Australian Christian Lunatics Lobby and their monkey of a survey

These morons, who in no way shape or form actually represent any Christians I’m aware of want peoples opinions on Christianity and the National Curriculum…please visit and give them your thoughts!

https://www.surveymonkey.com/Home_Landing.aspx?sm=a1SxtDuzkjXCTqkEiF4jueeAiWFoLkJEGEP%2bFn9wL0I%3d


126 thoughts on “Australian Christian Lunatics Lobby and their monkey of a survey

  1. Oh dear…..

    Don’t let these clowns anywhere near children or schools.

    They’d love to get their hands on the science and history curriculum

  2. You in a bad mood or something Greg.

    Don’t mince words with the title here, and you came out swinging against Wazza the Wonderful.

    I couldn’t get the link to work to read about these lunatics. Not even sure if that word is pc

  3. Elwyn if you can explain to everyone what it’s actually about, since the link doesn’t work, maybe I’ll comment.

    Are the previous 5149 elwyns any more friendly than you?

  4. Sorry that’s from question six but just hit PREVIOUS at the bottom.

    I don’t think they are lunatics but I don’t agree with what they no doubt think.

    Except that I think to understand the world it’s good for people to study comparative religions. The basics of the history of and basic beliefs of at least the major religions.

    Most country’s education curriculums are sadly lacking.

  5. 1. It is important that the National Curriculum provide students with an understanding of Christianity and the Bible.

    2. The current National Curriculum does not take proper account of the religious and cultural contexts in which contemporary Australia came into being.

    3. Understanding Christianity is vital for students in gaining an understanding of modern Australia and Western Civilisation.

    4. The National Curriculum needs to address Christianity in a way that is fair and balanced and that explores its positive contribution to literature, philosophy, human rights, arts, science, education, healthcare and so many other areas of society.

    5. The National Curriculum does not pay close enough attention to Christianity and its contribution to our nation’s history.

    6. Our dating system hinges on the life of Jesus Christ. The terms Before Christ (BC) and Anno Domini (AD) recognise this fact and should be retained.

    7. Australia is a post-secular, pluralist society. Religion plays an important role in our nation and should be included in the education curriculum.

    8. Faith-based school communities and families who homeschool should have the flexibility to teach creation alongside evolution and the big bang theory.

    9. While sustainability, Indigenous and Asian themes may be interesting and important, the current curriculum emphasises these issues at the expense of other important themes that should also be addressed by the Curriculum.

  6. Seems like a bog standard set of survey questions to me, from an evangelical perspective, yes, but why would they not seek answers to these questions when representing their constituency?

    The terms lunatic and monkey are not only unnecessary but provocative, especially in terms of a supposed Christian posting an article on the survey.

    A survey is a survey. They do not say whether they agree with the dozen or so questions but ask whether participants agree or disagree.

    The post header is a complete overreaction.

  7. What a complete load of bollocks!

    Everyone wants their share of the History Curriculum pie.

    Sure it’d be interesting to teach that Australian sports stars were left out of national teams because they were Catholic but not really relevant or Rev Samuel Marsden, the Whipping Parson but there’s more important things in our history.

    Modern Australia owes nothing to Christianity.

    The only Christian worth studying would be Archbishop Mannix in the WWI conscription debate when he kicked Billy Hughes’s arse or Caroline Chisholm. Oh and the Don. – who didn’t like Catholics.

    BC and AD confuses the cr@p out of kids.

    There’s no room in the national curriculum for religion, unless you want to start dropping Maths/Science/English to learn about Buddha/ Mohammad/Hinduism/Tom Cruise in the cunning guise that some students will accept JC as their Lord and Saviour.

    Of course we can get rid of the nonsensical 30 minutes of RE which is supposed to be taught in schools and maybe get volunteers from other religions to teach that instead..

    Number 9 shows they have no idea what the National Curriculum is about (like Chris Pyne).

    Btw if you want to teach creationism that’s religion not science and I’m sure Hinduism and Scientology would like their creation myth taught as science such as Xenu.

    and wtf is post-secular??????

  8. I see absolutely nothing wrong with students learning who Mohammed, Jesus, and the Buddha were and the basics of each belief. Surely there is time somewhere in 10 or 12 years.
    And the goal should not be to covert anyone but just basic general knowledge.

    I think that there is room for teaching history too. Even geography.

    Btw, what’s with all this retarded, lunatic, wtf, crap. Bollocks. Etc.

    Calm down.

  9. So now religion doesn’t come into the life of the community? Bizarre logic. Yet 69% of the community identifies with Christain faith according to the last census. Why encase every subject on a recognition of the Rainbow Serpent religion, then? For the benefit of the 0.5% that follow the corroboree? Double standard there.

    Gillard’s education revolution messed with the corriculum to such an extent that it demanded a reaction. Such silliness was always going to cause a reversal of sorts. I’m amazed when teachers just go along with that but are averse to anything resembling Christian faith. Swallow the myths but reject the mystery.

    Bones, of course, thinks God is a myth, so why would he support anything that promotes Christianity?

    But the question was on the survey, and I see nothing wrong with putting out a survey which promotes a lobby group’s views and asks people to give a response.

    Personally, I think the question of whether Christian principles should be taught in schools is a matter of conscience. Most Principals reject them or use the ‘fair to all religions’ ambit. How can anyone get such a vast subject into a classroom in a few minutes, anyway, especially with children? But the self-interested fight over science versus creation is a mean spirited exclusivist by the antichristian fraternity.

    But leaving Christianity out of the curriculum, even on a historic basis, is denial of some of the most important aspects of western and eastern civilisation. Aussie kids suffer from a lack of historic connections. Their roots go further back than the colonisation of the great southern land. What history they are given is warped by leftist ideology.

  10. Funny. Taught Years 3-7 last year. Nothing about rainbow serpents.

    I did though teach about the Lutheran missionaries at the Brisbane Settlement. It’s in the curriculum ffs.

    Of course idiots like Pyne and the ACL have absolutely no idea what is even in the curriculum before going off on half arsed tangents.

    Sounds like we need to teach the history of England and the religious wars. To get a more historic understanding of the contribution of religion.

    If you’re teaching creationism, you’re not teaching science. Like teaching 2+2 = 5. It’s teaching lies to children.

    Some Christian schools of course lie to get around that.

    What history they are given is warped by leftist ideology.

    How the f**k would you know?

    When were you in a classroom?

    When have you read the National Curriculum?

    Of course you just go off on Pyne’s mantra.

    You have your place where you can claim your myths and tricks as fact to the gullible.

    The worst thing we did was make the curriculum political so politicians and pastors get to tell us what we teach according to their whim and who is in power.

  11. Easy there, Bones. Don’t burst a blood vessel. They were still in the proposal stage, so we’ve been rescued. You should be glad.

    I think you’d be better taking your anger out on the overreach of the former government rather than me. Give Pyne some time. He’ll do what’s right for the system. He is not the ACL. Why not lobby him yourself rather than carry on in such an unhelpful way?

    I think you and Greg are being over assertive in your aggression towards Christians, who, of course, would like Christ in everything. They’ll not get it in this secular country, so what’s the problem. Be realistic.

    Being foul mouthed actually reduces your case substantially. I’ve now had enough of your rudeness and accusations, so I’m no longer listening.

  12. Some countries get through thousands of years of history so yeah maybe one week on the history of England wouldn’t be impossible.

    I’m not advocating anything like what the ACL is probably proposing.

    I also think anyone who homeschool their kids does them a disservice if they don’t teach evolution.

  13. I suppose Senior students could enact the drunken orgy which was January 26, 1788. Make it part of Schoolies.

  14. Who gets the income from the ads on this site? Who decided the family manifesto was a good thing to promote?

  15. It’s pretty comprehensive.

    Of course students learn about Mighty Mighty Mighty Engerland in

    Year 4

    First Contacts

    Year 7

    Ancient Rome

    Year 8

    Medieval Europe (c.590 – c.1500)

    The Black Death in Asia, Europe and Africa (14th century plague)

    Year 9

    Progressive ideas and movements (1750 – 1918)

    The Industrial Revolution (1750 – 1914)

    Movement of peoples (1750 – 1901)

    Will cover your religious wars as well.

    Indigenous history is taught in a whole whopping 1 subject in Year 4 (First Contacts)

    http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/History/Curriculum/F-10#cdcode=ACHHK097&level=5

  16. I think you and Greg are being over assertive in your aggression towards Christians, who, of course, would like Christ in everything. They’ll not get it in this secular country, so what’s the problem. Be realistic.

    Stop trying to be an expert on things you know nothing about.

    That’s why Christians are seen as idiots.

  17. If that’s what the curriculum is Bones, it’s sounds fair to me.
    I haven’t been in school for some decades so I don’t know.

    As for the 9 points listed there I don’t necessarily agree with any of them. I don’t think govt schools have any more responsibility to teach Christianity than Asian schools need to teach pride in Buddhism, Shinto etc.

    Still think knowing something about the beliefs and practices of different religions is a good thing.

    But now that I look back, some of the interesting things that remember as a kid were probably just “asides” or freebies that some teachers gave that weren’t part of the curriculum.

    I went to a govt school, came from a non/church going family and have no problem sending my kids to govt schools.

    Sorry if I offended you anywhere Greg.
    If I did it wasn’t intentional.

  18. Publications

    Scrap the National Curriculum
    | Stephanie Forrest

    The education minister Christopher Pyne has promised to review the Gillard Government’s National History Curriculum. But the curriculum doesn’t need to be reviewed. It needs to be scrapped.

    The hostility towards the legacy of Western Civilisation in the National Curriculum’s history subject demonstrates the absurdity of having a centrally-mandated and government-controlled single curriculum. Although there was a push for a national curriculum under Hawke and Keating throughout 1991-1993, it was ultimately the Howard government that made it possible. Ironically, we now have a far-left history curriculum because a conservative government was worried about the far left bias of existing state curriculums.

