The Hill ain’t broken, but the Catholics are cracked

jade (the other one) says:

04:13pm | 14/12/11

I don’t see where the school has been forced to stop teaching their viewpoint that homosexuality is a sin before God. They are being asked not to deny an education to a little girl, whose parents happen to be homosexual.

I wonder if this school denies an education to children of blended families, or single parents, or divorcees, or checks the marital status of the parents of all their children at enrolment. After, Catholicism prohibits pre-marital sex, and divorce, and considers children born out of wedlock to be sinful.

They are likely to be receiving public funding. State schools, to receive public funding, have what is called an “obligation to enrol”. This means that they cannot refuse to enrol a student, unless the school is unable to “reasonably provide them an equitable educational experience.” IE - if the school does not have facilities to support significant disability.

Chris L says:

04:17pm | 14/12/11

I have to agree. While I object to religious instruction in public schools I also object to secular interference in religious schools (as long as no-one is being burned at a stake or similarly inconvenienced).

jade (the other one) says:

04:26pm | 14/12/11

@Chris L - I object to religious schools charging fees, being exempt from anti-discrimination laws, being exempt from various rules and regulations that public schools must adhere to, and accepting my taxpayer dollars to do so, but refusing to accept my right to a say in how that school is run.

I would suggest that if this school discriminated against all those who do not adhere to church doctrine, there would be less issue. But I imagine they are quite selective about which criteria they use to discriminate against. As I highlighted earlier, I imagine that there are several children of sole-parent families, divorcees, blended families, and parents who simply never bothered to marry; all sins in the Catholic faith. Yet the school accepts these students, but discriminates against this little girl? ICB.

Monty says:

04:42pm | 14/12/11

How exactly is accepting a student an endorsement of whatever lifestyle that students parents practice? The decision to deny the child was based on knee-jerk homophobic bollox.

St. Michael says:

05:11pm | 14/12/11

“As I highlighted earlier, I imagine that there are several children of sole-parent families, divorcees, blended families, and parents who simply never bothered to marry; all sins in the Catholic faith.”

Possibly, but I doubt very much they chose to rub their status in the face of the school they want their kid to go to.  Presumably that is how the school came to learn that the child was from a same-sex relationship.  All of the other “sinful” families’ situations are capable of concealment or are situations where the benefit of the doubt has to go with the person having a situation which is permissible at Catholic dogma.  Your kids have a different surname to your husband? Maybe you’re a widow.  Or your first marriage was annulled, which is the “Catholic divorce” and doesn’t exclude a person from the Church.

Different story if on the application form for the school you put the parents’ names as Jane and Julia.

Invariably part of the conditions of acceptance into a Catholic school are a requirement that you live according to the Catholic faith.  Parents putting down on the form that they’re in a same-sex relationship are really leaving the school no option if it’s to stick to its conditions.  Nobody would expect a Catholic school to accept the child of a parent who put down the words “practicing Satanist” under the ‘religious belief’ section of the form, so why is there a distinction for another section of the community which does not conform to Catholic dogma?

It’s similar to the conditions for working for CEO: never mind gay, if you’re living de facto and the employer finds out, there’ll be a recommendation that you “regularise” your affairs as soon as possible.

I should add I’ve no issue with gays - this is one of the areas that the Church is a bit bloodyminded about.  But on the other hand a religious school has a right to discriminate on who it takes, as set down by law, according to its religious doctrine.  Don’t see why shouting very loudly should authorise you to break the law.

Greg says:

06:07pm | 14/12/11

Are people really so stupid that they can’t see where this is heading?

If this school teaches its students that homosexuality is a sin, then they will be accused of persecuting the little girl.

So either they can’t teach what they believe in, or they get accused of vilifying the girls “parents”. It’s a no-win situation for them, and will pressure them to suppress their beliefs.

Making public education funding dependent upon compliance with government approved morals and ethics is also unwarranted.

The government pays far less per student to private schools than they spend per student on government schools. Private schools save taxpayers money, as the private school student’s parents subsidise the education costs.

