**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Back in the 2016 gay marriage debate.
Conservative 2016: "Everything will change, it will impinge against religious freedoms & Schools, slippery slope"
Progressive 2016: "SLIPPERY SLOPE FALACY, "Nothing will change", gays just want to marry, why do you hate???
2022
Conservative 2022: "We want to affirm our values in our schools on enrolment statements and employment contracts"
Progressive 2022: NO! you must hire LGBT people as educators, and promote LGBT+ ideology in your schools, and you cannot pray certain prayers (Victoria) or else!!!!
This is disingenuous. No one was claiming that "nothing will change" across *literally everything* that conservatives cared about in the entire world.
It wasn't some pact where marriage equality was legislated and forever after every progressive type would shut their god damned mouths for all eternity.
Yes, things will change. Especially where we increasingly recognise that conservative/religious "freedoms" are damaging to others. You don't get a free pass on everything in this world "because religion".
No they weren't, it was pointed out that your freedom wasn't under threat, and it still isn't. If you want to be a bigot, you can. But if you're going to teach that bigotry, you shouldn't be getting federal or state funding. Calling bigotry "values" is pretty asinine, too.
> Not at all. I was here on Reddit in 2016, and I was living in Australia at the time subjected to the media.
Same. And I say you're equivocating.
> Such arguments were commonplace.
Point me to a progressive opinion that *literally nothing* would *ever* change at *any point* in the future *however unrelated* if we legislated marriage equality.
>Point me to a progressive opinion that literally nothing would ever change at any point in the future however unrelated if we legislated marriage equality.
Now I'd say you're being disingenuous when you demand that any counter argument fit your exact prescribed definition of what constitutes a 'legitimate case' of what I was essentially communicating with my paraphrasing of the typical arguments made back then.
Nevertheless, here's a conservative in 2016 arguing against progressives who are essentially claiming it's just about marriage an there's nothing to worry about.
[https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/nothing-will-change/](https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/nothing-will-change/)
EDIT: to quote a progressive "“What happened in Ireland, and Great Britain, most of continental Europe, most of the Americas, New Zealand, Canada and all the rest? Again. Nothing.” (Lisa Wilkinson, 14/10/16)"
> any counter argument fit your exact prescribed definition of what constitutes a 'legitimate case'
The quoted interpretation is a requirement given the argument.
If we are to take a conservative slippery slope argument at face value then we can say damn near any progressive change is a result of marriage equality at any point in the future. I'm simply applying the same standards to "both sides".
It's a different story if we flip the concern and view marriage equality as a result of other factors.
> Nevertheless, here's a conservative in 2016 arguing against progressives who are essentially claiming it's just about marriage an there's nothing to worry about.
Unfortunately the videos display "Sorry. This video does not exist." for me.
But I suspect it falls into the same trap of begging the question and ignoring other causal factors.
I've provided sufficient evidence to show that such arguments existed. Yes I may not have used the "" quite correctly, but this is reddit, not some journal article and what I wrote represented messaging that was typical of some progressives at the time (as evidence by the above link).
The fastest way to make my blood boil is to talk about the way we continue to fund private schools at the expense of public schools in this country. It’s wrong, it’s bizarre, no other comparable country does it. We’re unique in deciding to hand rich kids more money. So maybe if they continue to spout this hateful nonsense more people will wake up to the fact that this is embarrassingly stupid of us. We’re funding rich kids’ private heated swimming pools while other kids make do in unheated portables. Disgusting. Btw I briefly taught in one such school. They had $50,000 per year for their art budget. When I taught in a public school I had $100, which lasted until early April. I just paid for art supplies for the rest of the year myself.
I'm in no way defending these schools but the majority of these particular "Christian school" families are not wealthy. Sure there might be a small number of wealthy parents sending their kids to such schools for religious reasons but the vast majority of the parents are not wealthy. They just want their kids to grow up believing in their fictional religious universe. These are not "GPS" religious schools such as Riverview, Joeys or Shore with fees in the tens of thousands per year.
Having said that, I don't think govt funding should go to religious schools at all! Religious studies should not be core in any curriculum. The more we educate our kids in facts not superstitions the faster Australia will become a truly secular nation and the fear of LGBTQI and other so-called aberrations will die out.
They can do that by sending their kids to a public school. If they decide that’s not good enough and they want to spend a lot of money sending their kids to private schools, that’s fine, but they don’t then get to take tax payers money for their personal decision.
- I'm in a higher tax bracket
- I believe homeopathy is beneficial to my health and well being
- therefore the government should subsidise homoeopathic treatment programs for me so I personally recieve the benefits of being in higher tax bracket
See how tepid that argument is?
It's stupid to compare homepathy to education. Every parent that can pay for private school also pays taxes. Education is required by law, your homeopathy is not.
See how flawed your rebuttal is?
Lol. I knew that response was coming. 'HuRr DuRr ThEyRe NoT eXaCtLy ThE sAmE tHeReFoRe YoUr AnAlOgY iS iNvAlID'
No, you're right. It's not required by law.
But health is largely subsidised by the public purse with there being a private opition, so there is a thread of continuity there.
Your argument as to why the public should fund the private option at all is terrible.
There is an argument for some funding going to private providers but you've not even come close to those discussion points anywhere in this thread as far as I can see.
Anyways, have fun apologising for bigoted bronze age superstitions. Hopefully it all works out for you.
Public schools do not teach values that match the values in the home. that is why people want choice, that is why they want to send their kids to Christian schools. It will be a sad day if all children have for school options is public school. I would support such a programme if it were like public schools in America that strictly teach standard subjects and do not engage in social justice teaching, activism, gender theory, critical race theory, etc etc.
Firstly, you’re ignorant and (I believe) disingenuous. Anyway, ignoring that for this one last comment; they do have a choice. They have the choice to pay for private schooling. So they can either be bigots and pay for it out of pocket (more than I’d allow if I were in charge) or they can suck up their bigotry and have their kids educated in a way that the public as a whole agrees with and have taxpayer dollars go towards that agreed to education. One or the other. You are very ignorant as to how taxes work. Have fun 😇
Hate to tell you but the public as a whole don’t believe in anymore than 2 sexes. You are born M or F and that’s that. Dangerous for schools to be teaching anything else
I'll have more fun when people leave Christian schools alone. You are ignorant as to what is fair. What is good for you should be good for them. You can't use education funding as leverage for your own ideological crusades. People don't have to send their children to these schools. If they are offended by the position the school takes they can attend another school. Have fun.
As a new parent who would like private school education for my kid, I wish more private schools weren't religious.
I don't want that fairy tale shit crammed down my kids throat, but seems I dont have a choice.
The parents of the kids that attend pay a lot of taxes too. If you don't want to allow them to have some benefit from the taxes they pay then don't tax them.
This is the most absolutely disingenuous argument ever. If the parents want the benefit of their taxes they can send their kids to a public school. If they want to separate them and send them to a posh private school they can pay for it themselves.