    In 2006 Julie Bishop convened the National History Summit out of concern about the quality of teaching Australian history in schools. The Summit concluded that there was a ‘need to restore a coherent and sequenced narrative of our national story to a central place in school curriculums,’ and Tony Taylor-a historian and education specialist from Monash University-was approached to draft Australia’s first ever national history curriculum.

    The result was the Guide to the Teaching of Australian History in Years 9 and 10. Though initially drafted by Taylor, many changes were made to his draft before its completion. It took a chronological approach to the teaching of history (as opposed to a disjointed ‘depth’ approach), and outlined ten units covering Australian history to the present, beginning with ‘First peoples’ and ‘Early encounters’ and concluding with ‘Australia and the Shrinking Globe (1976-2000).’

    The guide was released to the public on 11 October 2007. What happened to the history curriculum next-under the Rudd-Gillard Government-provides an insight into how the national history curriculum has been politicised, and will be politicised for as long as it exists.
    In January 2008, Taylor remarked that the guide (which he had co-drafted) was as ‘dead as a doornail,’ and would be ‘dropped like a hot potato’ by the new government because it ‘was too close to a nationalist view of Australia’s past.’

    Late in the same year, Julia Gillard created the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA)-a statutory authority to develop a new national curriculum. Then shadow education minister Christopher Pyne worried that the curriculum was ‘in danger of becoming increasingly straddled with left-wing dogma’-but the Coalition supported the ACARA legislation anyway.

    As it turns out, Pyne was right. In the Rudd-Gillard curriculum, ACARA shelved the chronological teaching of history (the chronological ‘Overview’ is supposed to take up just 10 per cent of total teaching time), and students are now required to choose between a succession of random, disconnected ‘depth‘ units, which bear more resemblance to cultural studies than actual history. Worse, the curriculum leans towards a politically correct, distinctly leftist agenda, which places undue emphasis on concepts like ‘environmentalism’, ‘socialism’, and ‘multiculturalism’, while denigrating the legacy and achievements of Western Civilisation.

    Obviously, teaching awareness of other cultures and their own histories is a good thing. It is not a good thing, however, when this is done to the extent that it sidelines or denigrates our own history. The national history curriculum fails on this account. For example: Year Three students are expected to learn about ‘Community and Remembrance’ and complete units such as ‘the role that people of diverse backgrounds have played in the development and character of the local community.’ Nowhere is there a unit on the role that the British and European settlers played in shaping the community. Similarly, students are expected to study ‘celebrations and commemorations in other places around the world … including those that are observed in Australia such as Chinese New Year, Christmas Day, Diwali, Easter, Hannukkah, the Moon Festival and Ramadan.’ Christmas Day and Easter are listed alongside Diwali and Ramadan as if they are of no extra significance-regardless of the fact that modern-day Australia, as a Western nation, owes far more to Christianity than any other religion … like it or not.

    Yet, amid talk that another much-needed revision is imminent, various academics have claimed that Tony Abbott-to quote a Labor media release directly-intends ‘to Re-Write History Curriculum in his Own Image.’

    Nobody has been more vocal than Tony Taylor. Ever since the Rudd-Gillard History Curriculum was made available to the public Taylor has issued a succession of essays and articles attacking the Coalition and the Institute of Public Affairs on this account.

    Taylor wrote in a particularly scathing article in the Sydney Morning Herald,

    In recent years The Australian, together with a small number of fellow conservative players, has been pushing an inaccurate and ill-informed campaign on how we understand our past.

    The few-but noisy – Liberal figures in the campaign sail a Bunyanesque Sea of Knowledgeable Ignorance crying out ‘Magna Carta!’, ‘English Civil War!’, ‘Judeo-Christian tradition!’ and ‘Western civilisation’ … during their fulminations, they count mentions of the curriculum of Aborigines as well as the names of conservative and ALP prime ministers and demand more emphasis on the heroic bits of Australian history.

    If this blatant denial of the importance of the Magna Carta, the English Civil War, Judeo-Christian tradition and Western Civilisation seems absurd enough, it is even more absurd that elsewhere he even compares Tony Abbott to Vladimir Putin on account of his plans to scrap the existing history curriculum. He doesn’t bother to mention, of course, that Labor did the same to Howard’s history curriculum in 2008.

    In an article published in History Australia in August 2013, he explained some of his frustration: ‘I was exasperated,’ he said, ‘by these IPA and Pyne advances into territory that was clearly quite beyond their ken, and I felt it was important to flush out their unfamiliarity with real history.’

    ‘Real’ history, Taylor says. But real according to whom? In fact, Taylor’s passage here illustrates the core of the problem with these so-called ‘curriculum wars’. At the centre is a group of left-leaning academics who believe they have the monopoly on history, and that only the professionals themselves can decide what is and is not ‘real’. And if they alone control what is real history-namely, disjointed multicultural history with a particular focus on social structures, gender, human rights, and environmentalism-then it follows that everyone with a different view of the past must be deceived by some kind of false history, and is therefore ignorant and uneducated.

    According to them, they alone are honest and objective. Anyone who does not subscribe to their interpretation is labelled ‘rosy glow’ or nationalist-even if some of the dissidents also happen to be professional historians (for example, many of those who, like Geoffrey Blainey, attended the National History Summit under Howard in 2006).

    It is exactly these self-proclaimed ‘real historians’ who recently came together to form a new association called Honest History. Despite this group’s motto-‘supporting balanced and honest history’-it is obvious that this group has a clear political agenda. According to their own website, they were formed primarily to combat the rising tide of Anzac Day commemoration (which they consider ‘jingoism’, and perceive as a threat) and exalt the self-confessed radical and Soviet sympathiser Leslie Cyril Jauncey as one of their exemplars. Supporters include a number of academics who were involved in the drafting of the national curriculum, including Stuart Macintyre and, of course, Taylor.

    What, then, can Pyne and Abbott do to re-balance the curriculum? True-they could order a revision of the entire history component. They could scrap the current one, and replace it with a more chronological, structured, and less eclectic succession of units. They could ensure that important features like the English Civil War, Western Civilisation, and the Judeo-Christian tradition get due attention.

    But every time a new government comes into power, the old history curriculum-along with much of the rest of the curriculum-will be scrapped. The history curriculum will become the subject of an ongoing tug-of-war game.

    Because history, by its very nature, is inherently political, it is highly unlikely that there will ever be a consensus between the two sides.

    Just look at what has happened in nations that did implement a national curriculum-like the United Kingdom, or, to a lesser degree, the United States. Ever since these nations introduced core curricula, successive governments have altered them to suit their own needs on the basis that the previous ones had an undue bias in one way or the other.

    There is no doubt that the Rudd-Gillard National Curriculum is slanted and badly needs to be fixed; but any ‘fix’ the Abbott Government makes will not be permanent-and nor should it be, since that is the nature of Australian democracy.

    But there is little point in prolonging this so-called curriculum war, since it cannot be won by either side. The best and most permanent change the Coalition can make to the National Curriculum is to abolish it altogether, and distance politicians on both sides from school curriculum matters.

    http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/2223/scrap-the-national-curriculum

  19. Greg,
    I’m annoyed at Wazza and his continual politicization of his posts.

    Politics is as much a part of life as faith, and probably more in our faces than spirituality.

    Your sudden urge to depoliticise debate is strange since you have demonstrated a very strong aversion to anything to do with the ACL, which is a Christian political lobby group.
    you politicised your own post then criticised wazza for commenting.

    Drop the facade. You’re as political as anyone else on this blog.

  20. So not bothering to read the National Curriculum yourself, you turn to propaganda from the IPA. The IPA wants to decentralise and deregulate everything and I mean EVERYTHING. Of course the National Curriculum would come into its spotlight.

    Of course nothing in that article is substantiated by the curriculum because it simply can’t be.

    Only one side is fighting the curriculum wars

    Behind the false assertion that the national curriculum is left-wing lies the hope that an Abbott Government will instead expose children to the corrective propaganda of the Right, writes Tony Taylor.

    Tony Abbott has been receiving a great deal of advice lately, not least from the Institute for Public Affairs.

    In the IPA’s glossy pre-election 75-item wish list, the national curriculum and the culture wars got a prominent mention. It was in an assertive and unsupported comment in which the curriculum was described as a centraliser of power in Canberra that pushes “a distinctly left-wing view of the world onto all Australian students”.

    Apparently, and probably much to the surprise of Canberra bureaucrats as well as to state and territory officials, a single national curriculum has been “an article of faith within the education bureaucracy for decades”. (Having worked intensively and extensively with both sets of officials for a decade and a half, I can’t say I noticed that fixation one little bit).

    Further, notwithstanding criticisms from academics and the teachers’ union about aspects of the national curriculum, it has, in the IPA’s view, been an obsession with these academics and with the union because they want education to “shape” Australia’s future. There is no evidence for that either.

    There are two revealing sections of the IPA censure. First, we have the evidence-free idea that the history curriculum is left-wing, when clearly it isn’t. Second, we have the projectionist comment that others want to shape Australia’s future when it is really the IPA that brazenly wants to influence Australia’s future through its proxy, a Coalition government. This is where, for me, the IPA’s view of the political process seems a bit skewed.

    Leaving that aside, let us look at two of the accusations against the history curriculum that have been common currency on the IPA website as well as in Quadrant and The Australian since 2008.

    The national history curriculum is left-leaning

    The selection of overarching history themes, topics and events was based on the professional judgement of the 20 or so members of the writing teams and the history Advisory Committee, with some feedback from the Australian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (ACARA) Curriculum Committee.

    Themes, topics and events were chosen because of their significance in a world history framework during any given period, remembering the need to engage students and teachers and bearing in mind the central importance of the history of Australia to Australian students.

    This balancing act is clearly seen in Years 9 and 10 where Year 9 is more about world history (but with a growing interest in Australia during 1750-the present) whereas Year 10 emphasises modern Australian history within a world history context.

    All students are encouraged to arrive at their own informed opinions through evidence-based conclusions about what may have happened in the past. There is no evidence of politicised intervention at any stage of a drafting process that involved teams of designers drawn from ALP and Coalition-led states and territories.

