as agreed with the Depts of Education) state that the volunteers are not to proselytise i.e. attempt to convert children to their point of view or personal beliefs by stating that these beliefs are true or correct or necessary as Ministers of Education have repeatedly said in trying to justify why they continue to allow SRE/RI. In actual fact, ACCESS administrators and spokespersons, as well as individual volunteers, are on the record, and can be seen in video, to directly contravene these guidelines themselves by advocating to meetings of volunteers, or in parish newsletters and so on while recruiting volunteers, that the aim of ACCESS is to use the god-given opportunity of weekly access to the state's schoolchildren to proselytise. Agreeing to do one thing (not proselytise) and then doing, or exhorting others to do, exactly that is underhanded and hypocritical.

I cannot understand the rest of this paragraph - it makes no sense whatsoever ('As to "in NSW the teacher cannot even be present without the permission of the volunteer.", thats what the gudielines say and is that the same as you not being able to be present in a science class unless the teacher gives permission?' - ???) I have repeatedly told you that there are requirements (which ACCESS acknowledges in its own documents) for its volunteers not to 'sell' their religious views they consistently do it anyway and, in fact, ask for it to be done (as can also be seen on their own website) There is plenty of evidence to back up claims of hypocrisy not just one person's view.

I have no idea what 'You contradict yourself in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the reply previous to the one above.' means - I have re-read my comments and I see no contradictions. I do see many failures on your part to understand plain English and fairly simple concepts - chiefly, I believe, because you consistently confuse the meanings of words used in a precise manner.

I don't know what you mean by a 'reasonable viewpoint' against SRI - the testimony of numbers of parents and teachers as to the experience that they and their children have had - in the absence of any formal knowledge of what the volunteers are doing because there is none (see above) - is the only evidence we have. How much do you want? ONE volunteer who breaks the guidelines of 'there will be no selling of your religious viewpoints to other people's children' is one too many in my, and many other people's point of view but , in fact, this testimony (and ACCESS' own requirements) show that this is on a 'sustained basis'

As to Galileo your original comment was 'that Galileo being persecuted by the catholic church' was a 'myth', which I answered. It is not a myth, he was persecuted for his scientific publications as the church eventually conceded by apologising to him. Now, apparently you wish to discuss, why he was persecuted!! I merely answered you r original statement - he WAS persecuted as you now admit ('he was not persecuted for his stance on the Copernican model') it matters little whether it was as you quote for 'teaching contary to scripture and not heresy' (i.e. he was up for excommunication and imprisonment with torture when th e alternative was execution at the stake)

The sentence of the Inquisition, issued on 22 June 1633, was in three essential parts: Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that a person may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse, and detest" those opinions. He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition. On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, (largely due to the intervention of his friend and supporter, the humanist Cardinal Piccolomini) which he remained under for the rest of his life. His offending 'Dialogue' was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future. These are facts not in dispute by anybody. In 2000, Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology for all the mistakes committed by some Catholics in the last 2,000 years of the Catholic Church's history, including the trial of Galileo. This was widely reported at the time.

I am not sure that the term 'secular scientist' had much meaning in Galileo's time but the fact is, as is obvious I would have thought, that the catholic church was not looking for evidence at all. Galileo was placed on trial and convicted for questioning church dogma - of reporting his findings that were contrary to the church's scripture and what it told its adherents to believe. It had decided that its bible, and the catholic interpretation of what it said, was true because it said so without resort to evidence. it was dogma of the church that the earth was central and stationary (having been created by god in that manner on the evidence in Genesis), and the sun and everything else revolved around it. Galileo in many ways invented what we now call the scientific method and many of his contemporaries repeated his experiments and observations and saw that their findings did in fact conflict with the church's teachings and eventually the church gave way and accepted the truth and apologised (300 or so years later)

I don''t believe that your poorly expressed ('The charge was carried because Jesuit scientists weren't convinced at that time that there was evidence for the Coopernican theory and they didn't believe Galileo had evidence.' ???) misunderstanding of some things you have read does underline that I am 'happy' 'to rant against christian tenets and propositions while calling christian beliefs myth yet assert myths about christianity' Christian beliefs are, in my view, myths but this makes no difference whatsoever. I have asserted no 'myths' about christianity. On this showing I know a great deal more about it than you do and i am perfectly happy to let christianity and its history speak for itself.
I have actual work to do and I would like to get back to it and not have to waste further time trying to disentangle your confused thoughts and 'arguments'
.