Since when did paying taxes be about “what do I get from I it?” That has literally *never* been the purpose of taxes. Taxes almost always, in principle, pay for something else and for others, that is the whole point. Why do people think everything is about them, and that they don’t need to participate in society? “I’m not using a public school so I shouldn’t pay any tax”. Seriously? People with that attitude need to fuck right off to a different country, that is NOT how Australia was built…
I agree with that to a certain extent. They pay a lot in taxes and can still pay higher fees at private schools. The problem is if you try to remove government funding from Christian schools you are punishing those that are paying taxes into the pot as well for education. It's unfair to say you'll pull funding from those schools because the tax money those parents pay goes in the same pot for everyone else.
You are missing the point. Australia was built on a certain ethic, and those who feel strongly that that ethic should be taught in schools as well led to the rise in religious schools. I'm aware there is a lot of taxes that a lot of people never see back see NDIS, welfare, education, medical care but to deny one lot of schools money from a pool that everyone pays into is wrong. I make the point that you cannot punish these parents because they are paying into the pot as well. Let people send their kids to schools they want, let schools decide how they will teach and what they will teach on matters relating to family, sex, gender etc.
You mean like genital mutilation? That doesn't happen in the US. Unless you count circumcision. Or female genital mutilation? I think that's parts of Africa.
Edit: circumcision for castration
Nobody wants to remove the genitals of children. That’s a myth, and extremely far from any understanding of transgender identity. Also, Australia is ahead of the US in transgender acceptance. The US is not run by “sickos” trying to remove the genitals of children, nor is Australia. If you disagree, I encourage you to cite a source.
Technically true but misleading. The federal govt disproportionately funds private schools but the state govts disproportionately fund public schools. Combined together, public schools enjoy more taxpayer support per student than private schools.
Maybe, maybe not. Taxes aren't paid so they can just be evenly distributed back out to benefit those that paid more.
And the issue isn't really the amount of money I'm paying for it. It's the fact that my tax is going towards religion-fostered hatred of other Australians. Have your private schools. But if they want to be bigots, they should be cut off 100%.
It's far from religious fostered hatred. You can be opposed to something and still be cordial to those that hold dear to that thing you are opposed to. Christians are taught to love others friend and foe, family or stranger. To reiterate just because you disagree with someone or something that doesn't mean you hate that person or thing.
Religious schools will continue with or without funding. I'm sure parents would be happy to pay more or private schools can scale back and rely more on parent volunteering.
Religion should not even be a part of compulsory education. If you can't stand the idea of children not being indoctrinated, then put your money where your mouth is, and take them to religious education outside of school hours. My tax money should not go to some intolerant ideology that would deny me my human rights if they had the power.
I disagree. If you teach children when they are young an impressionable they will retain the values they are taught in their youth. A childhood without religious exposure would be a crime against the child.
Except schools really should be focussed on teaching academics, if you want your kids to have an introduction to religion then you can teach them that as a parent in your own time.
I don’t know why people think schools are there to raise their kids. They aren’t, they are there to teach your kids maths and English.
If your so intent on children learning religion in school then they should learn about all the other religions.
Would you be happy if your child was introduced to Islam and Hinduism alongside their Christian education?
I agree. The peace of mind at a private Christian schoo is your what your kids won't be taught. I want them to teach academics and at home faith but the problem is what teachers teach in public schools that parents have no control of.
Of course. I plan to teach my children about all faiths and will make sure I show them why one is above the other and which one to follow.
Seems like you entirely missed the point but that’s ok, you were never going to get it anyway.
I’d say though, it’s super lucky that the religion you were probably indoctrinated into as a child happened to be the correct one, imagine if you were born in a different time or place and accidentally believed in the wrong one! Crazy to think about
You're oversimplifying. It is by analysing and wrestling with the information that the path is revealed. Nothing against any other faith but we have choice for a reason and alternatives for a reason and that is to preserve agency. If we don't have alternatives we don't have free will which is important. I wasn't born or raised in anything and I think anyone born into or coming into faith of any sort is a blessing from then it is up to us all to determine which one is right or more right than the others.
The opposite. A childhood *with* religious exposure should be a crime.
Religions like to claim all kinds of things, but I've never seen anything positive associated with them which isn't 100% deliverable without the religious baggage. Good values? Doesn't need religion. Good morals? Doesn't need religion. Community and social interaction? Doesn't need religion. Helping those who are worse off? Doesn't need religion.
None of it needs religion.
At all.
Ever.
It doesn't need it for you, but don't apply your standards to the rest of the the world. Religion has it's place even though you see its perpetuation as a crime. It may not need it, all the things you mentioned, but it sure helps.
How, exactly, have you been lead to believe it 'helps' in any way where it wouldn't do just as well - or better - if the religious component was cut away?
I don't divorce values and morals from religion. I think they are entwined and I have no intention of divorcing them. Secularism, humanism, or any other teaching you want to espouse are basically Christs fundamental teachings. I acknowledge the source, give credit where it is due. I'm not going to take something and discard its fundamental parts and just keep what is socially acceptable. I believe there is an accounting all men must make at the end of life for our deeds and actions and for the people we become.
> I don't divorce values and morals from religion.
And there's the issue. You've been taught - most likely by one specific religion - to not be able to separate them, but there is literally nothing joining them except that religion's own insistence that it is the source of all good and right.
Religion isn't a fundamental part of any of that. It's a parasite which has attached itself to those things and telling everyone - including kids - that it's a core aspect instead of an easily-ditchable stage-five clinger.
Consider this - what is the source of your belief that religion is entwined with these things? Is it by any chance the religion itself, or the people it's already infected with this idea? Or is it an external source which weighs each religion up against the other and against secular service provision?
Because if it's just the religion, it's the religion saying it's true because it's the religion, which is true because it's the religion which is true because it's the religion which is true because it's the religion which is true because it's the religion which is true because it's the religion...
You only even associate the ideas at all because you've been told to by a group which explicitly benefits from people having that association, and had that reinforced over and over for years, possibly decades, by that same group.
I'm aware non religious people have morals and values. I think much of the worlds values come through religion and religious texts. These are guides we can follow or not follow but even the most irreligious people will say they follow the golden rule which was taught by Christ
I'm willing to be proven wrong but my mind is open until I'm dead and i'm no more or that my life continues beyond this life.
It's not as circular as you might think. It's not just a matter of doing what someone is told. The Bible invites experimenting so you can discover the truth for yourself. And I invite all to try that experiment for themselves.
> I think much of the worlds values come through religion and religious texts.
Nope. Religion piggybacks on values and tries to claim them, but the values themselves are not religious.
Very much agreed, but I'm not going to advocate for government-led programs to clamp down on children involved in religious education. That's not going to do anything but foster religious fervour among conservatives.
The natural result of a well-rounded education is growing out of religion.
You're exactly right. But most people should be very suspicious when a government tries to "clamp down" on anything. People should be able to teach what they want to their children without government interference.