    In 2008, all states and territories agreed to implement the curriculum. Only three of these jurisdictions – South Australia, the ACT and Tasmania – are currently ALP-led, but none have rescinded their support. So much for Leftist bias.

    There was not enough consultation about the history curriculum

    During the two-year drafting period 2008-2010, the ACARA received and assessed 26,000 submissions on the English, mathematics, science and history drafts alone.

    In history, the then (2008) National Curriculum Board set up a widely-recruited history reference group that included, for example, Associate Professor Stuart Piggin of Macquarie University’s Centre for Christian Studies.

    Also, the states and territories were represented on the ACARA Board and a series of national forums in each subject area was held with a wide range of interested parties invited to participate including conservatively-inclined Associate Professor Greg Melleuish who has written for Quadrant, The Australian and for the Institute of Public Affairs. It would be hard to see how a wider or more representative consultation could have taken place.

    In truth, the IPA has a misguided and over ideologised obsession with history, a fixation that has been part and parcel of conservative politics in the USA and the UK, and now Australia, that goes back to the mid-1980s.

    This obsession is based in part on the mistaken and risible view that students are empty vessels who have been filled with Left-wing propaganda. Now, the IPA effectively argues, it is time to fill those vessels with the corrective propaganda of the Right which emphasises a Christian worldview, espouses a free market economy and which celebrates the triumphs of Western civilisation.

    But the IPA fails to understand four things.

    First, modern Australia is a largely secular society with a multi-religious and multicultural character.

    Second, advocating financial and economic deregulation in the face of the key historical events the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the 2008 global financial crisis will be an uphill struggle.

    Third, real history, even at school level, investigates, analyses and explains the past. It does not celebrate it. Finally, we know from Anna Clark’s work that school students can spot and deal with propaganda from either Left or Right at 1,000 paces.

    Tony Taylor teaches and researches at Monash University. In 1999-2000 he led the federally-funded national inquiry into the teaching learning of history in schools. From 2001-2007 he was director of the Commonwealth National Centre for History Education and from 2008-2012 he was a member of the ACARA’s history advisory committee. View his full profile here.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-19/taylor-only-one-side-is-fighting-the-history-wars/4968560

  21. Memo to Pyne: you’re reading the wrong history curriculum
    by Tony Taylor, co-editor of the upcoming History Wars and the Classroom: Global Perspectives
    Economy
    Yesterday I sent off to a US publisher the final draft of a book —  History Wars and the Classroom. The final sentence of one of my chapters, in dealing with history curriculum in Australia, reads as follows: “Of course, if a Labor federal government is replaced by a conservative administration, we start all over again.”

    Little did I know that Coalition education spokesman Christopher Pyne would be on the case quite so quickly.

    This morning, I’m reading The Age and there it is, the muesli-choking story. ”Coalition would scrap curriculum“ blared the headline, the story going on to say that if the Coalition gets into power it’s all change. This will especially be the case when it comes to history, Pyne added, criticising all that Asian and Aboriginal stuff and insisting, amongst other things, that classical civilisations Magna Carta, Christianity and (irony of ironies) the Bill of Rights/English Civil War should be highlighted and/or inserted.

    The comments were taken from a speech to be delivered at the Institute of Public Affairs this morning (after I finish this piece) at the launch of an IPA review of the national curriculum with contributions by Chris Berg and Greg Melleuish. Berg wrote an op-ed article on this very subject for The Sunday Age a few weeks ago. I read it and dismissed it as someone who doesn’t know much about how education or history works.

    As for Melleuish, a historian, it was he who was selected by the Howard government to design a national curriculum at the 2006 Australian history summit (remember that?) which was killed off by the summiteers within a couple of hours of its being tabled. And I do remember seeing Melleuish at two recent national curriculum forums where he was in a position to speak up loudly for the Magna Carta, etc.

    As I remember it he remained silent throughout. When it comes to Pyne — lawyer, republican and politician — a couple of things. First, as a lawyer, it is always important to read documents carefully. My impression, from the reporting of his remarks, is that he must have been reading a different curriculum document from the one that I possess.

    Classical civilizations (Egyptians, Greeks Romans) are dealt with in some detail in Year 7, together with some of that Asian stuff — mainly the ancient societies of China and India. As for that baron-benefiting beano to curb arbitrary rule of one (the king), the Magna Carta, it’s covered in Year 8 under the Feudalism overview and political features of medieval life in Europe.

    Not that it’s explicitly mentioned but, as a teacher, you’d be daft not to spend some time on Runnymede, investigating a pioneering constitutional event, short-term dud that it was, but a long-term and major pan-European and pan-colonial accomplishment. Christianity is covered in Year 8 under “the spread of Christianity”, medieval Europe under the Crusades (not so good, that bit), the medieval dominance of the Catholic church and the Spanish conquest of the Americas (another not-so-good bit).

    As for the Bill of Rights and the English Civil War, the former is covered in Year 10 under the optional “egalitarianism” and the latter is arguably just a series of confused and confusing localised squabbles that may have a special significance for UK history, but not for anybody else (unless they like dressing up in period costume).

    By the way, in the current UK national curriculum Key Stage 3 program of study, where you’d expect to find Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the Civil War — they’re not mentioned.

    It doesn’t mean they’re not studied because, as with the Australian curriculum, the UK design is concept-led, not fact-led. Note to Pyne: if we had a curriculum that was fact-led, we’d have a very, very, very, very long chronicle, not a history. Second, and final point, and it’s yet another irony.

    Pyne mourns the alleged absence of the Magna Carta and is quoted as saying: “I am happy to go back to the drawing board and start again. Until I am satisfied the curriculum is an improvement on what we have now, I won’t be going ahead with it.” What was that again about the Magna Carta and arbitrary rule of one, Christopher?

    *Tony Taylor teaches and researches at Monash University. He has just finished co-editing History Wars and the Classroom: Global Perspectives. The book contains chapters on Argentina, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, UK and USA.

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/01/31/memo-to-pyne-youre-reading-the-wrong-history-curriculum/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

    I heard Pyne on Newsradio this morning, saying that it was important to study these bits of Western history because ‘Australia adopted the Westminster system and we fought the Civil War to establish the rights of Parliament.’

    to which his interviewer replied; “Australians fought in the English Civil War?’

  22. Not that I really want to start feeling sorry for Bones……perish the thought!

    But, the problem Steve with changing curriculum is that teachers get bounced around all the time. Not only do they have to put up with the fat cats in the respective Dept of Education coming up with the latest changes they got from America or whatever, but then also having the political influence come in? They have a hard enough job keeping their sanity while being teacher, counsellor, parent, crime fighter etc etc.

    Probably be a good idea getting the input of teachers who in the end are the ones who have to get through the stuff on a day in day out basis.

    But I think it’s going to be a hard sell in this day and age for the ACL or anyone to suggest that the importance or positive features of Christianity be taught in modern day Australia.

    In fact, I’m sure it will have the opposite effect.

  23. IPA 75 point wish list

    Take, for instance, the Gillard government’s National Curriculum. Opposing this policy ought to be a matter of faith for state Liberals. The National Curriculum centralises education power in Canberra, and will push a distinctly left-wing view of the world onto all Australian students. But it has been met with acceptance – even support – by the Coalition’s state education ministers. This is because a single National Curriculum has been an article of faith within the education bureaucracy for decades; an obsession of education unions and academics, who want education to ‘shape’ Australia’s future. (No prize for guessing what that shape might look like.) A small-target election strategy has the unfortunate side-effect of allowing ministerial aspirants to avoid thinking too deeply about major areas in their portfolio. So when, in the first week as minister, they are presented with a list of policy priorities by their department, it is easier to accept what the bureaucracy considers important, rather than what is right. The only way to avoid such departmental capture is to have a clear idea of what to do with government once you have it.

    We hope Tony Abbott grasps the opportunity to fundamentally reshape the political culture and stem the assault on individual liberty.

    1 Repeal the carbon tax, and don’t replace it. It will be one thing to remove the burden of the carbon tax from the Australian economy. But if it is just replaced by another costly scheme, most of the benefits will be undone.

    2 Abolish the Department of Climate Change

    3 Abolish the Clean Energy Fund

    4 Repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act

    5 Abandon Australia’s bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council

    6 Repeal the renewable energy target

    7 Return income taxing powers to the states

    8 Abolish the Commonwealth Grants Commission

    9 Abolish the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

    10 Withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol

    11 Introduce fee competition to Australian universities

    12 Repeal the National Curriculum

    13 Introduce competing private secondary school curriculums

    14 Abolish the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)

    15 Eliminate laws that require radio and television broadcasters to be ‘balanced’

    16 Abolish television spectrum licensing and devolve spectrum management to the common law

    17 End local content requirements for Australian television stations

    18 Eliminate family tax benefits

    19 Abandon the paid parental leave scheme

    20 Means-test Medicare

    21 End all corporate welfare and subsidies by closing the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education

    22 Introduce voluntary voting

    23 End mandatory disclosures on political donations

    24 End media blackout in final days of election campaigns

    25 End public funding to political parties

    26 Remove anti-dumping laws

    27 Eliminate media ownership restrictions

    28 Abolish the Foreign Investment Review Board

    29 Eliminate the National Preventative Health Agency

    30 Cease subsidising the car industry

    31 Formalise a one-in, one-out approach to regulatory reduction

    32 Rule out federal funding for 2018 Commonwealth Games

    33 Deregulate the parallel importation of books

    34 End preferences for Industry Super Funds in workplace relations laws

    35 Legislate a cap on government spending and tax as a percentage of GDP

    36 Legislate a balanced budget amendment which strictly limits the size of budget deficits and the period the federal government can be in deficit

    37 Force government agencies to put all of their spending online in a searchable database

    38 Repeal plain packaging for cigarettes and rule it out for all other products, including alcohol and fast food

    39 Reintroduce voluntary student unionism at universities

    40 Introduce a voucher scheme for secondary schools

    41 Repeal the alcopops tax

    42 Introduce a special economic zone in the north of Australia including:
    a) Lower personal income tax for residents
    b) Significantly expanded 457 Visa programs for workers
    c) Encourage the construction of dams