WRT to Galileo. This is way off topic but your continued ignorant dogmatism should not go unchallenged.

1. The stuff you lifted from the internet without attribution doesn't set out what 'heresy' the inquisition was dealing with or how serious.

2. You don't set out what the Pope actually apologised wrt to Galileo and his trial.

3. Genesis does not state that the earth is central and stationary as you said above. This was the Aristotelian view and other biblical verses, not from Genesis, were misused used to support it

4. You are skeptical about the there being many secular scientists - Galileo wasn't ordained - just one example of a secular scientist of the times (plus Copernicus)

5. Copernicus didn't get into trouble and even though his book was challenged after his death and altered this is evidence that catholic church was not monolithic in its views and reactions, ready to condemn scientists for daring to question.

Further to what I wrote yesterday, as to what Galileo was actually convicted of well its best to use material from what someone investigated this very carefully, Professor Maurice Finnochriaro from the University of Nevada and the following is taken from a summary of the first lecture, 'Facts and Myths in the Trial of Galileo' out of a four lecture series.

After writing 'Dialogue on the Two Chief Systems' which enraged his enemies the summary cntinues:

"However his enemies raised several complaints. A key charge was that according to a document found in the Inquisition files, in 1616 Galileo had been forbidden to discuss the earth's motion in any way whatever, and the Dialogue obviously violated this special injunction. Another charge was that, in any case, the book defended the earth's motion, which he had been fobidden to to do. Thus he was summoned to Rome to stand trial, which began in April 1633. At the first interrogation, Galileo denied that in 1616 he had been issued the special injunction and introduced a signed certificate by Bellarmine to that effect, Galileo also denied that his book defended the earth's motion, claiming instead that it showed the geokinetic arguments to be inconclusive. This deposition and Bellarmine's certificate led to an impasse, which was resolved with an out-of-court meeting between the Inquisition's commissary and Galileo, during which he was persuaded to pleade guilty to the charge of of having defended the geokinetic thesis, in exchange for leniency. Thus as the next deposition he admitted having defended the earth's motion but insisted this was unintentional. The trial concluded in June 1633 with a sentence that did not exhibit the promised leniency, he was found guilty of "vehement suspicion of heresy"-an intermediate category of religious cime; the Dialogue was banned".

www.unigre.it/cssf/en/license/.../Finocchiaro.pdf (time and delivery not stated, viewed Feb, 2013).

Galileo made mistakes in his defense and before that in writing his dialogue by casting the character defending the Aristotelian view of the universe as a simpleton. He had powerful enemies inside and outside the church plus powerful friends inside the church with which he discussed his science including Pope Urban till it was felt Galileo had overstepped the mark and hisd many enemies too power but after the second trial he was allowed to live out his life in a village, work and receive visitors.

Was the catholic church wrong in its trial of Galileo, yes, but your dogmatic assertion of mindless persecution by a monolithic, ignorant and blinkered group of clergy doesn't stand up as the above extract shows. There is a huge amount on the topic of Galileo and his trial and your internet trawl was obviously too narrow to catch this stuff otherwise you would not have written what you did above.

Professor Finnochriaro's series of books on his research o the trail of Galileo published over the past 20 years would be good to read but more immediately accessible is the following lecture on Galileo by Geoffrey Cantor John Hedley Brooke, taken from their Gifford lecture series. This will be a further and helpful challenge to your thinking on Galileo, while the other lectures in the series will also be a broader challenge to your anti theistic and dogmatic attitude towards christianity and christian thinking, http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPRECN&Volume=0&Issue=0&ArticleID=6.