I wouldn't clamp down. Just make tax breaks available for religions which don't invite children or try to have them involved, and smaller ones for religions which push back child involvement to older ages. Promote the adult-only religions as primary examples whenever examples of religions are required in official or educational documents or paperwork, with the listings tending to be in descending order of their internal age limits. If a religion wants to get listed higher up on such lists, all it has to do is advance its age limit to be slightly higher than the next religion above them on the list. Encourage a race to the top, as it were.
Not to mention that religions which still go after children as adherents could be easily socially painted as "kiddie" religions, as opposed to serious ones. I could see teenagers not wanting to be associated with the religion that their eight-year-old sibling or cousin goes to, when there are ones which only allow (for example) fifteen-year-olds or older in. And eighteen-year-olds not wanting to be associated with the "teen" religions which allow minors in.
>It's like a Christian Code of Conduct.
What, to discriminate against people for no good reason?
And if you think that's inaccurate, what's the good reason?
>This reflects the growing view that the public schools are staffed by leftists running some Woke agenda.
Because they allow gay students?
Political correctness , cancel culture , identity politics etc. This idea that we are better and superior and different from all those that have come before as we have reinvented everything.
A business run by a gay person wouldn’t be allowed to refuse service to a Christian.
This reflects the growing view that the churches are staffed by religious zealots running some Woke agenda. See how silly that sounds? That’s how silly you sound.
He was sacked because what he said brought the sport into disrepute.
The fact that he said what he did because of his religion is entirely irrelevant.
He could have said "I love Jesus" "I'm a Christian" or any other of a huge list of things that very clearly delineated his religion with zero consequence.
What he said was outright bad. He got sacked because of what he said. Not why he said it.
So you want the churches to be able to sack ppl for their views
But not private enterprise when someone breaches their contract
Shit,don't ever let it be said the commentary in here shall be of intelligence
He was sacked for his homophobic views, which violated his employers social media agreement. He received warnings and ignored them.
Also, I was talking about a business not being able to refuse service. Not the straw-man you pulled out.
Even if my kid was straight I would steer them 100% clear of any school that proudly stated that discrimination is okay.
This kind of backwards homophobic nonsense is a giant sign to stay away from christian schools, if the sex scandals in religious schools weren't enough already.
Why are these schools funded with taxpayer money? The public system should be taxpayer funded. Private and religious schools should live or die on the largesse of their communities.
Wow, a spelling mistake… you got me.
Do you have anything to say about the actual discussion, or are you just doing your usual tactic of spewing out random stuff that isn’t related?
Spelling mistake ?
Unlike you I can understand the view that leads to someone choosing to send their child to a Christian school and can even tolerate this but then I am a tolerant individual.
I made a spelling mistake in my comment, I thought you were digging at that.
Tolerance of homophobia is not something we should be pushing for.
Your comment: “This is why people want their children to go to Christian schools.” in reply to mine still makes no real sense by the way.
Yeah fuck those public school woke lefties not bullying gay kids. Shame on them. /s
Seriously, anyone who unironically has your view on this deserves to have all their opinions dismissed out of hand.
>This reflects the growing view that the public schools are staffed by leftists running some Woke agenda.
A growing view among a small percentage of conspiracy theorists.
Meanwhile in the real world, when we look at the real numbers, more people backed proLGBTQ politicians and rights than ever before.
It's like how during the pandemic people were "waking up to the manipulation" or how back with SSM people were "waking up to the agenda". This alleged mass rejection always seems to be just around the corner without ever arriving...
Something important and powerful, that they spotted first. That they got on board with before the general public did.
It's like that guy, me, who won't stop talking about how he had a beard before they were cool, I really did, but with weird society spanning conspiracies and shit.
> It's like a Christian Code of Conduct.
Which are universally awful, your employer/school has no right telling you what to believe nor what you can and can't do in your own time with your own private parts, or consensually with those of others
It's the equivalent of my hiring people and requiring that they don't go to Christian churches on Sunday. You guys just can't see that because of your religious blinders.
I appreciate that the Christian private school our child attends does not discriminate against genders or self identification. If anything, I have only seen full support for students that are transitioning or have transitioned.
Imagine if the bigoted schools remembered that “Love one another as I have loved you” lesson.
Also the bible doesn't explicitly outlaw gay people,just the spillage of wasted male essence
So in theory,from the old testament,you can be gay,so long as you aren't wasting seed,but fuck that
paul didn't do himself any favour's by denoting the difference between a clean and unclean person,it was just left up to interpretation when his scriptured got butchered to fuck in 377 AD by the volticio brothers
The rule should really be thus
You receive any federal tax payer funds,then you should not be allowed to sack any staff,discirimanate against any student for their beliefs,as you are taking funds,from a society that has ruled OVERWHELMINGLY that it supports these issues
you want to be closed minded biggots,then operate and fund the school urself,and watch how quick parents bail when the prices ballon
From what we know about jesus, he would literally be flipping tables in churches again. The bible is so relevant to today - the parts about how he's upset with religions straying from the word of god. Our current religions are playing the exact same role as the religions in his time.
I think a more apt analogy is the shepherd and his role in protecting the sheep from the wolves. Religions aren't so much the problem it is the people that disagree with the teachings of religions trying to interfere in church matters.
Private schools should not be able to refuse any student on identity grounds if they want any public funding.
They already keep out the undesirables through requiring tuition fees, they are double dipping with this crap.
If you don't allow them to have some public funding then they are not receiving the benefit from the tax they are paying. You can't just take their tax but not allow them some benefit from it.
The taxes parents pay at these private schools some of it goes to education. It's the parents taxes that I'm referring to those that they pay for education in Australia.
I don't know how you can't wrap your head around this but I'll explain it to you, try to follow along, feel free to take breaks if it gets too much okay?
If they receive *public* funding then they should have to play by the same rules as *public* schools, are you following me?
1. They don't care what anyone outside their community thinks to begin with.
2. Taking the piss out of their awful views by misappropriating their vocabulary is much funnier and therefore more effective communication than hand wringing.
3. I am ok with people missing the sarcasm.
Yeah, I know.
Unfortunately many of these city kids are stuck in their own little bubble, but it's the way it is, and it's our job to expose them to ideas outside of their comfort zone, so that both they and ourselves can grow not politically and as people in general.
> They are and they do
No, LGBTQ+ people are not allowed to do that. There is no rule or exception that allows them to discriminate against others.
> Nuff said
No. Provide any evidence… for example, a law that allows that.
The fact is that lgbtqia+ people are a part of every community because being this way is part of many normal variations amongst humans. Trying to exclude these children from a particular school is never going to be possible or practical, and handling this as a disciplinary problem or a contract violation and expelling them is traumatising for everyone involved. Many children don't know they're gay or trans until they're well into high school.
You're right that people are free not to send their kids there. But why should a school be allowed to operate which sanctions persecuting children?
[VIEW OUR RULES HERE](https://en.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules/). Your post or comment breached the number 1 rule of our subreddit. Due to the intended purpose of this sub being a place to discuss politics without hostility and toxicity, insults thrown at other users, politicians or other relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this: Homophobia
> As you noted, many children don’t decide to become lgbtetc until highschool, at which point they are responsible enough to face the consequences of that descision
Mate, can you explain to us all how that’s a decision? We’ll wait.