It is the private schools that therefore subsidise the government and all other taxpayers. They should not be penalised for providing this service, by being forced to compromise their beliefs.

As for broken marriages, divorces, and children born out of wedlock, these are not ongoing issues. Churches recognise that all people sin, but they want them to repent. It’s not surprising that they are not keen on people who continue to live in sin.

Peter says:

06:07pm | 14/12/11

Why on earth would a lesbian couple want to send their child to a Christian school? It is totally against the ethos of their chosen lifestyle. So why aren’t the media beating up that side of the story rather than having a go at the school? Let’s see, could it be that everyone is allowed to hammer Christians as much as they want, but don’t dare challenge the motives of homosexuals eh? Bigoted and hypocritical homosexuals and bigoted sensationalist media, what a combination eh? I bet you don’t have the guts to publish this.

sandra says:

06:32pm | 14/12/11

this is exactly the slippery slope all those against gay marraige know will happen. This countyr has gone crazy since Rudd Gillard took the reins—scary indeed

yourname says:

06:41pm | 14/12/11

“my right to a say in how that school is run”

You don’t got no such right, Jade, though you got a right to contribute a single vote to some people who do got that right. Right.

Timbo says:

06:52pm | 14/12/11

Why would a couple who know their lifestyle is incompatable with the teachings of a religious school want their child to go there? Having said that, The Bishop has shown true Christianity.

jade (the other one) says:

06:58pm | 14/12/11

@Saint Michael - where there is a child who bears a different surname, to truly adhere to the Catholic faith, they should be asking the question of whether the parents are married or divorced. In many cases, custody arrangements require the school to be notified of the arrangements, which should automatically deny that child entry to the school. If the mother puts “Miss” on the form, or is not wearing a wedding ring, this should also deny the child entry to the school.

Furthermore, I’ve taught at Catholic schools that accepted Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist students, and actually made accommodations to the uniform to enable Muslim females to wear the hijab. Therefore, the argument that they only accept Catholic students is null and void.

@Greg - if these parents choose to make an issue of the teachings of Catholic doctrine, then we would need to revisit the issue, and I personally would side with the school over the parents.

@Peter, why on earth would they not, if it is the best school in a fairly small town? And noone (yet) has asked the school to change their doctrine regarding homosexuality, therefore your argument that secular society is somehow “attacking” Christians is null and void.

jade (the other one) says:

07:35pm | 14/12/11

@yourname: But religious people have a say in how state schools are run? Religious parents can force an English teacher at a state school to change their entire semester plan because they don’t like the book being taught? Religious parents can dictate to science teachers, and force their bigoted, outdated, dangerous views into sex education programs in state schools?

Why, if religion has a right to peddle their lies about contraception in a secular school, can I not teach about evolution, or Harry Potter in a religious school that I help fund?

hellonathan says:

09:45pm | 14/12/11

I agree Greg - the school should also physically check each child for signs of sexual abuse, and subsequently refuse entry if they are found to be defiled. Next time you get the opportunity to sit an IQ test select a) for every answer and you’ll probably score better than if you try.

John Smith says:

10:26pm | 14/12/11

“Are people really so stupid that they can’t see where this is heading?
If this school teaches its students that homosexuality is a sin, then they will be accused of persecuting the little girl.”

Spoken like a true catholic. If any school openly said homosexuality is a sin then that school deserves to be closed FOREVER. They can, in line with their beliefs, teach that a relationship and marriage under god is between and a man and a woman. Actually saying homosexuality is a sin puts the catholic church in the same category as that crazy westboro baptist church in the USA.

You greg, you catholic, need to get with the times.

St. Michael says:

11:38pm | 14/12/11

“Furthermore, I’ve taught at Catholic schools that accepted Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist students, and actually made accommodations to the uniform to enable Muslim females to wear the hijab. Therefore, the argument that they only accept Catholic students is null and void.”