    43 Repeal the mining tax

    44 Devolve environmental approvals for major projects to the states

    45 Introduce a single rate of income tax with a generous tax-free threshold

    46 Cut company tax to an internationally competitive rate of 25 per cent

    47 Cease funding the Australia Network

    48 Privatise Australia Post

    49 Privatise Medibank

    50 Break up the ABC and put out to tender each individual function

    51 Privatise SBS

    52 Reduce the size of the public service from current levels of more than 260,000 to at least the 2001 low of 212,784

    53 Repeal the Fair Work Act

    54 Allow individuals and employers to negotiate directly terms of employment that suit them

    55 Encourage independent contracting by overturning new regulations designed to punish contractors

    56 Abolish the Baby Bonus

    57 Abolish the First Home Owners’ Grant

    58 Allow the Northern Territory to become a state

    59 Halve the size of the Coalition front bench from 32 to 16

    60 Remove all remaining tariff and non-tariff barriers to international trade

    61 Slash top public servant salaries to much lower international standards, like in the United States

    62 End all public subsidies to sport and the arts

    63 Privatise the Australian Institute of Sport

    64 End all hidden protectionist measures, such as preferences for local manufacturers in government tendering

    65 Abolish the Office for Film and Literature Classification

    66 Rule out any government-supported or mandated internet censorship

    67 Means test tertiary student loans

    68 Allow people to opt out of superannuation in exchange for promising to forgo any government income support in retirement

    69 Immediately halt construction of the National Broadband Network and privatise any sections that have already been built

    70 End all government funded Nanny State advertising

    71 Reject proposals for compulsory food and alcohol labelling

    72 Privatise the CSIRO

    73 Defund Harmony Day

    74 Close the Office for Youth

    75 Privatise the Snowy-Hydro Scheme

    http://ipa.org.au/publications/2080/be-like-gough-75-radical-ideas-to-transform-australia

  24. The article from the IPA exposes Tony Taylor as one of the most outspoken of left wing opponents of the IPA, so you immediately quote Taylor arguing against the IPA. That was smart.

    Taylor wrote in a particularly scathing article in the Sydney Morning Herald,

    ‘In recent years The Australian, together with a small number of fellow conservative players, has been pushing an inaccurate and ill-informed campaign on how we understand our past.

    The few-but noisy – Liberal figures in the campaign sail a Bunyanesque Sea of Knowledgeable Ignorance crying out ‘Magna Carta!’, ‘English Civil War!’, ‘Judeo-Christian tradition!’ and ‘Western civilisation’ … during their fulminations, they count mentions of the curriculum of Aborigines as well as the names of conservative and ALP prime ministers and demand more emphasis on the heroic bits of Australian history.’

    If this blatant denial of the importance of the Magna Carta, the English Civil War, Judeo-Christian tradition and Western Civilisation seems absurd enough, it is even more absurd that elsewhere he even compares Tony Abbott to Vladimir Putin on account of his plans to scrap the existing history curriculum. He doesn’t bother to mention, of course, that Labor did the same to Howard’s history curriculum in 2008.

    In an article published in History Australia in August 2013, he explained some of his frustration: ‘I was exasperated,’ he said, ‘by these IPA and Pyne advances into territory that was clearly quite beyond their ken, and I felt it was important to flush out their unfamiliarity with real history.’

    ‘Real’ history, Taylor says. But real according to whom? In fact, Taylor’s passage here illustrates the core of the problem with these so-called ‘curriculum wars’. At the centre is a group of left-leaning academics who believe they have the monopoly on history, and that only the professionals themselves can decide what is and is not ‘real’. And if they alone control what is real history-namely, disjointed multicultural history with a particular focus on social structures, gender, human rights, and environmentalism-then it follows that everyone with a different view of the past must be deceived by some kind of false history, and is therefore ignorant and uneducated.

    According to them, they alone are honest and objective. Anyone who does not subscribe to their interpretation is labelled ‘rosy glow’ or nationalist-even if some of the dissidents also happen to be professional historians (for example, many of those who, like Geoffrey Blainey, attended the National History Summit under Howard in 2006).

    It is exactly these self-proclaimed ‘real historians’ who recently came together to form a new association called Honest History. Despite this group’s motto-‘supporting balanced and honest history’-it is obvious that this group has a clear political agenda. According to their own website, they were formed primarily to combat the rising tide of Anzac Day commemoration (which they consider ‘jingoism’, and perceive as a threat) and exalt the self-confessed radical and Soviet sympathiser Leslie Cyril Jauncey as one of their exemplars. Supporters include a number of academics who were involved in the drafting of the national curriculum, including Stuart Macintyre and, of course, Taylor.

    In fact, the IPA article argues for abolition of a national curriculum which is driven by Government and is accessible to political interference.

    Maybe of you had bothered to read it you would have noted both hess points instead of making it into a left-right argument, the very thing it advocates against.

    Also, I did to say that to was my view. I posted the article to show an alternative view.

    By the way, there are materials and resources available to educationists online which include reference to indigenous religious myths applicable to the history units, including the rainbow serpent myth.

  25. The irony is that his thread is the most political of them all.

    I’ll bow out of this one – not that interested in Gillard vs Abbot.

    Have a great rest of the weekend Dudes.

  26. oops just one last point. In my country I have a similar problem – but in reverse. the current govt – super conservative to the point of being revisionist, wants to change history teaching to be for the express purpose of making students “proud” of their country. But in so doing, they will deliberately be leaving out areas of study, and giving their “correct” view of history – which is basically ultra-nationalist.

    Scary stuff.

  27. And the IPA are right wing extremists who think that everything that isn’t put out by them is leftist indoctrination and wish to totally decentralise and deregulate everything in the name of the free market god.

    Did you read the National Curriculum or did you search for an article that promotes your propaganda?

    Btw England doesn’t even study the Magna Carta and the ECW in its curriculum.

  28. Yes Q, we’re seeing that in Japan.

    All the nasty bits from WW2 are being left out so we don’t dishonour the country and the Emperor.

  29. Greg seems to have abandoned politics by inserting political posts!

    Bones, we could argue ad infinitum about this, and I do bow, without sarcasm, to your superior knowledge of the education system, and acknowledge you must know more than I do about the national curriculum, being an educator yourself, but to say that the Gillard-Rudd revisions did not contain any politically motivated content is naive at best.

    The point is that there is a deep suspicion on both sides whenever there are changes made following an election, which is what the IPA article is saying. It is a known fact that the education system has been left leaning for a number of years, which is why many parents prefer their children to be in private schools despite the cost, even though there is little difference i the basic curriculum.

    And we may not all be teachers in the school system, but we are parents and we do care what is being poured into the minds of our children.

    You do understand this don’t you? Because I have worked in schools and I have seen some of the ideology foisted on public school children in the name of education.

    The IPA list you produced is merely one side of a political argument and actually stresses my point, because you would place your own list there and it would be completely the opposite on most issues. Greg has openly attacked an ACL list, which indicates his list would be the opposite.

    In the end the point os proved that he is as political an animal as you or I.

    But the question is, can we have an eduction system which is not politicised, and how?

  30. Is maths leftist?

    What about English?

    Is that leftist?

    Science? Chemistry? Biology? Geography? Physics? Is that a leftist curriculum?

    Well some would say so because it doesn’t teach creation or a 6000 year old Earth.

  31. You got me – I’m still here.

    It’s actually scary. Not only the meddling in the education dept, but the equivalent of the ABC (NHK) is basically run by ultra-nationalists.

    So, some independence of the national broadcasting agency and the education dept (or departmentS, is not such a bad idea.)

    Okay, def going to sleep.

  32. I don’t have a list.

    Neither am I working to influence government to conform to my agenda.

    There was very little politicising of education before the National Curriculum. And history was encompassed under SOSE (Studies of Society and the Environment). Neither the Coalition nor Labor sought to change or interfere with the curriculum. It was left to educators.

    Now……..

    If the history curriculum is going to change everytime we have a new government, we may as well ditch it.

  33. Was this list of 75 disastrous things for Australia written by Gina Reinhart?

    Sort of. It’s the IPA. Which she is part of and Murdoch.

    Apparently the IPA is the defender of Western Christian civilisation according to Abbott, the IPA’s puppet.

    Abbott compares the head of IPA with Jesus.

  34. Notice the big cheers for dismantling the Racial Discrimination Act specifically 18C

    That’s because the bigot Andrew Bolt was found guilty under the Act.

  35. Bones,
    I don’t have a list

    You seem to be leaning to the left, actually, somewhat like the Tower of Pisa.

    So you don’t want to lobby anyone, you just want to moan and groan about the Christians and Libertarians. We’ll have to make a list for you.

    Including all the usual bunkum about Reinhart, Murdoch and Bolt. Blame the obvious candidates, but don’t say a word about the Green/Labor alliance which stuffed its own policies, campaigns and, along the way, the country.

    You vote for minor miner’s parties and complain about the major party you let in whilst supporting the Greens.

    If all you can do is complain about other people’s lobby lists and don’t have one of your own, I’d say you were no more than a whinger on a blog.

    Greg,
    Was this list of 75 disastrous things for Australia written by Gina Reinhart?

    Greg, if you are going to make political statements you had better change the rules you made about making political statements.

  36. Greg,
    The tower of Pisa leans to the right

    Only if you stand to the left, or make the rules up on this blog.

  37. You vote for minor miner’s parties and complain about the major party you let in whilst supporting the Greens.

    The Palmer candidate was the only serious threat to the LNP in this electorate.

    Very nearly took it as well.

    Greens only mustered a few hundred votes.

    But don’t worry I put Tony last where he belongs.

  38. So you don’t want to lobby anyone,

    No. You need money and power to lobby.

    In what way was this country stuffed?

    I wouldn’t have lived anywhere else for quids.

  39. Oh dear….

    The single largest factor in the underlying deterioration of the federal budget announced by Treasurer Joe Hockey in December was a cash payout of almost $900 million to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.

