cheer Cadel Evans on to victory in the Tour de France !
As I’m about to start my new career, I hear there is this language called ‘sports’ that I may have to learn to speak. However, I almost understood the phrase Tour de France — as it involves the future of transportation (pushbikes) and the future of town planning (walkable villages and New Urban town communities). See? The Dark Side even helped me in this cross-cultural endeavor!
As I told my son many years ago, “Luke - I am your father”.
BTW “Sports” is a not something you ‘learn to speak’. It is something you breathe - it must be within your essence. As we learnt in “The Lion KIng” - it is the cycle of life itself !
The SMH article actually has misrepresented the Anglican position.
AEC statement on ethics classes
July 21st, 2011
Anglican Diocese of Sydney
Media Statement
21/7/2011
Ethics classes objections remain but AEC will not seek to overturn legislation The Sydney Morning Herald of 21st July 2011 reported Sydney Diocese as ‘backing’ ethics classes. In a story quoting Anglican Education Commission Executive Director Bryan Cowling, the paper said the Diocese had ‘reversed its position’.
This is incorrect. The Diocese of Sydney, along with the other providers of SRE (Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and Moslem) campaigned against the legislation in order to protect the opportunity for parents to choose to have their children participate in SRE. The substantive diocesan position remains that ethics should not have been placed in direct competition with Special Religious Education. There is concern about the legislation rushed through in the dying days of the previous government. There are other issues that the churches, individually and jointly, have taken up with the Education Department. However, in a spirit of co-operation and to minimise disruption to students, the AEC and the diocese will not seek the overturning of the classes midway through the school year.
Since the enactment of the legislation, the Anglican Education Commission and other providers have worked with the Department of Education and Communities on the revision and enhancement of the Department’s Religious Education Policy and the Guidelines for schools in implementing both SRE and SEE (Special Ethics Education).
There has been a new focus of understanding of the vital role which SRE plays in the education system and sites such as ‘whysre.com.au’ from Anglican Youthworks is giving parents clear information about their choices and the educational and spiritual value of Special Religious Education courses. In the vast majority of cases, the students attending the ethics lessons have been non-SRE attenders.
In the Commission’s view, the current arrangements must be allowed testing and fine-tuning and it would be most unhelpful if they were disrupted so early in the life of the new legislation. It is for this reason that the AEC favours the maintenance of the current arrangements. Only after the new arrangements have been in place for 12-24 months would there be any advantage in conducting a review of the legislation.
Dr Bryan Cowling, Executive Director, Anglican Education Commission
The internet is a strange place….
I was flicking idly through my facebook news feed when up popped v2.0 (?) of Dave’s comment at #12, which amplifies (and explains!) the last sentences.
I attended Scripture training. They covered the history of Scripture teaching legislation in NSW.
One of the things that really struck me was the original legislation was designed to be *so* inclusive that no member of parliament could object on grounds of discrimination. Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, it’s all good because it’s all catered to in the legislation. Parties that originally wanted to block Scripture teaching in school were going to do so on the grounds of it being discriminatory! Our forebears made the legislation so transparently inclusive of all faiths having this link between schools and home cultural life that even the anti-Scripture parties could not object.
If ethics classes had been another desirable option back then, I’m wondering if there would even be the fuss we see in churches today?
The danger is that Nile risks a discriminatory backlash that our original Scripture legislators did so much to prevent. He could end up doing far more harm than good.
Kev - Maybe “cowards” is a bit strong, but it is a reversal when they should be keeping the anger against the atheist ethics classes.
Ros #28 - That’s still a reversal. The AEC once campaigned against the atheist ethics classes starting, now they are tolerating it and not campaigning to get rid of them (the base position).
Dave quoted by Ros #30 - I don’t see any backlash coming, as ethics classes don’t look like being abolished or substantively changed anytime soon.
All - I don’t know why you are all tolerating the ethics classes, when it is being marketed as the ‘fresh’ and by implication better choice and has been shown (remembering at least from the trials) that it took up to 60% of people from SRE classes away.