I didn’t say only Catholic students are accepted to Catholic schools.  That is a straw man on your part or misreading my response.  I said they have to agree to live according to the Catholic faith—or, I should have added, at least be willing to support the Catholic ethos or not live in direct contradiction of the Catholic faith.  Other faiths are a different kettle of fish entirely, and there’s nothing to say the same-sex couple was of a different faith altogether.

“where there is a child who bears a different surname, to truly adhere to the Catholic faith, they should be asking the question of whether the parents are married or divorced.”

That’s a ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy.  Also changing the goal posts a lot.  If you taught at a Catholic school, did they practice this? If not, are you saying your school was not true to the Catholic faith?

“In many cases, custody arrangements require the school to be notified of the arrangements, which should automatically deny that child entry to the school. If the mother puts “Miss” on the form, or is not wearing a wedding ring, this should also deny the child entry to the school.”

Would this be an appropriate moment to mention annulment, as in the Catholic form of no-fault, no-sin divorce, which, albeit it takes longer, is granted about as readily as the secular form?

Again, a school might have the right to inquire into custody arrangements, but it doesn’t have the right to invade the parents’ privacy to ask if they’ve had an annulment rather than a civil divorce.  Thus the school can’t really ask.  But, as I said, if the application form says Jane and Jennifer, they can’t really look past that.

As to the rest - saying it was a typographical error, or “Ms.”, puts it beyond inquiry.  And not wearing a wedding ring that day is not incontrovertible evidence of a divorce or being single.

Like I said, jade, I think the Catholic Church has it wrong on this restriction - but at the same time, they do have a contractual if not legislation-protected right to make exceptions according to their ethos.  At the risk of analogue, as some people have already said, would we be seeing the same debate had it been a Muslim school the couple had applied to for their daughter? Or a Jewish school, for that matter?

Little Joe says:

08:12am | 15/12/11

They should have taken their child to an open minded Islamic School.

jade (the other one) says:

09:20am | 15/12/11

@St Michael, it is possible that the child has been adopted by a pair of half-sisters, or cousins, or friends who live together. It’s possible that the mother is a single mother, and the second name on the form is her best friend who provides before and after school care.

There is nothing to automatically suppose that because two women are mentioned on an application form that they are necessarily lovers, to follow your absurd logic. So, again, following your logic, the school must have breached the privacy of this couple to uncover their relationship. The school has obviously made an assumption here, based on their own homophobia.

Jeb says:

09:51am | 15/12/11

You don’t have to follow the catholic faith to go to a catholic school. I have a muslim friend who sent her daughter to a catholic school because the school had a good academic reputation. Atheists are also accepted into catholic schools.

Jeb says:

09:58am | 15/12/11

Some gays and lesbians are christian. If they want to send their children to a christian school they have a right to. If homosexuality is a ‘sin’ according to the church, well it’s just one among many. Why single it out? It’s not as though christians don’t ever participate in infideilty, adultery and other ‘sins’ or even crimes such as child abuse. He who is without sin and all that. Jesus himself was appalled at hypocracy.  Some people need to get off their high horse and start practicing the love, compassion and forgiveness that they preach.

St. Michael says:

10:50am | 15/12/11

“It’s possible that the mother is a single mother, and the second name on the form is her best friend who provides before and after school care.”

That would be a supposition to make which is not on the balance of probabilities.  It is the two custodial parents who are meant to be disclosed on the application form.

“There is nothing to automatically suppose that because two women are mentioned on an application form that they are necessarily lovers, to follow your absurd logic.”

Come now, jade, it’s the obvious inference and therefore the simplest one to be made.  Stretching for absurd exceptions does not change that. Otherwise, how did the school discover the parents were in a same-sex relationship?

Majid says:

11:48am | 15/12/11

@John Smith, “If any school openly said homosexuality is a sin then that school deserves to be closed FOREVER.”

Our Islamic school at Lakemba says that. I dare you to come over and try to close us, tough boy.

jade (the other one) says:

02:08pm | 15/12/11

@St. Michael, then again, following your logic, where a child bears a different surname to their father, the logical assumption must be that the child is “born in sin”. Or from a blended family, which is the product of divorce. Since divorce significantly outstrips Catholic Church approved anulment in this country. It is the “obvious inference”. Anulment or widowhood is simply nowhere near as likely as divorce in our country or our culture.