MY 'continued ignorant dogmatism'!!??!! ROFL! I said Galileo was persecuted by the church for his views in answer to YOUR statement. You clearly have trouble understanding what 'persecuted' means as first you challenged me to show that he was and then, in the same breath, you admitted that he was: i.e saying ''he was not persecuted for his stance on the Copernican model' surely admits that he was 'persecuted' for something?

You clearly understand little about the Renaisssance, the Roman Catholic Church or the Counter-Reformation (just so you feel comfortable that i, at least DO know what I'm talking about I have a top First Class Honours in the subject and recently too) as you have misinterpreted my aside about secular scientists, what heresy is and what the penalties were. I didn't 'lift' anything from the internet without attribution i tried to summarise succinctly for you what the charges were and what the implications were. I can give it to you in the original Latin with footnotes if i thought it was worth the time - what I wrote came straight from me and actual knowledge and scholarship.

I told you to Google the Pope's apology because this is hardly the forum for posting great chunks of translated Latin - I can assure you you will find it easily and among the things that the Church apologised for was their treatment of Galileo (i.e. his persecution) (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/01/world/vatican-science-panel-told-by-pope-galileo-was-right.html for instance) Galileo was forced to recant his scientific findings to narrowly avoid being burned at the stake (as Giordano Bruno was - though for the heresy of pantheism not for heliocentrism, which he also subscribed to) and spent the remaining eight years of his life under house arrest. This ill-treatment of him, a devout Catholic, arose directly from his insistence in not following the church's teachings that the earth was central to the cosmos, which teaching was derived from a number of Bible passages interpreted together, which Galileo's observations had shown him to be incorrect. The Inquisiton's sentence was that Galileo was convicted for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture",(translated from the Inquisition's sentence of 22 June 1633. Finocchiaro (I've at least spelt his name correctly), Maurice A. (1989). The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press pp. 287–91 since you're so fond of his work though there are books published since!)

Copernicus died 20 years before Galileo was born and his work was distributed and viewed entirely differently. His great masterpiece discussing the revolution of the earth around the sun was not published until the year of his death though he had been working on it for some 15 years beforehand (in his spare time - he was a polymath and only a part-time astronomer) it is, in fact dedicated to Paul III (the pope and the cardinals had shown some interest in his theories and he may have been attempting to stave off church criticism as well) Copernicus' work was not widely distributed and Dennis Danielson (Danielson, Dennis (2006). The First Copernican: Georg Joachim Rheticus and the Rise of the Copernican Revolution. New York: Walker & Company) has shown that even 60 years after its publication only some 15 astronomers in all of Europe subscribed to his views. Copernicus' work was no threat to the church and he was not alive to publicise it anyway, Luther's Reformation did not even begin until 1518 and was not widely perceived by the church to be much more than an irritant at that time. By Galileo's time the Catholics and Protestants were locked in struggle and the church needed to emphasize orthodoxy. Still, Copernicus' work and Galileo's (and Kepler's and a whole bunch of others) were not dropped from the list of proscribed books until 1835.

I am at a loss as to why you published large chunks of Finocchiaro's work as it only confirms what I had already stated - you seem to be under the impression that it shows something different. I at no time asserted 'mindless persecution by a monolithic, ignorant and blinkered group of clergy' and i don't know why you think I did. I merely corrected your misstatement that 'he was not persecuted for his stance on the Copernican model' which, in any case, you had contradicted yourself in the next line when you quoted that 'the charge was of teaching contary to scripture and not heresy'. The thing that was 'contrary to Scripture' was his view that the earth moved around the sun (i.e. his support of Copernicus) If he had been convicted of heresy he WOULD have burned at the stake.