On a lighter note, still celebrating after the Cadel Evans win!
The SMH reported that the Anglican church now backs the ethics classes and says they should be retained. This is a misrepresentation. It’s perhaps a subtle one, but a misrepresentation nonetheless, and misdirecting, giving the casual reader the wrong message, perhaps mischievously.
The strategic choice to not campaign for their removal once introduced is not a reversal - the situation has changed! To seek to overturn legislation, thereby potentially causing disruption in schools is different to campaigning against the change in the first place.
Whether it is a good strategy or not, I don’t know; but neither is it up to you or me to say what they ‘should’ be doing in the new situation.
Additionally, the original campaign was that ethics classes should not be held in competition with scripture, not actually against them starting.
Ah that’s what happens when I try to attach the names to individual replies ... sorry Ros!
It is not too hard to abolish the ethics classes, as the SMH quotes (my attached article from last Thursday before) that the ethics classes are in only 200-odd schools. It takes political will to oppose the loud atheists though however, and these days, hardly anyone will stand up against them - not even the AEC or the Catholic representatives in the said article.
So to sum up:
AEC and the Catholic representatives - will SAY they are against the ethics classes, but won’t DO anything about it.
Fred Nile - both SAYS and DOES something about it. For that it should deserve our commendation, not our condemnation.
No worries.
I’m not happy with any of the postitions - not Fred Nile’s stunt (wouldn’t call it blackmail or unethical though - one might ask why does the liberal party assume they should have his vote?); not the AEC; certainly not the government’s.
NSW government considers Nile legislation “Tele” From: AAP July 30, 2011
THE NSW government has reportedly bowed to pressure from Fred Nile and will consider removing ethics classes from schools, although the Christian campaigner concedes that doesn’t mean the government will actually dump the classes.
The Sydney Morning Herald says NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell, Mr Nile and the leader of the house in the Legislative Council, Duncan Gay, met on Thursday to discuss a deadlock which has threatened the passage through the Upper House of the government’s public service wages legislation.
The paper says the deal the Christian Democratic Party MP claims to have struck with Mr O’Farrell would mean that the government’s legislation could pass in return for the government’s support for Mr Nile’s legislation.
The ethics classes began only in February under the former Labor government as an alternative to religious education lessons.
The state government has declined to give details of what it says were private discussions, but Mr Nile has told the paper he has agreed not to block the wages policy, while Mr O’Farrell promises that the private member’s bill to scrap ethics classes will go to the Coalition party room for discussion and then to cabinet.
But Mr Nile concedes that doesn’t mean the government is going to vote for it.
O’Farrell bows to Nile over ethics SMH Sean Nicholls July 30, 2011
THE state government has bowed to pressure from Fred Nile and will consider removing ethics classes from schools only months after they began.
A deal the Christian Democratic Party MP says he has struck with the Premier, Barry O’Farrell, places at risk the Coalition’s election promise not to remove the classes, which began in February under the former Labor government as an alternative to religious education lessons. But it also presents Mr Nile and the government with a potential compromise over the issue, on which neither has been willing to give ground since it re-emerged two weeks ago.
Mr O’Farrell, Mr Nile and the leader of the house in the Legislative Council, Duncan Gay, met on Thursday to discuss the impasse, which has threatened to grow into a full-blown crisis for the government.
Mr Nile had vowed to use his party’s upper house votes to ‘‘torpedo’’ the government’s public service wages legislation if it did not consider his demand that ethics classes not be held at the same time as Scripture lessons.
The government calculates that failure to introduce its policy to cap wage rises for public servants at 2.5 per cent unless first matched with employee-related savings could cost the budget almost $2 billion over four years.
While a spokesman for Mr O’Farrell declined to give details of ‘‘private discussions’‘, Mr Nile told the Herald they had had a ‘‘very positive, co-operative and friendly meeting’‘.