Direct says:

02:36pm | 15/12/11

Don’t worry, Majid. Atheists only even pick on Christians. They don’t have the balls to go after Muslims or any other religions.

St. Michael says:

03:23pm | 15/12/11

“Since divorce significantly outstrips Catholic Church approved anulment in this country. It is the “obvious inference”. Anulment or widowhood is simply nowhere near as likely as divorce in our country or our culture.”

Um, no.  If they give their religious belief as ‘Catholic’, and they’re ‘married’, the presumption is that any prior marriages were annulled.  You can’t get a second marriage in a Catholic Church without the first being annulled.

jade (the other one) says:

04:01pm | 15/12/11

From Catholic AUstralia, St Michael:

In Australia an annulment has no effect in civil law.

Therefore, to be divorced is the correct default assumption for the school to make where someone puts their marital status as single. Since, they would be required to put their LEGAL, not RELIGIOUS marital status. Therefore, whether an annulment under the laws of the Catholic Church occurred, the school cannot “pry into the private life of the parents” by asking. They have to go with the “obvious inference” which would be divorce.

Legal annulments declare the marriage to have never been valid, meaning under Catholic doctrine that the children are the result of marriage out of wedlock, therefore the Church, following it’s own doctrine, would not allow the children into the school, since they were born out of wedlock.

Stoic says:

08:52am | 15/02/12

I agree with Greg, we tip toe around other cultures and their beliefs in this country yet when it comes to catholics or christians we dont seem to have the right to live by our own standards and beliefs in our own country. Double standards much?

Yes its about denying an education for a little girl in a same sex family (both female) and that is what seems to be the focus of the story thats its about homophobia instead of the little girl. I say this as most of the story revolves around homosexuality, the abuse in the 80s for some guy who is the son of that guy we all know. (woopdeedoo) and how the catholic church “didnt know” which i also believe is very suss.
Make the story one or the other, dont use biased and crap reporting to justify the other.

kaz says:

06:11pm | 14/12/11

yes!!!!

yourname says:

06:25pm | 14/12/11

Ditto. You have been missed.

Don says:

09:54pm | 14/12/11

Definitely glad to see you back as well Jack. Was getting worried about what had happened to you - thought maybe Russel got his revenge?

subotic says:

08:04am | 15/12/11

I don’t know Jack…

julie says:

07:16pm | 15/12/11

its a shame that this has taken place at all, the catholic church did nothing until it become public, they did not offer the parents to enroll the child in the school until after she was enrolled in the public system
the public out cry put the catholic church on defence and that was how the publicity started, the catholic church has no reason to do this to this child the catholic church is full of corruption and paedaphiles in its sanctum,they should be very careful where they throw thier stones

Rachel says:

05:13pm | 14/12/11

So it’s OK for the ‘public’ to force their beliefs on Catholics, but not OK for Catholics to force their beliefs on gay people?

jade (the other one) says:

06:49pm | 14/12/11

@Rachel, as I stated above, I have not seen any evidence that this school is being asked not to teach their belief that homosexuality is a sin. They are being asked not to deny education to a child.

Nice strawman though.

Just another opinion! says:

07:35pm | 14/12/11

Yes indeed in this particular case it has been reported that Sacred Heart primary School - Broken Hill receives approximately 85% funding from the Federal Govt. (lack of enrolements being one reason).

Perhaps the childs parents wish to give her the option of chosing her own faith and beliefs without influencing their own beliefs onto the child.

This does not appear to be about and should never be about funding, this is about a beautiful little girl whose parents wish to give her the best chance of an education.

Tim says:

07:43pm | 14/12/11

Jade,
The school has to teach an approved curriculum to receive funds for the students it enrols.
There isn’t and shouldn’t be any requirement on who they accept.

jade (the other one) says:

10:34pm | 14/12/11

@Tim, which was kind of my point. I said that I was fairly certain the school was receiving public funds, and therefore should be obliged to enrol this student.