The essence of science is to advance hypotheses and test them by peer review which is exactly what occurred to the work of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler until it eventually superseded previous views of the universe. The Catholic Church did not participate in this, however, as a good Catholic could not even read their works until they were removed from the List in 1835 by which time most good Catholics in university Science departments were ignoring the Vatican and teaching what was demonstrably true anyway - and they were pretty safe because the Vatican was certainly not going to bother to persecute them for stating something which was universally accepted a lot earlier than 1835.

My 'internet trawl', had I made one, would most certainly have caught 'this stuff'. The only 'narrow' thing in evidence is your knowledge, intellect and understanding. I have no wish to try and discuss anything with you as you are demonstrably semi-literate (''heresy' the inquisition was dealing with or how serious', 'You don't set out what the Pope actually apologised wrt to Galileo and his trial', 'were misused used to support it', 'its best to use material from what someone investigated this very carefully', 'Galileo made mistakes in his defense and before that in writing his dialogue by casting the character defending the Aristotelian view of the universe as a simpleton', 'Geoffrey Cantor John Hedley Brooke' (this seems to be a result of YOUR internet trawl and reveals the profound shallowness of your knowledge - do you mean to refer here to Hedley Brooke's review of Cantor's book?)) to quote only the most egregious examples from your current rant. I certainly don't need advice on 'a further and helpful challenge' or a 'broader challenge' to my thinking on Galileo, or anything else, from you. You know very little about either christianity or christian thinking - don't pretend to try and divine my thinking or attitudes to them or anything else from your ill-digested dog's breakfast of an understanding of this or, it would seem, any other subject. Go away and follow your own advice but, at any rate, go away.

Sue,

Lovely, full throated and rapid crescendo reply.

At least you have got one thing right about me, the mistakes I make in typing, e.g. 'Geoffrey Cantor John Hedley Brooke' is missing an 'and'. But it seems you are writing more carefully now that you know this semi illiterate simpleton can easily pick out your mistakes (e.g. your previous claim that Genesis supports the Aristotelian view of the universe that you changed to 'which teaching was derived from a number of Bible passages interpreted together') and contradictions (btw your picking of my apparent contradiction above of 'the charge was of teaching contary to scripture and not heresy' you mistake 'charge' for 'sentence', but no matter). It seems you have taken some subjects in medieval history, such as the discursive summary on Copernicus, taken it seems from class notes, but given how wide and deep a topic it is forgive me if I regard with scepticism your appeal to your own authority. Interesting that after all your huffing and puffing on your expertisei in the area of the church and society at the time of Galileo and discursion onto Copernicus et al you say this is not the forum for translated Latin text, and all you can come up on what Pope John Paul apologised for wrt to Galileo was from a 300 word NYT piece lifted from the internet (not once but twice). You can easily find an english translation of the John Paul II's address from the French, it is interesting reading and will give you an insight into some of the theological principles John Paul II believed lay at the centre of what the Inquisition set out to examine and how those principles were not followed (though given your form so far you will only misinterpret them claiming themto describe some coordinated conspiracy).

I like the way we are both using poor Maurice Finocchiaro, pulling the poor guy here and there for our opposing views. I'm glad my use of him sent you to the library to look him and his books up (I'm assumming you understand what is meant by 'geo kinetic').

Now I am sure everyone else has got bored of our stand up fight and gone onto better things and its just you and me left here. But its important not to let prejudice against christianity stand so thats why I'm still here. I very much enjoyed your declaration that "You know very little about either christianity or christian thinking" and so if you wanna test that out I would love to play there. Please, do start.

Ken, the Stolen Generations were not mythical. I'm not sure who you've been listening to, or how you got your opinion, but children were definitely taken from their families during that shameful period of our history.

And climate change is definitely happening, although I'm not sure what Al Gore and Tim Flannery have to do with it. There are thousands (literally) of scientists working in a variety of areas, gathering evidence that it's happening, and how fast, and trying to work out just what we can do about it.

I'm not sure why you choose to believe these issues are made up, but then there are always a few conspiracy theorists around.