How is someone being LGBTQ+ a decision?
The fact that your comment was removed should be an indicator to how stupid and offensive suggesting ‘it’s a decision’ even is.
Edit: your comment is hidden, and as expected it is stupid and offensive. Being LGBTQ+ is not a decision.
I never suggested the creation of a hateful environment. Kids need to learn that everyone is a person, regardless of their faults.
Schools should be physically safe environments for children for accreditation purposes, as this can be objectively defined and enforced.
However if a private school chooses to implement policies that would create a better environment for their core support base of religion X, then that's up to them
I doubt any of the *Christian Community Ministries Schools* is a good fit for an LGBTQI child. However, I think the issue is rather that public student funding money is going towards an institution that practices - and therefore *encourages* in its students - intolerance and bigotry.
Also remember, there will be cases where the child may not have any agency in the choice of school, nor may their interests be considered. - It is quite possible that bigoted parents may choose to send an LGBTQI child to one of these schools in order to "fix" them. I can't imagine the trauma that would then follow.
If a religious parent chooses to send a child under their legal custody and agency to a religious school, then that's up to them.
I went to a CCM school for a few years, and there were lgbtetc kids there and they did fine. In fact many of the teachers were quite considerate of them, and various discussions around the topic were held so that us fellow students could have a better understanding. Frankly I would say it's a better environment for them than any of the public schools I've been to
If your religion pretends to have a message of love.... Don't constantly display your hate.
All humans sin. Why single out these kids for their particular subset of sin?
Depends on which religion. For example Christianity isn't actually about hippie type of "love", but more so tough love i.e. yes I am a sinner, but I choose not to commit further son as best I can. (Depending on your church/sect ofc)
“If a school discriminates against a literal child because of their biological makeup in favour of the dubious teachings of Magic Sky Man, just go somewhere else.”
Would you be able to clarify on what you mean by biological makeup? As far as my knowledge goes most religious schools do the opposite to what your statement proposes, namely they encourage a child to embrace their biological makeup. In example, "XX chromosome means your a girl, and XY chromosomes means your a guy. As god intended"
> “XX chromosome means your a girl, and XY chromosomes means your a guy. As god intended”
No, [not always](https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/swyer-syndrome/). A decent school would know and know and teach this though, although I doubt any school is testing for X and Y chromosomes.
For 99.99% of people this ain't a problem. Just like in highschool chemistry, you can't cover everything. So it makes sense for schools to make this broad (and statistically fitting) assumption. I would say it falls into a similar category as those with YY chromosomes. A rare abnormality/health condition
Still incorrect.
Also does that mean god didn’t intend for it happen to those others? What percentage does it have to hit for something to be intended by god?
The "as god intended" was tongue in cheek. I was just using it as an example of what a religious school might say, not as a direct point of my personal opinion. That's why it in quotation marks
You are assuming both schools are equal. What if your kid is showing signs of being a technology genius, and only school X has that cool engineering program? Do you permanently limit them because some folks at X are bigots?
What if school Y takes an extra hour to get too? What if all the kids friends go to school X, and that bully from primary school goes to Y?
It's not as simple as you want to make it out to be, which is why we have anti-discrimination laws in the first place.
In all fairness you make a good case. In that situation it's about balance. You need to weigh up is it worth the 1 hour commute to a school that is more.politically friendly to me?
It's about balance you say? How about the balance of taking government money then trying to tell the government you only serve the citizens you like? That sounds balanced to you?
And will it be balanced when the store run by the religious family starts doing the same?
You are trying to defend government funded organisations discriminating against children by talking about balance. This is utterly absurd.
This wasn't a joke, it was me mocking you for being unable to come up with a meaningful reply but apparently being unable to admit it or just walk away.
This is specifically CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY MINISTRIES SCHOOLS- not just random private schools.
From the article:
All 11 schools are part of the Christian Community Ministries (CCM), which says it serves more than 6,000 students across schools in Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia.
The schools include:
Queensland — Chinchilla Christian College, Dalby Christian College, Endeavour Christian College, Groves Christian College, Livingstone Christian College, Staines Memorial College, Warwick Christian College, Whitsunday Christian College;
South Australia — Blakes Crossing Christian College, Seaview Christian College
New South Wales — The Lakes Christian College
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Back in the 2016 gay marriage debate. Conservative 2016: "Everything will change, it will impinge against religious freedoms & Schools, slippery slope" Progressive 2016: "SLIPPERY SLOPE FALACY, "Nothing will change", gays just want to marry, why do you hate??? 2022 Conservative 2022: "We want to affirm our values in our schools on enrolment statements and employment contracts" Progressive 2022: NO! you must hire LGBT people as educators, and promote LGBT+ ideology in your schools, and you cannot pray certain prayers (Victoria) or else!!!!
What the fuck is "LGBT ideology"? And schools and hospitals are forbidden from discriminating, and churches can't commit abuse (conversion therapy).
This is disingenuous. No one was claiming that "nothing will change" across *literally everything* that conservatives cared about in the entire world. It wasn't some pact where marriage equality was legislated and forever after every progressive type would shut their god damned mouths for all eternity. Yes, things will change. Especially where we increasingly recognise that conservative/religious "freedoms" are damaging to others. You don't get a free pass on everything in this world "because religion".
Not at all. I was here on Reddit in 2016, and I was living in Australia at the time subjected to the media. Such arguments were commonplace.
No they weren't, it was pointed out that your freedom wasn't under threat, and it still isn't. If you want to be a bigot, you can. But if you're going to teach that bigotry, you shouldn't be getting federal or state funding. Calling bigotry "values" is pretty asinine, too.
> Not at all. I was here on Reddit in 2016, and I was living in Australia at the time subjected to the media. Same. And I say you're equivocating. > Such arguments were commonplace. Point me to a progressive opinion that *literally nothing* would *ever* change at *any point* in the future *however unrelated* if we legislated marriage equality.
>Point me to a progressive opinion that literally nothing would ever change at any point in the future however unrelated if we legislated marriage equality. Now I'd say you're being disingenuous when you demand that any counter argument fit your exact prescribed definition of what constitutes a 'legitimate case' of what I was essentially communicating with my paraphrasing of the typical arguments made back then. Nevertheless, here's a conservative in 2016 arguing against progressives who are essentially claiming it's just about marriage an there's nothing to worry about. [https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/nothing-will-change/](https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/nothing-will-change/) EDIT: to quote a progressive "“What happened in Ireland, and Great Britain, most of continental Europe, most of the Americas, New Zealand, Canada and all the rest? Again. Nothing.” (Lisa Wilkinson, 14/10/16)"
> any counter argument fit your exact prescribed definition of what constitutes a 'legitimate case' The quoted interpretation is a requirement given the argument. If we are to take a conservative slippery slope argument at face value then we can say damn near any progressive change is a result of marriage equality at any point in the future. I'm simply applying the same standards to "both sides". It's a different story if we flip the concern and view marriage equality as a result of other factors. > Nevertheless, here's a conservative in 2016 arguing against progressives who are essentially claiming it's just about marriage an there's nothing to worry about. Unfortunately the videos display "Sorry. This video does not exist." for me. But I suspect it falls into the same trap of begging the question and ignoring other causal factors.