If the school was entirely privately funded, through donations and such, then I would suggest that, distasteful as I find it, that they have a right to refuse entry.

However, it appears that they are receiving government funds, and therefore should be obliged to enrol this student.

Tim says:

08:09am | 15/12/11

No Jade,
The school has to agree to teach an approved curriculum to receive government funds for the students it enrols. That is their obligation to get some government funding.
There is no requirement for them to enrol anybody and nor should there be.

MarkS says:

08:47am | 15/12/11

I agree with the other Jade on this one. Public funding should go hand in hand with public obligations.

I understand that is how it works in the USA. A school that is privately funded can exclude whomever they like for whatever reason they like, but as soon as they take public funds they must assume public obligations.

jade (the other one) says:

09:23am | 15/12/11

@Tim, do you agree that public schools should have the same right to refuse to enrol students who “don’t fit the ethos of the school”? Or is that a privilege reserved for the religious?

neo says:

10:11am | 15/12/11

Selective schools have a right to discriminate on the basis of the child’s learning ability, yet they are fully publicly funded.

Tim says:

01:43pm | 15/12/11

Jade,
that’s the right of all private schools.
Public schools of course have to allow everyone and thus receive more government funding than private schools.
It’s the trade-off private schools have to make.
If a private school had to allow everyone to attend then they should get 100% of the funding that private schools do.

Tim says:

01:44pm | 15/12/11

that should read
*public schools do *

jade (the other one) says:

02:14pm | 15/12/11

@neo, we don’t have selective schools in QLD. Furthermore, I highly doubt that a selective school would refuse entry to a student for something that they cannot help, so long as they met the academic requirements.

@Tim - that is private schools wanting to have their cake and eat it too. “We want public funding, but we also want special privileges that noone else gets.” If they don’t want to accept the same rules as other public institutions, then they should not receive public funds. At all.

neo says:

03:39pm | 15/12/11

Some people can’t help being of low intelligence.

St. Michael says:

05:14pm | 14/12/11

Gladly.  Now watch as the public school system explodes with masses of kids that the Catholic system otherwise takes, and the Catholic schools are more profitable than ever since they can charge what they like and take only the sons and daughters of people who can afford the fees.

Have you ever looked at the average class size in a Catholic school versus a public school? I’ll give you a hint: the public school average size is smaller.

Rachel says:

05:22pm | 14/12/11

You say discrimination, I say freedom. The same freedom that GLBT people are fighting for. Can’t we just all agree to disagree?

Matt says:

06:00pm | 14/12/11

So be it St Michael, if they ‘explode’, the government will have to deal with it.  They should not be providing PUBLIC funding (money that homosexuals have paid in taxes too) to an institution that is free to discriminate.

You have a warped sense of freedom Rachel, and no we cannot agree that discrimination is a good thing.  That’s a stupid thing to say.

Tony H says:

06:05pm | 14/12/11

If theses schools didn’t exist the taxpayer wouldn’t be picking up 70% of the costs of each students education they would be picking up 100% in state schools.

Just another opinion! says:

07:39pm | 14/12/11

Sadly in this case if the Govt. did stop the funding for this School it would be forced to close down, as it is the only private school in Broken Hill.  Due to funding cuts and poor enrolement numbers it was forced a number of years ago to close down the High School portion of the School, so I don’t think that is an alternate.  This story is not based on funding issues.

sandra says:

08:55pm | 14/12/11

And that would apply to Muslim schools as well right??? The elephant in this very big social engineering room!!!!! Bring it on!!!

TheRealDave says:

09:37pm | 14/12/11

Exactly TonyH. It’s a testament to the Public system that we have these absolute Dills who think paying 70% and less to the Private Schools is somehow worse than the Public system having to pay 100% for the same students.

I suggested redirecting some of those Public funds back into Mathematics…..here’s a free tip: 70% is LESS than 100% - you’re welcome.