"There is just no evidence that such a government policy existed."

Are you saying there IS NO evidence, or you have SEEN NO evidence? Those two things are different.

David, thanks for linking to that article of anti-intellectual swill. Not. That's two minutes of my life I'll never get back. You do your cause no favours by linking to such muddled-thinking, uninformed, misrepresenting, data-free pap. Or, maybe that's the best you've got?

David, it is actually a VERY helpful comment. It might save other people wasting their time reading that article you linked to. The article is completely fact/evidence free, makes unfounded inflammatory claims about government schools being hotbeds of ignorance, racism and religious extremism.
1. Now, I know our government schools are in a shocking state academically, but "ignorance" is going too far.
2. The allegations she makes about "creationism" are bizarre. And again she provides no evidence. And to the extent any of it were true, she is accusing the government schools, showing again the shocking state the government system is in.
3. Yes, the fact is children who attend religious schools are more tolerant, socially liberal, open to other viewpoints, religious ideas, and backgrounds than government school graduates are. Yes, even Catholic school students achieve much higher academically, including Maths and Science (so much religious indoctrination in Science classes!). And yes, there are lots of racial tensions in government schools, more crime, teen pregnancies, drug problems, and so. But the evidence suggests these can be more accounted for by the "values" and superficial education philosophy in the government schools. The example from the religious schools, shows that what those government schools probably need is a lot more religious input, not less.

OK David, now I understand you. Your idea of "research" is reading "The Age". Well, good luck with your "research"-based proselytising, but be warned, most Australian parents have had educations with somewhat more demanding understandings of "research". Don't be expecting too many parent converts to your crusade.

Kim, if you want me to stop saying "straw man", then stop behaving like one.

It's obvious that David, as an academic, is perfectly aware of what "research" is.

If you cared to actually look at the links, you will see references to surveys, university research, and gathered statistics. I got up to five such references just in the "Lifestyle" one alone before I stopped counting.

These are not opinion pieces David has linked to.

The fact that Melbourne High does exactly what the private schools nearby do for a QUARTER of the total cost suggests that they are overpriced, for a start.

"What do you mean by social ethics??? Do you mean values? If so then take a look at the 9 Values for School Education"
David, do you actually pay any attention to what is going on in schools? With nearly 50% of parents saying "no thanks" to your little list of *9* "values", and moving their kids to religious schools, even when the parents are atheists, you really need to start paying closer attention!

Ann, it's interesting that no-one has stepped up to answer your questions to defend their support of religious education. Could it be that they simply believe that their religion (Christianity) is superior to others, and hence deserves to be taught in schools as a fact, rather than taught in an ethics or comparative religion class, where their religion would simply be one of many?

Education can help this. But, some of the responsibility/blame for those views rests with the morass of unenlightened, divisive drivel that was pumped into the media for as long as those students likely can remember. It's been 12 years of it. Undergraduates this year are likely to be between 17 and 22 years of age. Their entire puberty was full of it.

Indeed, in these dark days, fear and loathing are everywhere. But so are butterflys.

The universe is our perceptions. I prefer to percieve butterflys.

Marc, no offence, but if you are now in Australia, you should have picked up by now, that Australians do not think very highly of American school education institutions, let alone the very low standards. Our system achieves much higher academic standards. Same as our health system. And for all your talk of no religion allowed in public schools, the whole of the US is obsessed with religious wars. No thanks, I'll take our health, education, and constitutional systems over the US any day. You guys would do well to learn from us.

I agree with you Kate! I've had no end of troubles with the RE classes in Queensland for my kids when we lived there. The teachers were a bunch of weirdoes trying to convince my kids that the world was only 10000 years old and that they'll go to hell for not believing this! My kids, being raised in a wholesome atheist manner cried when they heard the story about the christian crucifixion and couldn't sleep for months because they had nightmares about this. They had more compassion and feeling for the suffering of others than the whole bunch of ACCESS ministries evangelical weirdoes put together! It still makes me angry to think about this, as you can tell.