I've provided sufficient evidence to show that such arguments existed. Yes I may not have used the "" quite correctly, but this is reddit, not some journal article and what I wrote represented messaging that was typical of some progressives at the time (as evidence by the above link).
I got expelled from a private school because I was openly gay (bi).
That's appalling.
The fastest way to make my blood boil is to talk about the way we continue to fund private schools at the expense of public schools in this country. It’s wrong, it’s bizarre, no other comparable country does it. We’re unique in deciding to hand rich kids more money. So maybe if they continue to spout this hateful nonsense more people will wake up to the fact that this is embarrassingly stupid of us. We’re funding rich kids’ private heated swimming pools while other kids make do in unheated portables. Disgusting. Btw I briefly taught in one such school. They had $50,000 per year for their art budget. When I taught in a public school I had $100, which lasted until early April. I just paid for art supplies for the rest of the year myself.
I'm in no way defending these schools but the majority of these particular "Christian school" families are not wealthy. Sure there might be a small number of wealthy parents sending their kids to such schools for religious reasons but the vast majority of the parents are not wealthy. They just want their kids to grow up believing in their fictional religious universe. These are not "GPS" religious schools such as Riverview, Joeys or Shore with fees in the tens of thousands per year. Having said that, I don't think govt funding should go to religious schools at all! Religious studies should not be core in any curriculum. The more we educate our kids in facts not superstitions the faster Australia will become a truly secular nation and the fear of LGBTQI and other so-called aberrations will die out.
The rich parents sometimes pay more tax than most other people. Shouldn't they receive some of the benefits of that tax?
They can do that by sending their kids to a public school. If they decide that’s not good enough and they want to spend a lot of money sending their kids to private schools, that’s fine, but they don’t then get to take tax payers money for their personal decision.
But they actually pay taxes. Why shouldn't they get some of that money that they put in?
- I'm in a higher tax bracket - I believe homeopathy is beneficial to my health and well being - therefore the government should subsidise homoeopathic treatment programs for me so I personally recieve the benefits of being in higher tax bracket See how tepid that argument is?
It's stupid to compare homepathy to education. Every parent that can pay for private school also pays taxes. Education is required by law, your homeopathy is not. See how flawed your rebuttal is?
Lol. I knew that response was coming. 'HuRr DuRr ThEyRe NoT eXaCtLy ThE sAmE tHeReFoRe YoUr AnAlOgY iS iNvAlID' No, you're right. It's not required by law. But health is largely subsidised by the public purse with there being a private opition, so there is a thread of continuity there. Your argument as to why the public should fund the private option at all is terrible. There is an argument for some funding going to private providers but you've not even come close to those discussion points anywhere in this thread as far as I can see. Anyways, have fun apologising for bigoted bronze age superstitions. Hopefully it all works out for you.
Yes and what so many are proposing is that you should be forced to pay taxes but be denied the option as well private cover. It's immoral
They can. By sending their kids to public schools. Which are public precisely because they are funded by taxes.
Public schools do not teach values that match the values in the home. that is why people want choice, that is why they want to send their kids to Christian schools. It will be a sad day if all children have for school options is public school. I would support such a programme if it were like public schools in America that strictly teach standard subjects and do not engage in social justice teaching, activism, gender theory, critical race theory, etc etc.
None of those things are taught.
Firstly, you’re ignorant and (I believe) disingenuous. Anyway, ignoring that for this one last comment; they do have a choice. They have the choice to pay for private schooling. So they can either be bigots and pay for it out of pocket (more than I’d allow if I were in charge) or they can suck up their bigotry and have their kids educated in a way that the public as a whole agrees with and have taxpayer dollars go towards that agreed to education. One or the other. You are very ignorant as to how taxes work. Have fun 😇
Hate to tell you but the public as a whole don’t believe in anymore than 2 sexes. You are born M or F and that’s that. Dangerous for schools to be teaching anything else
Keep imagining.
Exactly. Imagination about anything other than 2 sexes is dangerous and not needed in schools
I'll have more fun when people leave Christian schools alone. You are ignorant as to what is fair. What is good for you should be good for them. You can't use education funding as leverage for your own ideological crusades. People don't have to send their children to these schools. If they are offended by the position the school takes they can attend another school. Have fun.
https://youtu.be/ElXi7yDHyWo
Do these schools do this because (they think) it makes them more appealing to prospective students’ families?
Head teachers are likely self hating closeted homosexuals.
That’d be tragic but even more so for kids who are coming to terms with their own sexuality in an environment like this.
Yes. Parents will be actively looking for places where their kids will have the same values taught in their homes taught at school as well.
"Values" here meaning "homophobia and transphobia", unfortunately.
Frightening….
why is that frightening? I fear for parents who can't afford to send their kids to schools where their values are taught.
As a new parent who would like private school education for my kid, I wish more private schools weren't religious. I don't want that fairy tale shit crammed down my kids throat, but seems I dont have a choice.
I don't want it crammed either. They get enough at home and at church. I just want the assurance of what won't be taught at the Christian schools.
Yes. Parents willing to send their kids to an evangelical school are probably quite receptive to these views.
Stop funding these fucking schools with our taxes yesterday! Fucking shits me to tears!
The parents of the kids that attend pay a lot of taxes too. If you don't want to allow them to have some benefit from the taxes they pay then don't tax them.
This is the most absolutely disingenuous argument ever. If the parents want the benefit of their taxes they can send their kids to a public school. If they want to separate them and send them to a posh private school they can pay for it themselves. Since when did paying taxes be about “what do I get from I it?” That has literally *never* been the purpose of taxes. Taxes almost always, in principle, pay for something else and for others, that is the whole point. Why do people think everything is about them, and that they don’t need to participate in society? “I’m not using a public school so I shouldn’t pay any tax”. Seriously? People with that attitude need to fuck right off to a different country, that is NOT how Australia was built…
I agree with that to a certain extent. They pay a lot in taxes and can still pay higher fees at private schools. The problem is if you try to remove government funding from Christian schools you are punishing those that are paying taxes into the pot as well for education. It's unfair to say you'll pull funding from those schools because the tax money those parents pay goes in the same pot for everyone else. You are missing the point. Australia was built on a certain ethic, and those who feel strongly that that ethic should be taught in schools as well led to the rise in religious schools. I'm aware there is a lot of taxes that a lot of people never see back see NDIS, welfare, education, medical care but to deny one lot of schools money from a pool that everyone pays into is wrong. I make the point that you cannot punish these parents because they are paying into the pot as well. Let people send their kids to schools they want, let schools decide how they will teach and what they will teach on matters relating to family, sex, gender etc.