John Smith says:

10:44pm | 14/12/11

@St Michael:

“Gladly.  Now watch as the public school system explodes with masses of kids that the Catholic system otherwise takes, and the Catholic schools are more profitable than ever since they can charge what they like and take only the sons and daughters of people who can afford the fees.

Have you ever looked at the average class size in a Catholic school versus a public school? I’ll give you a hint: the public school average size is smaller.”

Get your facts straight, Catholic schools boast smaller class sizes to attract enrollments, and they do indeed have smaller class sizes and they do this deliberately to pay their teachers up to 20% less than their state counter-parts.

You have no idea. Catholic Schools are more profitable because they wealth distribute and discriminate. Plain and simple. Catholic schools except the larger and well off ones do not offer the same level of services. Catholic schools also skimp on other things that make them ‘more profitable’ ie no under cover workways, less cold water drinking taps, less library books, the list goes on and on. Public schools and catholic schools are not apples for apples, not at all. But catholic schools have the advantage of getting rid of bad element kids that the state system cant turn away. There is the religious side, but hey thats another debate, afterall the religious teachings the principal of the school got lead to this little ‘error in judgement’ now didnt it?

As for your comment “Now watch as the public school system explodes with masses of kids that the Catholic system otherwise takes”.

This happens all the time, schools simply build more buildings. while they build more to accomodate growth they put in quick to assemble demountable classrooms, the catholic teachers simple show up to work at a new location and life goes on, they teach the national curriculum and drop out the RE part, which is very small anyways. The state system could absorb the 15% and below market share the catholic schools have no worries at all.

What do you think happens when the can of worms gets cracked open on a catholic school that had a pervert catholic teacher touching the kids? The parents pull their kids out and send them to the state system till it blows over and the catholic school builds its enrolments again.

Same as public schools that have a bad event, parents send them to another.

St. Michael says:

11:24pm | 14/12/11

“So be it St Michael, if they ‘explode’, the government will have to deal with it.”

Thank you once more for demonstrating what is inherently wrong with wanting to be judged on your intentions rather than your results.  Don’t sweat it too much; it’s sort of an inherent requirement to be part of the Left.

Matt says:

08:14am | 15/12/11

Perhaps you can explain then St Michael why a PRIVATE school who is free to discriminate should receive public funds?

I didn’t say close every private school.  But catholic schools that are free to discriminate should not receive public money.  Simple as that.  Who cares if they close.  If they do it simply means the catholics consider their schools more a business than a teaching institution.  Why shouldn’t they fund their own schools - it’s not like they can’t afford it..

Or simply, make them tow the line in complying with the discrimination act.

Matt says:

08:24am | 15/12/11

Just another opinion - again, so what if the school has to close down?  This is a funding issue.  Catholic schools are private, they are free to discriminate if they wish, but why should they be allowed to discriminate when receiving public money?  What other issue is it besides a funding issue?

You’d think it was the end of the world if a school was denied funding because they’re discriminatory.  Let the catholics fund them if they want to run by their own rules.

sandra, don’t see what that has to do with anything but if they receive public money and free to discriminate, then yes I think they shouldn’t recieve public funding.

St Michael with the hypocrisy of your last comment I have no doubt you are religious.  “judged on your intentions” - just as you judged me because I think public funding should not be available to institutions that are free to discriminate.

St. Michael says:

10:57am | 15/12/11

@ John Smith: would you like to back up your comments with anything other than contemptuous dismissal and sourceless generalisation?

Mine’s coming from direct experience of several Catholic schools in my area.

@ Matt: “St Michael with the hypocrisy of your last comment I have no doubt you are religious.  “judged on your intentions” - just as you judged me because I think public funding should not be available to institutions that are free to discriminate.”

Read my last comment again.  I said Lefties would rather be judged on their good intentions, than the results of trying to put their good but impractical intentions into effect.  As for me being religious: hardly.  If I was I’d be asking to be judged on my intentions, too, rather than the cruelties that result from trying to put them into place.