    The massive windfall, revealed in the US group’s accounts a week ago in New York, was at a time when News Corp newspapers were highly critical of the budget and called for deep cuts.

    The drama over the payout, one of the largest cash payments made by the Tax Office, played out behind the scenes during the federal election.

    On July 25 the Federal Court of Appeal ruled against the Tax Office to allow News Corp to claim a $2 billion deduction from a series of paper shuffles between subsidiaries.

    At the time, The Australian Financial Review speculated the win would be worth up to $600 million in future tax benefits, but interest charges had pushed the payout far higher.

    The Tax Office was deciding whether to appeal against the judgment as News Corp newspapers launched a ferocious attack on the government, kicking off with the Daily Telegraph’s headline on August 5, 11 days after the court judgment: “Kick this mob out.” In the following days, Labor leader Kevin Rudd would claim that News Corp was running a virulent anti-government campaign in exchange for concessions from the Coalition.

    http://www.afr.com/p/business/marketing_media/news_corp_blew_the_budget_DFlluROVi0F6CV1fQ5UJvJ

  40. In what way is the country stuffed? Well, in terms of lifestyle it will always be pretty good, and it has the resources to recover, unlike some nations which are struggling, but the reality is that the Green/Labour alliance stripped the country bare, so it is now far more difficult to repay national debt, which is predicted to hit over $400 billion, with the treasurer making allowance for it reaching $500 billion before it can be turned around.

    Successive Labour Givernments took Austrlalia from a $93 billion surplus to $30 billion deficit in seven years, which is astonishing, even given that there was a global economic downturn.

    This means that real wages have fallen despite the fact that people like you working in a school on $75000 pa will not feel it too much, but those who are on lower wages will be struggling to keep up with prices. Exports are suffering so there is not much joy there. The mining boom was totally wrecked by stupid Labour/Greens greed, which stalled its progress and sent the boom offshore, the cattle export industry was short circuited when the Indonesians were offended by a knee jerk reaction via an ABC TV program, and the car industry, into which the Green/Labour alliance poured millions, is about to bite the dust forever despite their generosity which saved union jobs but crippled the car industry. The madcap billions spent on the short sited and expensive NBS has produced next to no return and was a massive white elephant which will be superseded by newer wireless satellite technology before it even hits the computer screen where you live. The carbon scheme has brought industry to its knees and saved not a solitary tree. Your Mr Palmer, apparently, owes a few million in carbon taxes. He’s feeling the pinch, and so will you very shortly if not already. I haven’t even mentioned Swans years when he delivered not one single surplus despite promises he could not keep, so much so that even he gave up on them in his last budget. Or the deadly pink bats debacle, the quick fix with no long term effect education revolution, the free hand outs which went nowhere.

    Thank God the sun shines in Australia. It will come good, but not without a whole heap of pain most Aussies are not prepared to bear after seven years of welfare freebies they now realise they have to pay for with interest.

    Still the greatest country for sure, but not as great as it could have been.

  41. after seven years of welfare freebies they now realise they have to pay for with interest.

    Nah. Now we have welfare for the rich.

    “The single largest factor in the underlying deterioration of the federal budget announced by Treasurer Joe Hockey in December was a cash payout of almost $900 million to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.”

    Take from the poor and give to the rich is your motto.

  42. Yes well it sounds as if you can add the Murdoch stuff up to the list of Labour woes since they were in power when it all took place. They must have seen it coming, and were powerless to stop it. Couldn’t organise a chook raffle in a farmers club.

  43. Yawn!

    Lie 1. “The Howard/Costello Government … presided over what now seems like a golden age of prosperity – that’s been lost.”

    On most indicators, Australia is much wealthier now than 2007 — despite the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Indicators include income per person, pensions, superannuation, productivity and personal savings — all much higher now (2013).

    Plus interest rates, inflation and tax levels — all lower.

    This is affirmed by international credit ratings, the value of the Aussie dollar and quality of life indices — all much better now.

    Lie 7.. “Sure, our economic position is stronger than that of the United Kingdom and much better than that of Greece and Italy and Spain, and France; but so was Ireland’s until quite recently.”

    Coalition spokespersons often suggest snidely that “Sure, Australia is doing better than Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland”. Australia is in fact doing better than every economy. Economists debate whether Canada or Switzerland is second. But no-one challenges Australia’s position as world leader — and forging further ahead with each quarter’s results.

    Lie 9, 10, 11. “Tax reform starts with abolishing the carbon tax and the mining tax, which have done so much to spook investors, threaten jobs and hurt every family’s cost of living.”

    Three fibs in one sentence. Investment in Australia has not been impacted by the carbon tax. Total numbers of people employed have risen every quarter since the tax was introduced. And inflation is currently 2.4%. This is below the rate for most of the Labor period prior to the carbon tax, and below the rate for most of the last five Howard years.

    Lie 12. “Based on previous experience, we are confident that these changes will produce a million new jobs within five years … unlike the anaemic job creation record of the past six years.”

    More than one million jobs have been created since 2007, a record unmatched in comparable nations. The UK, with a population and an economy three times Australia’s, managed 656,000 extra jobs in that period. The unemployment rate in Australia is 5.7%. In the UK it is 7.8%. In the Euro Area 12.2%.

    Lie 15. “Also at the Press Club recently, Mr Rudd claimed credit for saving Australia from the global financial crisis — almost single-handedly apparently. Apparently he thinks that installing batts that caught fire in people’s roofs and building school halls for twice the normal price was good economic policy.”

    Multiple fibs here also. It is not Mr Rudd asserting that the stimulus packages saved Australia’s economy almost alone in the developed world from recession. Those claiming this include Joseph Stiglitz, Scott Haslem, Juan Jose Daboub, Dun and Bradstreet, John Quiggin, Rodney Tiffin, David Gruen, Glenn Stevens, Tim Harcourt and several business and union groups. Plus countless economics journalists.

    As the CSIRO found, the rate of house fires and industrial injuries and deaths during 2009-10 fell to one quarter of the rate during the Howard years. Audits of the building programs found cost overruns to have been minimal.

    There are other untruths in the speech. But there’s a start.

    If Australia was stuffed, God help all the other countries in the world.

  44. Yes, Australia is stuffed….

    The Facts: Australia’s net debt as a percentage of GDP ratio is estimated to be 11.6 per cent in 2012, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Those levels are low by international standards, and have been that way for a long time.

    Discussion of evidence: Claims that Australia is a high debt country are regularly spouted by politicians, especially around May in the lead up to the annual Federal Budget and during election campaigns. The claim is seldom challenged for the fact that relative to most developed economies Australia is a low debt country.

    Australia has the third lowest gross debt to GDP of countries in the OECD. The latest data from the IMF shows that Australia’s government net debt as a percentage of GDP sees it ranked toward the bottom of comparable advanced countries. Compared with the advanced country average Australia’s debt (in 2010) was one seventh of the average debt amongst advanced countries (77.4 per cent), and less than half New Zealand’s debt, 34 per cent of Canada’s debt and 14 per cent of the UK’s debt.

    Spain and Canada are used for comparison as their respective GDPs are similar to Australia.

    Whichever way you look at it; compared to other advanced countries, Australia is a low debt country.

  45. Yes well it sounds as if you can add the Murdoch stuff up to the list of Labour woes…

    Of course it was Labour’s fault that Murdoch engineered a propaganda war against them during an election the same time this was going on, with his 70% and more control of print media.

    All this talk of cutting waste and sacrificing the poor and middle class for the rich.

    Not a peep out of the Libs on this one.

  46. Yawn, yawn!

    In fact I qualified what I said by saying Australia has the goods to rebound.

    The national debt, given the resources available and size of the population, is a disgrace. Again, I said Australia would recover from this, but it was undoubtedly the overblown stimulus and farcical policies which stretched the economy unnecessarily.

    And yes, Australia remains a great nation, but many other countries don’t have the same resources, remember.

    The real issue with Murdoch’s windfall was with the ATO, but since you were blaming one side of politics it seemed pertinent to counter your claim.

    Murdoch plays both sides. He is apolitical in that sense, using whatever means he can to fill his coffers. This time it was Abbott. Previously it was Rudd. Who knows what he will do next.

    So, having said you don’t have a list, we now see that you do.

  47. I did not say Australia is stuffed. It isn’t. I said it’s the best nation to live still.

    I said the Green/Labour alliance had stuffed it, but, through good management, and because it has a good resource base, it would recover, but not without some degree of pain. Are you cognitively challenged or something?

    The rest of what you claimed is gobbledegook.

    Still, whatever makes you feel good about your world, Bones.

  48. Australian have no idea how good they have it.
    They need to look at some maps sometimes and see how much land Australia has, the population, and the natural resources.

    Australia’s fantastic economic position is in large part simply because they have been supplying natural resources to China.

    When the boom in China stops, things will be different. But then later there will be other places.

    But Australia has it made. Look 50 years in the future and if some genius comes up with an economical way to turn salt water into fresh water, then you have a country the size of the United States with room for new cities everywhere.

    It’s indeed the lucky country – combined with English, democracy etc. Sure, it’s the best country. It would take a pretty terrible govt to wreck it.

    Compare it to some tiny city states like Singapore and countries with no natural resources like Japan, and you realise how hard and resourceful those people have had to be to get where they are.

    But like I said, be prepared for a pretty big hiccup if China goes into recession.

    Forgot what this has to do with theology and churches though.

    But from one point of view Australia is blessed.
    Of course from another point of view, the English invaded and took over a great place.

    But better that poms than the French probably.

  49. “I did not say Australia is stuffed. It isn’t….I said the Green/Labour alliance had stuffed it, ”

    That makes sense to someone… not quite sure who. Probably anyone who swallows Right wing propaganda and is unable to think about what they read and right.

    That gobbledegook is what is known as ‘facts’. Maybe you’ve heard of them.

  50. OK, let me do this a different way, Bones, just to get you over your lack of understanding of what I said.

    1. After the Hawke/Keating and Howard/Costello era, Australia was not fiscally stuffed. It was in surplus because these governments made good decisions. They did not stuff it up.