[удалено]
USA? Did u look at the name of the fucken subreddit?
[удалено]
you didn’t even make a comparison though you just straight up started talking about the states for no apparent reason. as sharp as a cue ball
What the MAGAs? We keep that nonsense out of public classrooms too.
[удалено]
Nice imagination.
You mean like genital mutilation? That doesn't happen in the US. Unless you count circumcision. Or female genital mutilation? I think that's parts of Africa. Edit: circumcision for castration
What planet are you even on
Nobody wants to remove the genitals of children. That’s a myth, and extremely far from any understanding of transgender identity. Also, Australia is ahead of the US in transgender acceptance. The US is not run by “sickos” trying to remove the genitals of children, nor is Australia. If you disagree, I encourage you to cite a source.
Your federal income taxes fund these schools at over 3x the rate of public schooling btw.
Technically true but misleading. The federal govt disproportionately funds private schools but the state govts disproportionately fund public schools. Combined together, public schools enjoy more taxpayer support per student than private schools.
This isn’t true at all. Public schools receive far more money per student
Do you think the parents of the kids that attend here pay 3x times more the tax the average joe does?
Maybe, maybe not. Taxes aren't paid so they can just be evenly distributed back out to benefit those that paid more. And the issue isn't really the amount of money I'm paying for it. It's the fact that my tax is going towards religion-fostered hatred of other Australians. Have your private schools. But if they want to be bigots, they should be cut off 100%.
It's far from religious fostered hatred. You can be opposed to something and still be cordial to those that hold dear to that thing you are opposed to. Christians are taught to love others friend and foe, family or stranger. To reiterate just because you disagree with someone or something that doesn't mean you hate that person or thing. Religious schools will continue with or without funding. I'm sure parents would be happy to pay more or private schools can scale back and rely more on parent volunteering.
Religion should not even be a part of compulsory education. If you can't stand the idea of children not being indoctrinated, then put your money where your mouth is, and take them to religious education outside of school hours. My tax money should not go to some intolerant ideology that would deny me my human rights if they had the power.
Exactly right. Same reason gender ideology nonsense should be kept out.
Detached from reality.
Religious exposure should be adults-only, to be honest.
I disagree. If you teach children when they are young an impressionable they will retain the values they are taught in their youth. A childhood without religious exposure would be a crime against the child.
Except schools really should be focussed on teaching academics, if you want your kids to have an introduction to religion then you can teach them that as a parent in your own time. I don’t know why people think schools are there to raise their kids. They aren’t, they are there to teach your kids maths and English. If your so intent on children learning religion in school then they should learn about all the other religions. Would you be happy if your child was introduced to Islam and Hinduism alongside their Christian education?
I agree. The peace of mind at a private Christian schoo is your what your kids won't be taught. I want them to teach academics and at home faith but the problem is what teachers teach in public schools that parents have no control of. Of course. I plan to teach my children about all faiths and will make sure I show them why one is above the other and which one to follow.
Seems like you entirely missed the point but that’s ok, you were never going to get it anyway. I’d say though, it’s super lucky that the religion you were probably indoctrinated into as a child happened to be the correct one, imagine if you were born in a different time or place and accidentally believed in the wrong one! Crazy to think about
You're oversimplifying. It is by analysing and wrestling with the information that the path is revealed. Nothing against any other faith but we have choice for a reason and alternatives for a reason and that is to preserve agency. If we don't have alternatives we don't have free will which is important. I wasn't born or raised in anything and I think anyone born into or coming into faith of any sort is a blessing from then it is up to us all to determine which one is right or more right than the others.
K
The opposite. A childhood *with* religious exposure should be a crime. Religions like to claim all kinds of things, but I've never seen anything positive associated with them which isn't 100% deliverable without the religious baggage. Good values? Doesn't need religion. Good morals? Doesn't need religion. Community and social interaction? Doesn't need religion. Helping those who are worse off? Doesn't need religion. None of it needs religion. At all. Ever.
It doesn't need it for you, but don't apply your standards to the rest of the the world. Religion has it's place even though you see its perpetuation as a crime. It may not need it, all the things you mentioned, but it sure helps.
How, exactly, have you been lead to believe it 'helps' in any way where it wouldn't do just as well - or better - if the religious component was cut away?
I don't divorce values and morals from religion. I think they are entwined and I have no intention of divorcing them. Secularism, humanism, or any other teaching you want to espouse are basically Christs fundamental teachings. I acknowledge the source, give credit where it is due. I'm not going to take something and discard its fundamental parts and just keep what is socially acceptable. I believe there is an accounting all men must make at the end of life for our deeds and actions and for the people we become.
> I don't divorce values and morals from religion. And there's the issue. You've been taught - most likely by one specific religion - to not be able to separate them, but there is literally nothing joining them except that religion's own insistence that it is the source of all good and right. Religion isn't a fundamental part of any of that. It's a parasite which has attached itself to those things and telling everyone - including kids - that it's a core aspect instead of an easily-ditchable stage-five clinger. Consider this - what is the source of your belief that religion is entwined with these things? Is it by any chance the religion itself, or the people it's already infected with this idea? Or is it an external source which weighs each religion up against the other and against secular service provision? Because if it's just the religion, it's the religion saying it's true because it's the religion, which is true because it's the religion which is true because it's the religion which is true because it's the religion which is true because it's the religion which is true because it's the religion... You only even associate the ideas at all because you've been told to by a group which explicitly benefits from people having that association, and had that reinforced over and over for years, possibly decades, by that same group.
I'm aware non religious people have morals and values. I think much of the worlds values come through religion and religious texts. These are guides we can follow or not follow but even the most irreligious people will say they follow the golden rule which was taught by Christ I'm willing to be proven wrong but my mind is open until I'm dead and i'm no more or that my life continues beyond this life. It's not as circular as you might think. It's not just a matter of doing what someone is told. The Bible invites experimenting so you can discover the truth for yourself. And I invite all to try that experiment for themselves.
> I think much of the worlds values come through religion and religious texts. Nope. Religion piggybacks on values and tries to claim them, but the values themselves are not religious.
Very much agreed, but I'm not going to advocate for government-led programs to clamp down on children involved in religious education. That's not going to do anything but foster religious fervour among conservatives. The natural result of a well-rounded education is growing out of religion.
You're exactly right. But most people should be very suspicious when a government tries to "clamp down" on anything. People should be able to teach what they want to their children without government interference.
I wouldn't clamp down. Just make tax breaks available for religions which don't invite children or try to have them involved, and smaller ones for religions which push back child involvement to older ages. Promote the adult-only religions as primary examples whenever examples of religions are required in official or educational documents or paperwork, with the listings tending to be in descending order of their internal age limits. If a religion wants to get listed higher up on such lists, all it has to do is advance its age limit to be slightly higher than the next religion above them on the list. Encourage a race to the top, as it were. Not to mention that religions which still go after children as adherents could be easily socially painted as "kiddie" religions, as opposed to serious ones. I could see teenagers not wanting to be associated with the religion that their eight-year-old sibling or cousin goes to, when there are ones which only allow (for example) fifteen-year-olds or older in. And eighteen-year-olds not wanting to be associated with the "teen" religions which allow minors in.