He said Mr Nile had agreed not to block the wages policy in return for Mr O’Farrell’s promise that his private member’s bill to repeal the legislation that allows for ethics classes would go to the Coalition party room for formal discussion and then to cabinet.
Mr Nile said: ‘‘He’s agreed that the bill can proceed. It doesn’t mean the government is going to vote for it. It will be considered by the party room in due course. There is a suggestion there may be some amendments.’‘
Mr Nile also took aim at the Education Minister, Adrian Piccoli, who had refused to consider removing ethics classes because the government had given an election commitment.
’‘The impression I got was that [Mr O’Farrell] was unhappy with how the Education Minister had handled this,’’ Mr Nile said. In an indication the government has agreed to negotiate on issues other than ethics as part of the deal, Mr Nile says he is ‘‘encouraged’’ by discussions in the meeting about his other private member’s bills.
Mr Nile, who has indicated a general willingness to support government legislation, has submitted 21 bills to the government. While he would not say which were being discussed, they include bills to repeal legislation allowing same-sex adoption, to ban the possession of X-rated films and to ban alcohol advertising.’‘That co-operative spirit is well and truly in place,’‘ Mr Nile said.
’‘That co-operative spirit is well and truly in place’‘- that must be newspeak for ‘ethical’ blackmail - oops I should have said ‘negotiations’ shouldn’t I ? ( More ‘newspeak language’ at work. ) Isn’t it great to see Christianity at work within politics ? Whatever would God do without the machinations and schemes of sinful man ?
I don’t think that the Coalition’s party room - refer
the legislation that allows for ethics classes would go to the Coalition party room for formal discussion and then to cabinet
would have the political will to vote for a repeal of the ethics classes.
As for the last bolded part of the immediate article above, two of the three listed sound quite reasonable to me - the ban on alcohol advertising aside.
Nothing that suggests to me that Fred Nile is being ‘unethical’, despite disagreements between me and him in several areas.
Mr Nile had vowed to use his party’s upper house votes to ‘‘torpedo’’ the government’s public service wages legislation if it did not consider his demand that ethics classes not be held at the same time as Scripture lessons.
Hi Arthur, regarding “Nothing that suggests to me that Fred Nile is being ‘unethical”, I still have enormous qualms over the ‘ethics’ that Fred has attempted to use in order to get his way - especially in regard to using a totally unrelated item ( above ) to dictate to the government. It may be ‘legal’ - but is definitely a bad look at the least - especially as we’re talking about Ethics Classes !
Stoner hopes deal can save IR and ethics
August 1, 2011 AAP
NSW Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner says he’s hopeful negotiations with Christian Democrat MP Fred Nile will see the retention of ethics classes and the passage of the government’s industrial reforms. The Rev Nile has been threatening to “torpedo” the public-sector wage changes if the government does not remove the controversial ethics classes from schools.
The classes were introduced by the former Labor government as an alternative for children who opt out of scripture classes.
After a meeting last week Mr Nile and Premier Barry O’Farrell reportedly struck an agreement for the government to consider Mr Nile’s private member’s bill to get rid of the classes. Despite fears that the deal meant the ethics course would soon be scrapped, Mr Stoner indicated on Monday the classes were here to stay.
“We had a commitment prior to the election that ethics classes would be in place,” Mr Stoner told reporters in Sydney. “I know the premier has had some discussion with Fred Nile. I’m hopeful those discussions will ensure that whilst ethics classes stay we will have the support of the crossbenchers for our industrial relations reforms.”
Mr Stoner ruled out moving the ethics classes so they did not clash with scripture classes, saying that would be “problematic”.
Ethics here to stay, says NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell
From: AAP August 02, 2011 5:01PM
NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell says school ethics classes are here to stay, even though the Coalition Government has promised to consider a push by crossbench MP Fred Nile to scrap them.