    2. The Rudd/Swan and Gillard/Swan era put the brakes on fiscal progress and sent us spiralling into debt. They made bad decisions. They stuffed it up.

    3. The Abbott/Hockey era has begun. They have not stuffed it up so far, and have an opportunity to unstuff what their predecessors stuffed.

    Australia is not stuffed. The Rudd/Gillard/Swan eras of Australian governance were times of stuffedness. We will be paying for their stuff-ups for some time before we will be unstuffed.

    $400 billion national debt plus interest accrued as we pay it off, and the dollar at record highs. Swan’s legacy.

  51. Once upon a time, three little pollies, Kevin, Julia and Wayne, went down to their local pub, The Hapless Mug, of which they were new members, with a big bundle of cash drawn from the joint bank account of the people from the pub, and began to buy drinks and free meals for everyone, and hand out cash to the members to spend on whatever they would like, in the hope that most would spend it in the Hapless Mug and keep the money going round and round. They were so popular with the punters.

    One day, Bob, from the bank, came to the Hapless Mug to present a big bill to the members. They were not very happy with this and asked why they were being served with this huge bill. “It’s the interest on your loan,” said Bob, holding his hand out hopefully. “What loan?” Asked the members. “The loan the three little pollies drew out to buy you all free drinks, meals and handouts last year,” said Bob, withdrawing his hand as he realised this was not going down too well with the punters.

    “Where are Kevin, Julia and Wayne?” They asked angrily, realising they had been tricked into liking the three little pollies on false pretences. “They handed the keys over to new management,” said Bob, as he ran out to call the bailiffs.

  52. The man who, along with Peter Slipper, kept Labour/Green Gillard Government in power…

    Former HSU official. member for Dobell.

    From the ABC…

    Craig Thomson fraud trial: Court hands down guilty verdict

    Former federal MP Craig Thomson has been found guilty of obtaining financial advantage by using his Health Services Union (HSU) credit card to pay for sexual services and making cash withdrawals.

    In handing down his findings, Magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg found Thomson dishonestly used his union cards while national secretary of the union.

    Thomson sat quietly in the front row of a packed Melbourne Magistrates Court as Mr Rozencwajg delivered his verdicts.

    The magistrate said the court had heard from several union witnesses who made it clear that union credit cards were for business purposes only.

    “This must have been known by the accused,” Mr Rozencwajg said.

    The magistrate acknowledged there was some grey area defining what constituted business use, but he said it would be an affront to common sense to think the card could be used to pay for sexual services.

    The former MP was found to have dishonestly made a series of cash withdrawals totalling $10,000.

    Thomson was also found guilty of using his card to pay for cigarettes and buying firewood for his wife.

    The magistrate also found some of the charges relating to paying for spousal travel with his union credit card were proven.

    Furthermore, Thomson was found guilty of misusing union funds after he had resigned as national secretary in 2007 and elected to Federal Parliament as the member for Dobell.

    He was found to have used HSU money to pay for accomodation, taxis, dining expenses and accomodation.

    The case has been adjourned until March 18 for a pre-sentencing hearing and Thomson remains on bail.

    And you call ACL lunies!

  53. You know for a fact then that someone didnt steal the credit card(s), and his licence, and copy his signature, and then put the credit cards back without anyone noticing?

    And that the evidence destroyed by the HSU wouldnt have completely cleared him (as he stated)?

  54. Greg, they have to pay the debt that was accrued during the Rudd/Gillard/Swan years – with interest, lots and lots of interest on a massive amount of debt.

    I don’t think you’re following.

    We have a new Government. They haven’t had time to build debt yet, only repay the debt of the previous Government, which is rising by the day because of the policies still in place.

    Wazza,
    Thomson was found guilty in a court of law. If you believe the yarn he span in the Today interview you are more gullible than I thought.

  55. Maybe Greg thinks that, when a new Government comes in, all previous debt is cancelled out and we start all over again! LOL!

  56. But what wazza is suggesting is even worse than if Thomson is actually guilty, because wazza is claiming that a group of vengeful HSU members stitched Thomson up by stealing his card, setting up prostitutes, impersonating Thomson, fooling the prostitutes that whoever impersonated him was him, and various other dastardly deeds, including buying firewood and paying for flights for his partner and accommodation.

    This means that the corruption goes into the very heart of the union and is endemic.

    Bring on the Royal Commission.

  57. Slipper and Thomson were used by Gillard to stay in power. What does that say about her Government?

    Now Shorten, former union boss, is hampered because he dare not speak out against those who are facing a Royal Commission into the unions. And he wants to maintain the carbon tax.

    He’s gone before he starts.

    Oh, hang on, Rudd swung a new caucus rule whereby leader can’t be replaced before an election. Perhaps thinking it would be him and the people loved him ]enough to have put him in at the last election. Suddenly populism has had its day and pragmatism enters.

    The enquiry into the unions will be the unravelling of Shorten if he doesn’t show some guts and stand up to the very people who put him where he is.

    Two terms for Abbott, anyone?

  58. ‘we’ll pay our debt by borrowing more.’

    Nice try, Bones. Good to see you’re keeping a brave face, but you’re fooling no-one. I think, being a maths teacher, you know exactly what it means when one Government racks up policies which cost billions and the next has to deal with it.

    It is the standard practice following Labour Governments. Ask Costello.

    You’ll be paying for the Rudd/Gillard/Swan Government’s excesses for years to come, no matter who is power.

    Thank God Australia can take it and will make a comeback, maybe on the back of sheep, or on agriculture, or a new mining boom, but it will take some decent management and years getting out of debt before you’ll see another surplus.

    It certainly won’t be the automotive industry or canned fruit, because the unions’ demands have stuffed them right up.

    Thanks goodness you are having children so that they can pay off your national debts.

  59. Oh gosh, I almost forgot you live in QLD, the current LibNat police state, which was previously almost brought to its financial knees by succeeding Labour Governments.

    And they almost put wrecker in chief Beatty into the Federal Government as a potential leader!

    Alongside Carr, destroyer of the NSW economy, who spat the dummy as soon as the trips around the globe were removed from his grasp.

    Desperation stuff. Pure desperation.

    Two terms minimum.

  60. If they could have got Dennis Burke, former Premier of the Labour WA Government, he of WA Inc, alongside Carr and Beatty, they’d have had a trifecta.

    It took WA, a resource rich State, over 15 years to recover from the Burke/Lawrence eras.

    How long do you think it will take NSW to recover from the labour years? Or QLD?

    The pattern is too clear to miss, Bones.

    Hawke/Keating weren’t perfect, but they are the one bright Labour light in recent history, State or Federal.

  61. The Thomson debacle was still going on in 2012, remember, the longest running saga since Coronation Street. All to protect the hide of a desperate Government and their limpet independents.

    Shorten was in the thick of it. He is compromised.

    Two terms minimum.

  62. The people who framed Thompson are the same ones involved in 9/11. They also operated the submarine that Harold Holt was taken away in.

    Anyway, what’s with all the politics?

    I’m not interested in politics. Not since Labor first got in with that arrogant oaf Whitlam who brought in easy divorce and whose policies closed down factories everywhere bringing in massive unemployment.

    Also, I’m completely politically neutral …

  63. Actually, it was a lame attempt at humor. I thought it was obvious by the previous paragraph.

    But now that I think about your statement. Maybe it’s better in neutral. Maybe I’m not interested in going where the world is heading. 🙂

  64. I see Bones and wazza have abandoned the cause here, having been confronted with the liabilities of the Labour/Green alliance of the last seven years. And more to come once the unions are looked into.

    Now they are on the thread where they can be morally outraged because the boats are stopped.

  65. Uproar at ‘Biblezine’ sex tips for kids

    Parents and teachers have called for an urgent overhaul of religious education in schools after year 6 children were given material claiming girls who wear revealing clothes are inviting sexual assault, and homosexuality, masturbation and sex before marriage are sinful.
    Students at Torquay College were presented with “Biblezines” as a graduation present at the end of their Christian education program, run by Access Ministries – the government accredited provider of religious instruction in Victorian schools.

    The magazines, Refuel 2 and Revolve 2 – which intersperse the text of the New Testament with dating advice, beauty tips and music reviews – warn girls not to go bra-less because “your nipples are much more noticeable and a distraction and temptation for men”, and not to wear tube tops and low-rise jeans because men are “sexually stimulated by what they see”.

    “The Bible says not to cause anyone else to sin. Are you putting sexual thoughts about your body into guys’ heads? If you are showing a lot of skin you probably are,” it states.

    The material, produced by the News Corp-owned Nelson Bibles, America’s largest Christian publishing house, also “exposes the lie of safe sex”, claiming that condoms condone promiscuity, and urges those who think they are gay never to act on it.
    In response to an agony aunt-style question about, “How far can you go before you are no longer pure?”, the document reads: “Let’s put it this way: How much dog poop stirred into your cookie batter does it take to ruin the whole batter.”

    Naja Voorhoeve, whose seven-year-old son was given the Biblezine by an older student who received it at the graduation ceremony, said the magazines were offensive.
    “I think it’s wrong that anyone should come in and distribute proselytising material, which goes against Department of Education policy. For this to be given out to children by a person who is in a position of authority in their lives, like a religious education teacher, is a travesty.”

    It comes after Fairfax Media last week revealed hundreds of Victorian principals in primary schools had stopped weekly religious education classes. In the past two years the number of schools delivering “special religious instruction” fell from 940 to 666.
    Access Ministries says it did not approve the Biblezines, or their content, and they were a graduation gift from local churches, which normally donate traditional Bibles.
    In a statement, chief executive Evonne Paddison said: “This year there was a huge rush for the Bibles and, for reasons we do not yet understand, it seems as though 15 copies of Refuel 2 were handed out. Students were asked to return them on the day . . . Our agreed curriculum teaches the basic beliefs of the Christian faith and does not stray into areas of sexuality at all. We are extremely disappointed that this has occurred and will continue to investigate how it happened.”