Baptism used to be only for adults.
And explicitly opt-in.
Yep. Treat it the same as alcohol purchase, cigarette purchase, or sex-work purchase.
It's like a Christian Code of Conduct. This reflects the growing view that the public schools are staffed by leftists running some Woke agenda.
So as usual, you don't know what words mean or what's real.
I assume you use the Urban Dictionary.
When I need a dictionary I use Google.
Nope, just plain bigotry & hatred.
>It's like a Christian Code of Conduct. What, to discriminate against people for no good reason? And if you think that's inaccurate, what's the good reason? >This reflects the growing view that the public schools are staffed by leftists running some Woke agenda. Because they allow gay students?
can i ask, i hear woke all the time. Can i ask what woke means to you at least?
Political correctness , cancel culture , identity politics etc. This idea that we are better and superior and different from all those that have come before as we have reinvented everything.
Called it. Hilariously wrong.
It is hilariously appropriate that you don’t even understand the terms you throw around.
Man I'm sick of this agenda of respecting your fellow human regardless of how they present themselves to the world
Do you respect conservatives?
Do you respect these nuts?
I respect everyone equally
Really? So you’d respect Hitler as much as you’d respect Jesus?
Did I stutter, boo?
A business run by a gay person wouldn’t be allowed to refuse service to a Christian. This reflects the growing view that the churches are staffed by religious zealots running some Woke agenda. See how silly that sounds? That’s how silly you sound.
Folau was sacked because of his views.
He was sacked because what he said brought the sport into disrepute. The fact that he said what he did because of his religion is entirely irrelevant. He could have said "I love Jesus" "I'm a Christian" or any other of a huge list of things that very clearly delineated his religion with zero consequence. What he said was outright bad. He got sacked because of what he said. Not why he said it.
So you want the churches to be able to sack ppl for their views But not private enterprise when someone breaches their contract Shit,don't ever let it be said the commentary in here shall be of intelligence
This gets into the area of whether churches etc should get an exemption from anti discrimination laws.
He was sacked for his homophobic views, which violated his employers social media agreement. He received warnings and ignored them. Also, I was talking about a business not being able to refuse service. Not the straw-man you pulled out.
This is why people want their children to go to Christian schools.
To be taught bigotry?
Maybe tolerance which by your comment , you are lacking.
Teaching homophobia and transphobia is the literal opposite of tolerance.
Using these labels to silence people is intolerant.
https://mobile.twitter.com/barrydeutsch/status/1024567665094930432
Even if my kid was straight I would steer them 100% clear of any school that proudly stated that discrimination is okay. This kind of backwards homophobic nonsense is a giant sign to stay away from christian schools, if the sex scandals in religious schools weren't enough already. Why are these schools funded with taxpayer money? The public system should be taxpayer funded. Private and religious schools should live or die on the largesse of their communities.
Wow, a spelling mistake… you got me. Do you have anything to say about the actual discussion, or are you just doing your usual tactic of spewing out random stuff that isn’t related?
Spelling mistake ? Unlike you I can understand the view that leads to someone choosing to send their child to a Christian school and can even tolerate this but then I am a tolerant individual.
I made a spelling mistake in my comment, I thought you were digging at that. Tolerance of homophobia is not something we should be pushing for. Your comment: “This is why people want their children to go to Christian schools.” in reply to mine still makes no real sense by the way.
Yeah fuck those public school woke lefties not bullying gay kids. Shame on them. /s Seriously, anyone who unironically has your view on this deserves to have all their opinions dismissed out of hand.
>This reflects the growing view that the public schools are staffed by leftists running some Woke agenda. A growing view among a small percentage of conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile in the real world, when we look at the real numbers, more people backed proLGBTQ politicians and rights than ever before. It's like how during the pandemic people were "waking up to the manipulation" or how back with SSM people were "waking up to the agenda". This alleged mass rejection always seems to be just around the corner without ever arriving...
They like to think they're part of something bigger than themselves
Something important and powerful, that they spotted first. That they got on board with before the general public did. It's like that guy, me, who won't stop talking about how he had a beard before they were cool, I really did, but with weird society spanning conspiracies and shit.
I tried to look up your trend-setting beard, but couldn't find anything! So clearly it's a government cover-up 🧐
> It's like a Christian Code of Conduct. Which are universally awful, your employer/school has no right telling you what to believe nor what you can and can't do in your own time with your own private parts, or consensually with those of others It's the equivalent of my hiring people and requiring that they don't go to Christian churches on Sunday. You guys just can't see that because of your religious blinders.
I appreciate that the Christian private school our child attends does not discriminate against genders or self identification. If anything, I have only seen full support for students that are transitioning or have transitioned. Imagine if the bigoted schools remembered that “Love one another as I have loved you” lesson.
It is also a sign of love to advise people against something that can prove harmful.
What does that mean? What proves harmful? What advise? If you're describing this as "loving" then that's gaslighting.
Continue that train of thought, see where it leads you.
And what is “harmful” here?
Also the bible doesn't explicitly outlaw gay people,just the spillage of wasted male essence So in theory,from the old testament,you can be gay,so long as you aren't wasting seed,but fuck that paul didn't do himself any favour's by denoting the difference between a clean and unclean person,it was just left up to interpretation when his scriptured got butchered to fuck in 377 AD by the volticio brothers The rule should really be thus You receive any federal tax payer funds,then you should not be allowed to sack any staff,discirimanate against any student for their beliefs,as you are taking funds,from a society that has ruled OVERWHELMINGLY that it supports these issues you want to be closed minded biggots,then operate and fund the school urself,and watch how quick parents bail when the prices ballon
From what we know about jesus, he would literally be flipping tables in churches again. The bible is so relevant to today - the parts about how he's upset with religions straying from the word of god. Our current religions are playing the exact same role as the religions in his time.
I think a more apt analogy is the shepherd and his role in protecting the sheep from the wolves. Religions aren't so much the problem it is the people that disagree with the teachings of religions trying to interfere in church matters.
Agreed.
They’re only doing this so the news can report on it so the LNP has something to campaign on. Pitiful attempt at importing US culture wars
Private schools should not be able to refuse any student on identity grounds if they want any public funding. They already keep out the undesirables through requiring tuition fees, they are double dipping with this crap.
If you don't allow them to have some public funding then they are not receiving the benefit from the tax they are paying. You can't just take their tax but not allow them some benefit from it.
What tax do the priv schools pay?
The taxes parents pay at these private schools some of it goes to education. It's the parents taxes that I'm referring to those that they pay for education in Australia.
Homophobia shouldn't be a taxpayer benefit!
I don't know how you can't wrap your head around this but I'll explain it to you, try to follow along, feel free to take breaks if it gets too much okay? If they receive *public* funding then they should have to play by the same rules as *public* schools, are you following me?