Tom says:

02:20pm | 15/12/11

Sandra, well said. And didn’t the quivering hypocrites continue to pretend they had not noticed the “elephant in this very big social engineering room!”?

Amazing to watch how cowardly Australians become when real issues confront them.

Matt says:

02:33pm | 15/12/11

In this case there would be nothing ‘cruel’ about this school closing..  It is however, the job of the government to ensure public schooling for all children, even the few that won’t get shifted to other private non-catholic schools.

As for your comment to John -

“would you like to back up your comments with anything other than contemptuous dismissal and sourceless generalisation”

Sounds like a contemptuous dismissal to me..

“Mine’s coming from direct experience of several Catholic schools in my area.”

And followed by sourceless generalisation too.. well done St Michael, you sure you’re not religious?

St. Michael says:

03:26pm | 15/12/11

“In this case there would be nothing ‘cruel’ about this school closing.”

Really?

Why?

Waynevan says:

06:02pm | 14/12/11

Good point. A few years ago there was a doco on SBS about the Abu Ghraib prison torture. It contained the statement “What offended the Islamic world most was the implication of homosexual acts.” Thereby showing respect to the Muslim belief that homosexuality is wrong, but if Christians voice their concern about it look what happens.

yobogod says:

06:45pm | 14/12/11

In a documentary on SBS, I saw that Afghani men consider it quite normal to oggle at “Dancing Boy’s”.
These boys are usually rented out for the night, after their night of dancing to entertain the menfolk. 
These boys are dressed as girls for their performances, and the average age is 10-14, with 17-19 considered the end of the line.  Many of these boys disappear when they reach that point, their owners claiming to have sent themback to the villiage they bought them from.
It’s a complicated mess, and the Taliban themselves rose to power on the back of national disgust at a bloody war that broke out between two warlords, over a particularly fetching young boy.

This is the same peoples that will happily stone to death a gay man, and yet police Officers are regularly seen at “Dancing boy” performances.

Sometimes solutions to Complex Situations can be simple, even if viewed as harsh. 
however,
Over Simplifying a complex problem only leads to erroneous data sets.

I do not doubt that most Australians want fair treatment for everyone.  Yet we are troubled by the complexities of treating systems that perpetuate hate-crime, with the same fairness said systems deny others.

The notion of Justice would have us, on the one hand, enforce anti-discriminatory measures upon the various factions of the one godders, yet by that very token, we feel the need to empathise with the religious institutions and their struggle with modern notions.

Imho, we cannot force the one godders to do things they do not wish to do, but we can hope that they someday find the love that their chosen deity professes to symbolise.

acotrel says:

04:30am | 15/12/11

@Johu
Discrimination should not occur in public funded or subsidised institution in particular, or elsewhere for that matter.  However most catholics are aware of the shortcomings of their church, and work around them.  The church has no problem with gay people, only with appearance.  If homosexuality is thrust in their face they will react, otherwise it is not a problem.  It is unreasonable to expect rapid change in such a conservative authoritarian organisation.  Gay people will obviously try, but ‘good luck with that’ ! Unfortunately the catholic church is not a democratic institution. It really is ‘built on a rock’ !

Nathan Explosion says:

09:00am | 15/12/11

If it is a stunt, why aren’t they be taking advantage of the media?

Alf says:

05:02pm | 14/12/11

@Gold. “If you are a lesbian couple, why would you WANT to send your child to a Catholic school”.

Ask a Nun that question.

gobsmack says:

06:19pm | 14/12/11

The catholic school system churns out more than its fair share of homosexuals as I can personally attest.

yobogod says:

06:54pm | 14/12/11

Perhaps they are not so savvey as yourself GOLD, their possible rose coloured glasses perhaps led them to believe that their progressive home town could never throw this in their face.

Perhaps said school is the best in the area.

or

Maybe their child wants to be a member of the Cloth.

or

Maybe their kids mates all went to that school.

or

One of the ladies already had a child go thru that school, previously before finally relenting to her lesbian yearnings.

or

a martian version of John Paul Jones landed in their loungeroom, demanding to see “the one child of the true God”, advised them of an educational plan then left in a burst of light (and sparkly unicorn farts)

shrug, if they arent talking to the media about it, who knows what they were thinking?  You? perhaps one of the people posting under you?

we can pose logical propositions, based on extended analysis of generalised expectation. 