    Torquay College principal Pam Kinsman said it was “really concerning” the material had been distributed and she had asked Access Ministries for an explanation and had received an apology. “We have a strong focus on diversity and respect at our school and as soon as the content of the text was brought to my attention, I immediately said that book will never be distributed again to our students,” she said.

    An Education Department spokesman said the materials were “totally inappropriate and offensive and have no place in our schools” adding that the department was investigating the matter “alongside the principal”.

    Joe Kelly, principal of Cranbourne South Primary School – who last week spoke about how he was so concerned about religious indoctrination he has not allowed Access Ministries into his classrooms since 2012 – said the latest revelations reaffirmed his decision.
    “This kind of material is disgraceful and this is why I strongly call upon the Education Department to instigate an immediate review of the practices of special religious instruction [SRI] providers with a view to having SRI taken out of our great public schools,” he said.
    “Our young people are going through the most sensitive period of their development – they don’t need to be preached to, they need factual information and a sympathetic ear on the part of caring adults, not people who are going to moralise and judge their behaviour.”

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/uproar-at-biblezine-sex-tips-for-kids-20140222-338zn.html#ixzz2u7hCkmXF

  66. Slightly silly magazine, of course, if that content is reported correctly.

    But let’s take a look at the beat-up this is.

    Access hands out bibles to graduating students. They are so popular they run out before everyone gets them, so some hapless, concerned soul hands out 15 magazines they probably haven’t read that they had in the back of the car from some outreach to youth. Access knows nothing about them and does not endorse them.

    One of the recipients gives the magazine he hadn’t looked at to a seven year old, and the kids mum takes exception to the content.

    But the offended mum reports it to the school and/or the media, and, Bob’s yer uncle, we have a waste of space controversy and another reason to slag off the Christians.

    Access apologises for the incident, and the school bans the mag. Good outcome.

    Should have been the end of the story really, but there’s nothing like a slap-down story to raise indignation amongst the proletariat.

  67. Actually they’re both New Testaments.

    Thing is people are offended, curriculum is crowded, offensive material is distributed and Bob’s yer uncle, schools withdraw from Religious Education.

  68. You’re grossly overreacting, Greg, just like the Age.

    Notice how they also tried to frame Newscorp! That is hilariously adventurous and imaginative reporting. A total give-away. It could only have been a Fairfax reporter.

    It was a youth mag with dopey religious ideas, and no worse than secular youth mags, and any number of magazines on the racks that talk about sex, drugs and rock’n’roll that teens have access to.

    Just because you, in your secular, liberal angst, don’t approve of their non-politically correct information and advice doesn’t make them any more ‘disgusting’ than some of the ideas you come up with.

    And Access denied knowing about it yet apologised anyway, s it wasn’t a deliberate act on their part, probably just an innocent attempt at righting a perceived shortfall by a volunteer.

    You’ve probably said worse on these ‘Christian’ pages yourself, if the truth be known.

    A massive beat-up about an issue which was dealt with amicably by the school Principal and Access.

    What question haven’t I answered? And why should I answer any question? Do you always answer questions?

  69. Okay, I don’t know this literature at all, but does it actually say that revealing clothes invite assault?

    As for sex before marriage being sin, the Catholic church teaches that and so do many Christians.

    In an age where teenagers are taught that pornography is okay, sexual activity is okay “when you feel ready” (is that really good advice?), and Miley Cyrus acts like a stripper on stage and simulates masturbation and oral sex in her songs, is it really the end of the world and an outrage for students to hear an alternative view?

    I know plenty of non-church going people (including men who tried sleeping with as many women as possible for as young as possible), who wouldn’t mind at all having their daughters exposed to advice about dressing modestly and putting off sex.

    And who are the people who are outraged? Wouldn’t be surprised if its a few militant atheists and some militant ex-Christians.

    Look on the web its usually ex-christians and rabid Calvinists who froth at the mouth at other Christians.

  70. I agree, this is started by a few people who are getting far too many kicks being outraged at something that isnt that big of a deal.

    Then picked up by Fairfax because they know they can stir up a bit more outrage in the Eastern suburbs,

    I think it would be a shame if the Chaplain program got hounded out of the schools. The kids have a lot to deal with these days – there is a lot more depression, anxiety, eating disorders – and the psychs don’t know why and havent got any answers.

    I think some message of modesty and restraint wouldnt go astray against all of the other pressures of being sexy and skinny.

  71. Wow. is that really you Wazza?

    Like I said I haven’t read the whole thing, but I wonder if

    ” “your nipples are much more noticeable and a distraction and temptation for men”, and not to wear tube tops and low-rise jeans because men are “sexually stimulated by what they see”. “The Bible says not to cause anyone else to sin. Are you putting sexual thoughts about your body into guys’ heads? If you are showing a lot of skin you probably are,”

    was exaggerated into

    “claiming girls who wear revealing clothes are inviting sexual assault”

    Which is completely different. I understand that saying homosexuality is a sin would outrage some people, but on the other hand, telling young people “not to act on their homosexuality”,
    might be good advice for a while. You can’t erase sexual experiences.

    But the main point is – we’ve had 4 or 5 decades of telling young girls to “wait until you are really in love”, or “you’ll just KNOW when it’s time to have sex” etc.

    But there are a lot of people who look back and realise that they weren’t really in love, and they really had no idea about whether it was right or not.

    The great irony of life is that the same men who are boast about all their conquests turn into fathers who are strict with their daughters.

    And it’s interesting. We spend so much time trying to convince people that 17yr olds are so mature and can have sex, and make decisions about sexual behaviour that can affect their futures, and we think they are mature enough to handle sex, and language, and can make decisions about what to watch…….but then someone comes along with some old fashion morality (or common sense) and all hell breaks loose because the poor teenagers will be psychologically damaged.

    Maybe the graduating class can be at the stage where they can just think. “Okay, the ex ed people said if we have sex to use protections and that this and that is okay……but some religious people have other ideas”.

    Come to think of it, when I was 17 I knew that Catholics thought contraception was sin, and other stuff. I also knew that some people thought bikinis were bad.

    And i turned out okay.

    Well, until recently.

  72. “I think some message of modesty and restraint wouldnt go astray against all of the other pressures of being sexy and skinny.”

    I think Wazza has been born again!

  73. Agree with wazza, and a well expressed opinion by Q.

    A few years back I took a couple of classes of nine to eleven year olds for an approved RI class, and couldn’t help but notice a sign on the window which advocated safe sex using condoms. To nine to eleven year olds! Why not just promote marriage and family and sound relationships.

    The session was on agapé love, but every time I said the word ‘love’, most of the children would snicker, which was interesting, so I asked them why, and they let me know, in their terms, that their understanding of ‘love’ was, in fact, kissing, snogging and the sex act. That’s where society has taken children. It gave me a great opportunity to talk to them about what love actually is.

    Why would it hurt to have an alternative solution to the problems youth have with peer pressure and sexuality which didn’t involve promoting promiscuity?

  74. I don’t have a problem with the modesty and restraint…it’s the putting into girls heads that they are responsible for the thoughts in men’s heads! That’s just bullshit! In no way shape or form is anyone responsible for the thoughts in my head other than me!

  75. They aren’t responsible for the thoughts in mens heads. Exactly. But there’s still such a thing as common sense.

    I believe with all my heart that a woman should be able to walk through a park at night in a bikini and not get raped. But I think she should think first about whether it’s a good idea.
    But if she was assaulted the man is wrong.

    Walking through a poor area with money dripping out of your pockets is also not wrong. Anyone who robs you is wrong and is responsible for their thoughts and actions.

    But, it’s common sense.

    Well, it used to be. And I would be telling my daughters that wearing skimpy clothes that years back only a prostitute would wear, is being immodest.

    But yeah. I don’t think it’s wrong at all to tell a girl that she isn’t helping Christians boyfriends out by wearing revealing clothing.

    That isn’t a cause for outrage.

    I’m continually amazed at what outrages people these days. For all the people getting beaten up, killed, raped. But the thing that outrages people and gets them posting blogs is advice to teenagers about being careful with sex.

    You can tell kids these days how to have great oral and anal sex, and how to explore their sexuality -hetero or gay, and that’s great.

    But a church giving advice from a religious/moral viewpoint and people act like Hitler’s in town.

  76. “As for sex before marriage being sin, the Catholic church teaches that and so do many Christians.”

    It isn’t, neither is wanking nor homosexuality.

    God’s not interested in what you’re doing with your sex organs.

    Teach that in your independent and Catholic schools.

    Leave your indoctrination out of secular schools.

    I’d have binned this and complained about it.

    Victoria’s Education Department has launched an investigation into what it calls “inappropriate and offensive” religious material distributed at a primary school.

    The ABC understands religious educators handed out material at Torquay College last year that instructed children to seek counselling if they had homosexual feelings.

    The material also claims that girls who wear revealing clothes are inviting sexual assault and that masturbation and sex before marriage are sinful.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-23/biblezine-complaint-sparks-probe-into-religious-educator/5277766

    I think secularists need to start handing out material to religious people.

  77. But a church giving advice from a religious/moral viewpoint and people act like Hitler’s in town.

    Like screwing kids?

    The church does not have a moral mandate.

    Maybe you haven’t noticed.

  78. And once again for the record, I don’t think masturbation is a sin. I don’t think having feelings of same-sex romantic/sexual attraction is sin.

    I also realise that it is almost impossible in this time in history to not be sexual with anyone until marriage – esp if you have serious relationships.

    But, there are worse things in life than being a virgin when you marry. And even if masturbation isn’t a sin, boys spending hours watching porn is a recipe for disaster.
    Seriously, it’s not like Happy Days when they talked about first or second base.

    This article made me think though. If one reason why this was so bad is that it is absolutely wrong and psychologically damaging to teenagers to teach that homosexual sex or pre-marital sex shouldn’t be acted on, then maybe once all such content is banned from schools then people will be arguing that churches are dangerous.

    Or maybe that parents are abusive to their own children to teach such “dangerous” material to teenagers when they are so “vulnerable”.

    I can understand why people want to keep religion out of public schools. But if it’s really the CONTENT of teaching on sexuality is so damaging, wait for 20 years time when people start complaining about churches teaching “misguided” information to teenagers.