The Greens and Labor have accused Mr O’Farrell of doing a deal with Reverend Nile, who threatened to withdraw his support for the Government’s public sector wage changes if it did not remove the ethics classes.
The Premier met with the Christian Democrat upper house MP last week and assured him the Government would consider his private members bill to have the classes scrapped, in return for Mr Nile’s continued backing of the industrial reforms.
However, in Parliament Mr O’Farrell reiterated the Coalition’s election commitment to retain the ethics course, saying it was a matter of “process” for the Government to consider all private members bills.
The classes were introduced by the former state Labor Government as an alternative to scripture classes.
“Every piece of legislation that is introduced into the parliament, whether by Labor, by Liberal or National, whether by Independents, Greens or other parties is considered by the Cabinet and considered by the joint party room, that is process,” Mr O’Farrell told Parliament.
“What I won’t do, what I’ve repeatedly said I won’t do, is sell out the principles, the policies and the programs of the Liberal-National party for the support of those minor parties to get legislation through.
“Mr Nile will introduce this bill, it will be considered by the Cabinet, it will be considered by the party room, but our election commitment stands.”
NSW Opposition Leader John Robertson said Mr Nile’s change of heart over the Government’s public sector wage changes hinted a deal had been struck with the Premier, but not over ethics.
He conceded a Labor disallowance motion, which would have overturned the public sector wage changes, and which Mr Nile had threatened to support, would now fail when raised in the upper house later today.
The Government’s public-sector wage reforms will cap annual increases at 2.5 per cent and limit the role of the independent Industrial Relations Commission in setting pay and conditions.
“While it appears ethics classes may avoid being on the hit list this time, the Premier will have done another deal with Reverend Nile to ensure they vote down the disallowance motion and we can only wait to see what this will be,” Mr Robertson said.
“Barry O’Farrell has opened the door to minor party deals and now these sorts of negotiations will become commonplace in NSW.”
“Barry O’Farrell has opened the door to minor party deals and now these sorts of negotiations will become commonplace in NSW.”
So what is John Robertson’s thoughts on Julia Gillard doing deals with minor parties then ? Robertson is not a deep thinker - and is probably completely unaware of how ridiculous his statement is. But that’s John - just blurt something out to try and appear to be doing something. Anyway he makes me chuckle !
It would be interesting to find out what ostensibly passed the Liberals’ party room to secure their workplace legislation, given the last bolded sentence in #41 Kev.
Historically, the mixing of religion and power has not been a happy experience. For those who claim to follow a man nailed to a Roman cross, it ought to be a discordant experience.
The only bit I take issue with is this:
And it seems he’s prepared to hold a gun to Barry O’Farrell’s head to do it, threatening to use upper house votes to jettison the government’s public service wages legislation if O’Farrell doesn’t fall into line and remove the ethics class option.
At the very least, manipulating the government into a retreat from a pre-election promise isn’t a good look.
In the first point because I think the wages legislation is appalling and should be opposed - it’s unwarranted to call that a gun at the head.
And in the second point, Barry O’Farrell initially opposed the ethics classes, then wouldn’t promise to remove them if elected because (he said) he ‘didn’t expect’ to have the upper house numbers, now apparently it’s a pre-election promise to keep them.
But none of that goes far to excuse the clumsy attempted bullying, manipulation and grandstanding by Nile.
Su Qld has this website where you can ‘sign’ the following statement of support for school chaplains. This because of the High Court Challenge to the constitutional validity of chaplains in Government schools.
Dear Prime Minister and Minister for School Education
I value and support the worthwhile investment the federal government is making in our kids through School Chaplaincy.
I urge you to do everything in your power to ensure the federal funding of School Chaplaincy continues and that the spiritual and pastoral care role school chaplains play in school communities is maintained - because I believe our school chaplains are a worthy and valuable investment in young lives, and because our kids are worth it.
The Herald has given wide coverage to my perceived actions regarding the future of the so-called ‘‘ethics course’’ in NSW schools.