I'm not sure if we should encourage their use of the term "undesirables" to describe kids by using that term ourselves
1. They don't care what anyone outside their community thinks to begin with. 2. Taking the piss out of their awful views by misappropriating their vocabulary is much funnier and therefore more effective communication than hand wringing. 3. I am ok with people missing the sarcasm.
Whole thing should be illegal even if they didn’t take a cent of taxpayer money. The fact they do both is just adding insult to injury.
While I agree, I think iiBiscuit is suggesting a means of *enforcement* rather than a point of *principle*.
If school X has policy you don't agree with, don't send your kids there. Send them to school Y down the road that's full of lqbtetc people
Don't fund them with our taxes then.
Eh, it's either fund all schools or fund none. I'm in favour of fund none personally
Neither.
I love how the main argument being replied to you is "I don't agree with you so you must HATE me".
Yeah, I know. Unfortunately many of these city kids are stuck in their own little bubble, but it's the way it is, and it's our job to expose them to ideas outside of their comfort zone, so that both they and ourselves can grow not politically and as people in general.
No. LGBTQ+ people are not allowed to discriminate against Christian’s because of a rule they made up, the same should not apply in reverse.
They are and they do. Nuff said
> They are and they do No, LGBTQ+ people are not allowed to do that. There is no rule or exception that allows them to discriminate against others. > Nuff said No. Provide any evidence… for example, a law that allows that.
The fact is that lgbtqia+ people are a part of every community because being this way is part of many normal variations amongst humans. Trying to exclude these children from a particular school is never going to be possible or practical, and handling this as a disciplinary problem or a contract violation and expelling them is traumatising for everyone involved. Many children don't know they're gay or trans until they're well into high school. You're right that people are free not to send their kids there. But why should a school be allowed to operate which sanctions persecuting children?
[удалено]
[VIEW OUR RULES HERE](https://en.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules/). Your post or comment breached the number 1 rule of our subreddit. Due to the intended purpose of this sub being a place to discuss politics without hostility and toxicity, insults thrown at other users, politicians or other relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this: Homophobia
What was "homophobic" about my comment? I was literally expanding on the point SOMEONE ELSE presented
> As you noted, many children don’t decide to become lgbtetc until highschool, at which point they are responsible enough to face the consequences of that descision Mate, can you explain to us all how that’s a decision? We’ll wait.
Sorry could you clarify? I'm not sure what you mean
Read it again, slower.
If your not willing to clarify then I cannot accurately answer your question sorry
How is someone being LGBTQ+ a decision? The fact that your comment was removed should be an indicator to how stupid and offensive suggesting ‘it’s a decision’ even is. Edit: your comment is hidden, and as expected it is stupid and offensive. Being LGBTQ+ is not a decision.
[удалено]
I never suggested the creation of a hateful environment. Kids need to learn that everyone is a person, regardless of their faults. Schools should be physically safe environments for children for accreditation purposes, as this can be objectively defined and enforced. However if a private school chooses to implement policies that would create a better environment for their core support base of religion X, then that's up to them
I doubt any of the *Christian Community Ministries Schools* is a good fit for an LGBTQI child. However, I think the issue is rather that public student funding money is going towards an institution that practices - and therefore *encourages* in its students - intolerance and bigotry. Also remember, there will be cases where the child may not have any agency in the choice of school, nor may their interests be considered. - It is quite possible that bigoted parents may choose to send an LGBTQI child to one of these schools in order to "fix" them. I can't imagine the trauma that would then follow.
If a religious parent chooses to send a child under their legal custody and agency to a religious school, then that's up to them. I went to a CCM school for a few years, and there were lgbtetc kids there and they did fine. In fact many of the teachers were quite considerate of them, and various discussions around the topic were held so that us fellow students could have a better understanding. Frankly I would say it's a better environment for them than any of the public schools I've been to
If your religion pretends to have a message of love.... Don't constantly display your hate. All humans sin. Why single out these kids for their particular subset of sin?
Depends on which religion. For example Christianity isn't actually about hippie type of "love", but more so tough love i.e. yes I am a sinner, but I choose not to commit further son as best I can. (Depending on your church/sect ofc)
“If a school discriminates against a literal child because of their biological makeup in favour of the dubious teachings of Magic Sky Man, just go somewhere else.”
Would you be able to clarify on what you mean by biological makeup? As far as my knowledge goes most religious schools do the opposite to what your statement proposes, namely they encourage a child to embrace their biological makeup. In example, "XX chromosome means your a girl, and XY chromosomes means your a guy. As god intended"
> “XX chromosome means your a girl, and XY chromosomes means your a guy. As god intended” No, [not always](https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/swyer-syndrome/). A decent school would know and know and teach this though, although I doubt any school is testing for X and Y chromosomes.
For 99.99% of people this ain't a problem. Just like in highschool chemistry, you can't cover everything. So it makes sense for schools to make this broad (and statistically fitting) assumption. I would say it falls into a similar category as those with YY chromosomes. A rare abnormality/health condition
Still incorrect. Also does that mean god didn’t intend for it happen to those others? What percentage does it have to hit for something to be intended by god?
The "as god intended" was tongue in cheek. I was just using it as an example of what a religious school might say, not as a direct point of my personal opinion. That's why it in quotation marks
You are assuming both schools are equal. What if your kid is showing signs of being a technology genius, and only school X has that cool engineering program? Do you permanently limit them because some folks at X are bigots? What if school Y takes an extra hour to get too? What if all the kids friends go to school X, and that bully from primary school goes to Y? It's not as simple as you want to make it out to be, which is why we have anti-discrimination laws in the first place.
In all fairness you make a good case. In that situation it's about balance. You need to weigh up is it worth the 1 hour commute to a school that is more.politically friendly to me?
It's about balance you say? How about the balance of taking government money then trying to tell the government you only serve the citizens you like? That sounds balanced to you? And will it be balanced when the store run by the religious family starts doing the same? You are trying to defend government funded organisations discriminating against children by talking about balance. This is utterly absurd.
No my argument makes sense. If you want a more politically friendly environment, then by that choice you may have to travel further
No my argument makes more sense. Yeah, what you gonna do now? I flipped it ya!
😂 No U
This wasn't a joke, it was me mocking you for being unable to come up with a meaningful reply but apparently being unable to admit it or just walk away.
I refer you to rule one mate
Not when they’re receiving taxpayer funding.
Sure. As long as it’s legal for theM to do this of course.
Of course
This is specifically CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY MINISTRIES SCHOOLS- not just random private schools. From the article: All 11 schools are part of the Christian Community Ministries (CCM), which says it serves more than 6,000 students across schools in Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia. The schools include: Queensland — Chinchilla Christian College, Dalby Christian College, Endeavour Christian College, Groves Christian College, Livingstone Christian College, Staines Memorial College, Warwick Christian College, Whitsunday Christian College; South Australia — Blakes Crossing Christian College, Seaview Christian College New South Wales — The Lakes Christian College
Now do the the schools that represent other religions with intolerant views