Fred Nile in NSW Upper House: Australia is not a secular, but a Christian nation

ImNotJesus · 2012-05-24T11:37:21.795070+00:00

Possibly, though it would be difficult to argue in court

ImNotJesus · 2012-05-24T11:07:23.414804+00:00

You are welcome to your opinion of course, I spent more time pondering your comment than I did the one you took issue with.

I can't see how this is "stalking" in any way.

rustylegs · 2012-05-24T11:00:43.108459+00:00

This all assumes that the disciples were eyewitnesses and actually wrote this down at time when people could check stuff.

They could have easily written this later (certainly the Gospels where not available until later) and said this all happened to unsuspecting chumps like people do to this day.

lukehopewell1 · 2012-05-24T10:17:11.427082+00:00

The goal is really to see if the reasons is more then because we can.

ImNotJesus · 2012-05-24T09:15:14.648272+00:00

That's cryptic

ImNotJesus · 2012-05-24T09:14:18.235332+00:00

Preamble has no legal force, I believe

Bleedthebeat · 2012-05-24T03:40:11.220935+00:00

Is there a point to them doing this?

shimlamirch · 2012-05-24T02:09:58.826692+00:00

I think people drawing "Muhammad" are just atheist scumbags trying to goad muslims into acts of violence.And I think the offended muslims need to get their heads out of the sand and or their asses.

Then you really missed the point. It's not about people trying to goad people into doing anything. It's about saying we will not be silenced by your threats or held to your beliefs.

I think we are free to draw Muhammad; we are also free to tell a bunch of muslims that a drawing is of Muhammad if we want them to act out in violence.

We are not responsible for their actions, they should be held accountable.

ghaib · 2012-05-24T02:01:23.719547+00:00

What..you submitted an article that linked to hackaday that got this story via reddit.

Pirate_Harris · 2012-05-23T16:17:20.057977-07:00

What sort of insurance does not cover accidents, I mean isn't that the entire purpose

TheCrimeBitch · 1 day

Meh, uninspiring. It's the thinking that religion encourages that is the problem.

nath1234 · 1 day

Because every child is entitled to an education, courtesy of the taxpayer.

Agreed.

If a high earner pays $30-40k in tax a year, then it is not unreasonable for those same parents to expect a share of that money, while chipping in extra for the school of their choice.

Disagree. We are better off improving public schools for everyone than providing the better off with even more flexibility.

hagga · 1 day

I wouldn't unless I thought there was a fundamental failing they refused to address.

nath1234 · 1 day

Oh come now - look at the billionaires - can't you see how much they worked hard ensuring they built upon the billions they got via income tax exempt inheritance (in low tax trusts/structures).

I didn't say they didn't work hard (though some probably didn't), but that hard work will not invariably produce good income and that good income is not directly correlated to working hard. The idea that if you just work hard you can easily become rich is nonsense. The systems in place also favour the rich far more than the middle class and the poor, working to preserve to their wealth and power.

Hear hear! But this is the Finnish attitude and they're number 1. They do not fund private education at all - schools cannot charge fees and expect govt funding. If a school is under-performing - it gets funded until it is performing. I think we should steal the Finnish idea.

Not just funding, but also using technology and new methods of learning where appropriate.

hagga · 1 day

Thought I said that

hagga · 1 day

It's like suing another parent because your child played on their trampoline and fell off and broke an arm because the trampoline didn't have a safety net, which I hear is a thing these days (safety nets).

Probably could if you were not watching them

nath1234 · 1 day

Still not actually funding children, they don't have money earmarked for them they can use however they like.

nath1234 · 1 day

Not necessarily. In most cases a board of directors/trustees will oversee the governance of the school. Any unused money does not go to the church (except in the instance of funding stipends for any religious clergy - which is akin to paying a cut price salary), they are invested back into the school.

They are ultimately answerable to their parent religious organisation.

Send your kids to the type of school I want, or I'll deny your kids the cut of the education funding they deserve.

We are funding services, not children. The don't get a "cut" of funding they get access to the service.

As long as they don't pay for it with private school fees?

As long as it's not funded by the government.

They're not. They're funding salaries of teachers, ground staff and administration. They're funding school supplies and capital improvements.

Religious organisation, right there, just because they work as a teacher does not make their employers not a religious organisation.

Seems kind of churlish to cut off funding for a teacher's salary because you don't like their employer.

Does not work that way

hagga · 1 day

None this is relevant to the law, it's got nothing to do with who caused the accident.

It is because the put her in position she shouldn't have been in.

RetroTheft · 1 day

Will do when my contract is up

hagga · 1 day

I'm pretty sure teachers are on supervision duty at lunch times for this sort of reason.

hagga · 1 day

That's not why they are being sued, it is because they failed in the duty of care they had to minors.

nath1234 · 1 day

We just have a fundamental disagreement about how and why education should be funded.

I think it should be government, well funded, and backed by science.

Anything outside of that should be totally funded by the individuals.

It should be your choice if you want to home school your kids, and since you're relieving the govt. of the burden you should be compensated.

This is crux of it. The fact it is a burden to government is totally irrelevant, this isn't about funding it's about quality outcomes for the nation, and if people don't want their children to participate in that they they should front the costs themselves.

hagga · 1 day

That wasn't my implication.

There needs to be a 'reasonable person' test applied to this case; and in this case, she fails.

This isn't about what she did, it's about leaving minors unsupervised when you have a duty of care.

nath1234 · 1 day

I'm disputing that the offering of religious instruction makes the "entire school" religious.

It's still controlled by a religious organisation.

And my argument is that governments have the role of funding education for all school students regardless of background, and that a child should not be denied funding because their parents choose to send them to a school where they receive religious instruction in addition to the rest of the standard curriculum.

I think they should be denied funding because the parents make a conscious choice to do so knowing full well the consequences. This is no different to any other decision a parent makes for their child.

I don't think their education should be compromised because people like yourself have a problem with religion, nor should they be effectively used as hostages in an attempt to stamp out religion.

Stamp out religion? What nonsense. Religions are quite capable of religious education without running schools.

I don't care what religious instruction parents give to their children I just don't think taxpayers should fund any religious organisations at all, education or otherwise

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
reddit gold Charter Member	Charter Member

Kytro

TROPHY CASE

Kytro

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login