Anyway, I had to visit the school a few times before they were really convinced that I absolutely did not want my children to even passively participate in this rubbish. Things finally got better once I managed to convince a few other families at the school that their kids would also be better off not hearing the crap being spouted by ACCESS ministries and their ilk, so all the non-believing kids went to the library once a week instead of having to quietly sit at the back of the RE class.

As an aside, when I checked out the local religious private high school their councillor was a qualified psychologist, not a religious minister. But that church thought its OK that the local state high schools suffer their minister for psych support. Galling, isn't it!

OK Lydia, thanks for this. It confirms you are just trolling. ;) I was suss right from your first bizarre post claiming private schools get more money than government schools - classic AEU propaganda. Then the stuff about the brutal oppression of 50% of population. Then how you intend to send your own kids to one of these religious schools, to be instructed by one of the most patriarchal institutions going. But the final straw is this. Ah, ACCESS has never operated in QLD. It is a purely VICTORIAN organisation. Oh, and if you actually were involved with a government school, you would know that the chaplain program has nothing to do with school counselors, psychologists, and so on. The latter have always been - and still are - funded by STATE governments. The chaplain program is a completely separate FEDERAL program, only started in 2006, and completely optional to all schools.
But thanks for confirming the pattern of AEU proselytisers. ;)

David,
Proselytising is one of your main points against SRI by evangelicals so shouldn't you have to hand evidence that this is happening in an ongoing and/or syetmatic fashion? Referring vaguely to a website full of statements and arguments of the 'when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife' variety is not evidence.

In SRI classes isn't a school teacher supposed to be present who will act on the regulations forbidding proselytising by the person or groups presenting the class?

Hear Hear David! @ Alan I don't think we need 'evidence of actual harm' to want to remove the pernicious influence of RE/SRE in state schools. The practice of inviting volunteers with an agenda of presenting their personal world view as though it was a given fact to a captive audience of children , however well intentioned those volunteers may be, is, in and of itself, an act of harm. The proper place for such instruction is in the family and within the structure of the family's chosen faith, or lack of it. It will obviously be upsetting for you that so many people in the community (and regardless of your personal contacts all the census figures show that it is a large majority) do not share your world view and in fact find it odd or even ludicrous. Your personal conviction that you are correct is not sufficient justification for you and your fellows to inflict it on others. There are numerous instances here and reported elsewhere (see the FIRIS website) of the confusion, distress and pain that have been caused to children subjected to some of these 'lessons' or to those excluded and divided from their classmates. I can testify to this personally as happening to my own children.You have ample opportunity to testify to your faith in other avenues in the community where adults who hear you have the chance to evaluate what you are saying and remain or walk away. The captive audience in SRE of children as young as five is compelled to remain and listen to your attempts at converting them to your belief system unless a parent actively requests that they are removed to another space, often within earshot anyway, and compelled to waste their time also when they could be actively engaged in learning. State schools and state funds belong to the whole community and should be applied to reflect the wider community's values and attitudes not handed over every week for the promotion of your narrow sectarian agenda.

Thanks again for the time in replying David.
I take your point about your "temple, mosque, synagogue" reference - I must have overlooked it when writing. Your main concern is clarified thus - indoctrination.

I concede that there is some variability in the quality of teacher or curriculum used by the volunteer-manned R.E./S.R.E. programs, and that this can create concerns about indoctrination of children and young people. My experience - as both SRE overseer and practitioner - tells me that it's all in the delivery and teaching skills of the teacher.

I will read the Byrne article to investigate what I may not have heard in my corner of the world about harm through indoctrination or teacher failure. It remains my conviction that the act of dogmatic religious teaching of religious content is not harmful in itself (although Sue McLeod disagrees with me on that.) However, humans are fallible creatures, and some religious teachers have probably done more heavy-handed indoctrinating than myself or colleagues known to me.