I have not sought to blackmail the NSW government. I simply reminded them: before they reject my Ethics Repeal Bill, they should remember they need our votes to pass their controversial industrial relations legislation. I never said I would vote against it, even though I have genuine concerns about its impact.
In fact, during my appointment with Premier Barry O’Farrell on July 28, at his request, we never discussed the industrial legislation or my vote. We came to the conclusion that my bill could proceed through the Coalition’s cabinet and party room for discussion.
My intention throughout the process was simply to hold the Coalition to their original policy, which opposed ethics classes. Unfortunately, before the election, the Premier wrongly believed the Greens would hold the balance of power in the upper house and told me privately that despite a desire to do so, he could not repeal the legislation and would maintain the status quo.
Our party thanks Almighty God and the NSW voters that we now hold the ‘‘balance of prayer and responsibility’’ and not the pagan Greens. So, given the outcome of the election, the Coalition can now implement their original policy and vote for my bill, which concludes the ethics course in December so that principals can arrange quality education opportunities for children withdrawn from scripture classes by their parents next year.
I agree with the teaching of ethics in NSW schools, colleges and universities, provided it is based on history’s greatest teacher of ethics, the Lord Jesus Christ.
This course does not teach ethics as most parents understand the term. It does not teach children any definitive sense of right from wrong, but promotes the secular humanist relativist philosophy that there are no absolutes, such as ‘‘You shall not murder, lie or steal’‘.
I sincerely regret that some atheistic parents will prevent their children from learning about the most important aspect of Australian culture, our Christian heritage and faith. Even our atheistic Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has said all children should have a knowledge of the Bible.
Contrary to the claims of Dr Simon Longstaff, the Christian churches remain fundamentally opposed to the so-called ‘‘ethics course’‘, but are discussing the best approach now that it is law.
I do not repudiate the tradition of Western thought, as claimed, and I believe it unethical to engage in that sort of invective. Remember that Socrates was ‘‘virtually alone’’ and executed because he dared to question the majority world view; to question what youth were being taught. This is all I am doing.
There are those among Dr Longstaff’s supporters and organisations such as the Teachers Federation, the Greens and the Labor Left who wrongly believe in the separation of church and state, and want to abolish religious education from government schools.
They wrongly believe that when Sir Henry Parkes introduced free and ‘‘secular’’ state education, he meant ‘‘non-Christian’’ or ‘‘non-religious’‘. That was never his intention. In the 1880s, ‘‘secular’’ was used to prohibit denominational teaching in NSW classrooms, not scripture classes, which Parkes decreed should fill one hour per day.
I have never said the Premier should break his word, but simply uphold his original position.
If Dr Longstaff becomes militant and incites the mob to ‘‘rise up’‘, his actions are akin to that which he despises. Maybe a lesson in ethics is required?
Again I find myself agreeing with Fred Nile on this issue and most of the article. Except for the big-headed comparison with the ancient philosopher Socrates.
The other article just in though - well I’ll have to post THAT in the Articles that make you go ‘Eh’ thread.
[null]Does It Mean Anything that a Record Low Are 'Pro-Choice'?New York Times (blog)[{}]Asked to pick one of the two labels applied to the abortion debate, a full 50 percent said they were pro-life, whereas only 41 percent said they were pro-choice, down from the previous low of 42 percent recorded in May of 2009. Republicans are the most ...
[null]Obama vs. Catholics, Catholics vs. ObamaNew York Times (blog)[{}]This would frame the issue as yet another intra-Catholic dispute over sexuality and abortion, rather than an external assault on Catholic religious liberty. Seen in this light, Georgetown University's decision to invite Kathleen Sebelius, ...
[null]Rally fights for abortion law changeThe West Australian[{}]Liberal MP Peter Abetz has spoken out against WA's abortion laws, warning "the womb is most dangerous place for children to be in this State" at a rally last night attended by hundreds of right-to-life campaigners. Addressing the 750-strong rally at ...
RSS Feed