    But like I said. I’d be interested to know just how many parents were really outraged.

    So many angry people these days about the wrong things.

    Next they’ll be fuming about the injustice of kids singing Christmas carols in school.

    Nah, that won’t ever happen…

  79. We have a paranoia about sin like God is offended by it and will punish us for it.

    Christians sin every day. God gets over it. No big deal.

    People are a bit over being called sinners.

  80. “Like screwing kids?
    The church does not have a moral mandate.
    Maybe you haven’t noticed.”

    No, see that’s where you are mixed up and have fallen for the bait. Or actually, you are the one scheming.

    It’s like this. People who hate the church want to totally silence the church by continually bringing up as many sins in the church as they can. It’s simple. It’s the “Groupsects Method”.

    Just keep talking about failings of ministers. Then you say “See, they aren’t allowed to say anything”.

    But it’s ridiculous. You may as well distribute the failings of teachers to students around Australia and tell them they don’t have to do anything the teachers tell them because teachers come late, smoke, some of them molest students.

    And tell the citizenry to not listen to anything ANY policeman says because if you like I could do a website about corrupt cops.

    And maybe Bones kids can just not bother coming home at night, because I’m sure they can find failings with you too.

    Thus, no parent who has ever smoked, drank, slept before marriage, looked at porn, sworn, will ever be able to advise against the above.

    No. Regardless of the fact that Christians, and Christian leaders sin, that doesn’t mean that Christian teaching is wrong, or that Christian leaders need to be silenced.

    In fact I’ll go further. It’s just falling in line with the “accuser of the brethren”.

    It’s a devilish trap. “Who are you to do this or say this or try this after you’ve failed”.

    In my town several cops got caught for taking photos of ladies as they walked up the elevator.
    Terrible. So what does it mean. Did people think that nobody should ever listen to a policeman? That it’s okay now for all the men to take photos?

    No. All it mean is….wait for it …several cops did the wrong thing.

    If I found out tomorrow that the Pope or Billy Graham molested someone, it wouldn’t stop me from advising my kids or anyone who would listen that molesting, or porn, or sleeping around is not a good thing.

    But, the church needs to get its act in order. And remember that in order to justify their lifestyles many ex-Christians, and others will be publishing the sins of Christian leaders as much as possible.

    Another reason to tell kids to not “act on their homosexual feelings”. Why? Because if a man does something with another man, 20 years later some gay guy will try to “out” him, or use his past to attack and accuse him of having no “Moral authority”.

    Everyone wants to tell other people it’s okay to do anything. But just remember that they also want to use everything against you later.

    So, kids are better putting off sexual activity until they are married. It’s not such a destructive idea.

    I still haven’t met many men who are outraged and disappointed that the woman they marry is a virgin. (And there’s no double standard with me”. I don’t think there are many women who would call off a wedding if they realised the man they were about to marry was a virgin either.

    People will laugh at that, deride people like that, and i think they even made a movie about it.

    99 people will tell you to sin and do what feels good “as long as it isn’t hurting anyone”, but nobody really knows what hurts people.

    Thousands of years of Biblical teaching and moral teaching from other cultures and religion just might have something worth saying to young people who are mostly listening to peers and people just a few years older.

    But go ahead Bones and Greg. If you can’t mad about some Christians each day you probably won’t be able to sleep well.

  81. “We have a paranoia about sin like God is offended by it and will punish us for it.
    Christians sin every day. God gets over it. No big deal.
    People are a bit over being called sinners.”

    You’ve totally missed the point, but instead built a monster straw man again.

    Nobody is paranoid. We all know that Christians sin. Sin is a big deal, but we know that God forgives us. But if sin is sin, then ….there’s is nothing wrong with telling people to avoid it, and give advice about how to avoid it.

    The magazine in question wasn’t calling people sinners. If teaching morality is “calling people sinners” then nobody can ever teach anything.

    My kids have lied. I’m not paranoid over it and I get over it, and I don’t call them sinners. But I teach them that lying is not good and why.

    “People are over being called sinners?” Who is calling anyone a sinner?

    And what do you know about God? You sound like you don’t believe in God anyway.
    What does it matter what you think about whether God gets over it – and how do you know he does. I don’t think guy Hutchins thinks God gets over it or doesn’t get over it.

    Anyway, f there were no God – there would still be a place for teaching morality.

    I know plenty of people who don’t believe in God – at least not the western God who decides what is righteous or not. They even believe in evolution!! They would argue that we are just animals.

    But, they don’t participate in orgies,they think people having sex in parks is wrong, and think society is better when women don’t dress like prostitutes. Some of them even tell their daughters not to sleep with men until they are married. Heaven forbid!

    Strange. The Shinto family I know don’t want their daughters going braless or wearing sexy clothes either. They’d probably like that magazine that was given out.

    But. a christian group says something that lots of Buddhists, Confucianists, Shintoists, atheists, and agnostic friends of mine say, and Bones has a heart attack and goes on the warpath again saying that no Christians can say anything because there are bad priests and ministers. (remember, in 50 years time there will be priests, and ministers and lay people who steal and lie and hate – it won’t make stealing, lying and hating okay, and it shouldn’t mean that nobody in any churches can’t make statements about stealing and lying)

    Ex-christians are weird people. The non-theists I know said Christians worshipping in the nude was ridiculous. They think moral training is beneficial for young people, and are against gay marriage.

    Bones on the other hand is for gay marriage and thinks it’s theologically sound to worship in the nude.

    Western civilisation hasn’t completely died, but it’s on life support and the rebel nurses are trying to poison it.

    I can get on with just about anyone – except ex-Christian liberals, and hard-core Calvinists.

    Strange.

  82. No.

    It’s the church going around telling others how to live when it can’t even control itself. The paedophiles I know were moral conservatives. Bizarre that!

    It’s called hypocrisy.

    The term ‘sin’ is also only relevant to Christians.

    And maybe Bones kids can just not bother coming home at night, because I’m sure they can find failings with you too.

    I do have failings. But I don’t screw my kids.

    Another reason to tell kids to not “act on their homosexual feelings”. Why? Because if a man does something with another man, 20 years later some gay guy will try to “out” him, or use his past to attack and accuse him of having no “Moral authority”.

    Wow. Really.

    You’d better go back to your gays are going to hell argument because that made more sense.

  83. “It’s the church going around telling others how to live when it can’t even control itself.”

    You missed my whole point. A school can have rules, even if one teacher breaks a rule.

    What is “the church”? Are you saying that because some people in some denominations have been found guilty of child sex abuse, that nobody in a church can give advice on morals? That’s completely absurd – for the reasons I gave.

    People in many churches teach that child sex abuse is wrong, and evil. If someone somewhere in a church, abuses a child, it’s wrong.

    Which church are you talking about? The Catholics, Hillsong?

    So are any Catholic priests ever going to be able to preach anywhere that feeing the poor is good? Or not. There are Catholic priests who lived in luxury and never fed the poor.

    “The term ‘sin’ is also only relevant to Christians.”

    Sure. Other people use simpler words. Whether it’s “Morally wrong”, or “bad”.

    But you’re getting into a weird area. There are many words for “sin” in different languages. Most bibles in foreign languages have a word for sin that comes out of that language before there was any christian influence.

    “I do have failings. But I don’t screw my kids.”

    Great. I don’t either. I don’t know anyone personally who does either. If you want to say you are much better than Father xYZ who screwed kids, I agree.

    But if you’ve looked at porn or done drugs, and have decided that both of them are better off being avoided, then I think it’s quite okay for you to tell your kids so.

    “Wow. Really.”

    Yes really.

    “You’d better go back to your gays are going to hell argument”

    Bones, you are the most obnoxious, contentious, abusive person I’ve ever encountered on the internet.

    When did I tell you that gays are going to hell?

    If you can find it, then let me know. If you can’t than you should quite your slanderous lies.

    I even said a few posts back that I didn’t think that same-sex romantic/sexual attraction was sin.

    Think before you type. You’re just being silly.

  84. So I take it according to you Access Ministries didn’t have to apologise.

    Storm in a teacup.

    Btw from the Mag Refuel 2

    Q. I have known for a long time that I am gay, but I know the Bible says it is wrong. Still, I can’t make these feelings go away. What can I do?

    A. The Bible is very clear that homosexuality is a sin. Some people’s gay feelings never go away, but you can chose not to act on them. Still, this is very serious. You need to find a trusted counsellor to talk about this issue right away.

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/children-do-not-deserve-this-kind-of-religious-instruction-20140222-3391k.html#ixzz2uF7RikXI

  85. Oh, so now every Christian is a pedophile because some pervert infiltrates the church and becomes a priest.

    And sin, you claim, is no longer an issue. As Q said, tell that to the other religious groups. You’ll be telling your sins and daughters they can do what they like with their bodies when they reach 16, then, and can sleep with whoever they like, because you don’t have the right to warn them about the problems with promiscuity.

    I used to defend you from those who called you a hater of Christians, Bones, but I no longer have the will.

  86. “Sin is a big deal,
    To you it is.
    I’m not fussed by your sins.”

    Okay, I don’t particularly care whether you are fussed by my sins or not. Completely immaterial.

    Sin is a big deal to Christians. You are an ex-Christian atheist by the sounds of what you post. So, I understand that you aren’t interested in using the word sin. That’s fine. But Christians believe in God, and believe that there is such a thing as sin.

    But in my initial posts, are hardly used the word sin anyway.

    All I said was that in a world where there is so much encouragement for everyone to be active sexually from a young age, I think presenting an opposing view (albeit in some magazine given out once) should not be such a cause for outrage.

    If you like, I won’t use the word sin again. But without ever mentioning it, I can tell you good reasons why young people would be better off not using porn, or becoming active sexually.
    And if you like your daughters can throw away their bras and sleep around up in Bundi there, but I think there’s a better way.

    Each to his own. But no need to blow a gasket over some Christian magazines in a school.

    But, rage away if it makes you feel better…

Comments are closed.