Bloom's Taxonomy - I hear you on having an equal standard of educating for ANY program going on in a school, as defined as learning via evaluation and critical thinking. I am not convinced that some of those skills are being employed in SRE lessons already, and we don't have a measure of how much. The religious /sacred story being taught is not INHERENTLY uncritical. A poor teacher, voluntary or otherwise, can render it thus - if that is his/her mode of teaching.
(Such as a 'transmissionist' R.I. teacher who is not engaging kids to think for themselves.)

I respect that the family has indeed a primary role in religious instructing of the young - and the most formative one. Religious ideas do not need to be private, if they are respectfully given to willing participants. It is not established that the BROAD public opinion is to restrict all religious transmission of ideas to private spaces.

If it were shown, with some real evidence that broad Aussie public opinion was to have religious teachers BEGONE from their government schools, then I would have to concede that churches and others must respectfully back away and let democracy decide. But I am not hearing a swing of public opinion. What I hear is the same sort of opponents, mostly of a certain age and persuasion, calling for it to be so.

Maybe we need some truly representative feedback across the country, to find out what people WILL accept and what they WON'T. I'd prefer that to more of my own (or your) speculations about what is right. Australians - in total - decide what they want for their schools.

Alan, you talk about what the majority of Australia wants and I find that to be a bullying tactic albeit a pleasantly put, passive one. Perhaps it helps you to believe that you're doing the right thing if you have numbers on your side, but individual experiences are also really important in this issue because they help us to evaluate whether more damage is being done by a particular policy than more overall good. This is subjective of course but bear with me. A five year old starts school, full of nerves and excitement, eager to make new connections. There are dozens of new challenges, but gradually he starts to feel part of the group. "This is my class," he thinks. "These are my mates, we work together." A few weeks in that changes. He has to begin a process of leaving his mates once a week, perhaps with a few others, to sit in a new classroom - one he's never been in before - with new faces and a new teacher, to be babysat (sometimes ignored) while the rest of his class, which he can no longer be part of because he's not "the majority religion", have an SRI lesson. This is confusing to him. It disrupts the routine. He doesn't understand it. Maybe he begs his mum to let him go. He doesn't want to be left out. He hates the way everyone looks at him when he has to leave. It's all really confusing.

What may seem like a small deal to you is a very big deal to him. That's how five year olds feel about this, and that's who I want to champion here. Why is it more important for you to have access to that classroom than it is to ensure that children start school with a sense of inclusiveness? Why is your mission more crucial and timely than the happiness of the five year olds who will be walking out of the class each week? SRI creates an "us and them" situation. I want school to be a place of inclusive learning for these very young children - I don't want my five year old to judge or be judged by his neighbour, but that's how this system works.

Whooaah there, Emily! You don't know me, not my motivations, so try not to guess at that too much.
I agree that experiences ALL matter. My point was never to exclude the kind of experience that you narrated. It's hard to tell if you are first-hand reporting on actual 5 year olds, or your own emotional process in representation through your narrative.

If your 5 year-old felt excluded, why not just say so, if that's what happened? People who disagree with you are not strictly trying to exclude your experiences. But the point of broader feedback, is that kids around Australia have experiences not represented by you and your viewpoint either.
Be open to feedback, not just the "friendlies" who reinforce your view.

For clarity: I do not support exclusive divisions. My personal access to a kids classroom is not under discussion Emily - this is not a personal vendetta or crusade for me. It is about policy and what the state school programs for kids should contain.

What would interest me would be a scientific exploration of which actual variables contribute to the exclusive experience... It seems like more than just the division into "SRE" clases and "NON-SRE" classes. Variables: Handling of process when kids leave, adequacy of the school's provision for Non_SRE Kindy kids, and etc.

"To seek to limit the exposure of the youth of our nation to that question, I would respectfully suggest, does not promote the cause of genuine education."

I couldn't agree more. But I think David has pointed out very well indeed that SRI leads children AWAY from such questioning.