Or, we can sit back and gossip like old nuns

sorry sarcastic humour on the net alwaysfails : /....
and of course-  opinion+internet=fact

just another opinion! says:

07:49pm | 14/12/11

@GOLD I take it you are not a lesbian couple?  Perhaps the parents of this child are open minded enough to want their child to have the opportunity to develop her own faith and beliefs? rather than enforce their own!

Isn’t that what we should be encouraging more people to do? A little religion never hurt anyone…

get real says:

06:07pm | 14/12/11

I don’t know Alf, what sort of “lightening conductors” are you talking about? But I’m sure a lightning witted fellow like yourself could enlighten us.

In fact, your entire “joke” is absolute bollocks. Were you in such a hurry to take a cheap shot at Christians, that you didn’t bother to read your post, before clicking on the submit button?

yourname says:

06:28pm | 14/12/11

Alf still has a point, though—it is about the endless contradictions Christianity contains.

Alf says:

06:29pm | 14/12/11

@Get Real. You have a funny name for someone who believes in a book of fiction.

get real says:

08:09pm | 14/12/11

Alf, I trust your second post is also a joke. To defend your stupid attempt at humour, you have created a straw-man, and knocked him down.

By all means, please show where in my post I have indicated my religious beliefs

Alf says:

09:17pm | 14/12/11

@get real. What exactly is your problem then? Apart fom criticising my comments, you have SFA else to say???? Piss off and find someone else else to annoy.

hellonathan says:

10:01pm | 14/12/11

@get real - A lightning rod or lightning conductor is a metal rod or conductor mounted on top of a building and electrically connected to the ground through a wire, to protect the building in the event of lightning. If lightning strikes the building it will preferentially strike the rod, and be conducted harmlessly to ground through the wire, instead of passing through the building, where it could start a fire or cause electrocution. Lightning is an atmospheric electrostatic discharge accompanied by thunder, which typically occurs during thunderstorms. From this discharge of atmospheric electricity, a leader of a bolt of lightning can travel at speeds of 220,000 km/h, and can reach temperatures approaching 30,000 °C, hot enough to fuse silica sand into glass channels known as fulgurites, which are normally hollow and can extend some distance into the ground. There are some 16 million lightning storms in the world every year most of which hit churches.

Rachel says:

05:16pm | 14/12/11

There’s nothing in my Bible about disabled people?

St. Michael says:

05:19pm | 14/12/11

“Who are they to judge people like that?!”

Mandated by law as well as religion, actually.

Look at the Fair Work Act, for example.  It makes a specific exclusion that discrimination-based dismissals can’t get up against religious institutions if the reason for the dismissal was due to something against the tenets of their religion.  Which a same-sex relationship is, at least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned.

They wouldn’t have rejected any of the other examples you cited because none of them are against the Catholic faith.  Stop your straw manning on that.

“non-Christians send their kids to church-run schools for all sorts of reasons”

Yes, but there are conditions of acceptance that the parents endorse and uphold the Catholic faith.  At least for the moment, gay relationships are not compatible with Catholicism.  Not that I like it, but that’s the religion.

Jayel says:

06:05pm | 14/12/11

Okay, so do they check if the parents eat shellfish, wear clothing of blended fibre, mix crops in the same field?

Peter says:

06:13pm | 14/12/11

Jayel, who died and made you god so that you can judge the whole Church? You point the finger and there are 3 fingers ALWAYS pointing back at you.

Jayel says:

06:44pm | 14/12/11

Peter, just asking for consistency. It’s only what god said, after all. Why be selective about it?

BTW, I don’t think all Catholics are bad at all - quite the contrary. I just wonder why they put up with some of the people who claim to represent them.

subotic says:

08:52am | 15/12/11

@Jayel, what the hell is a ‘coloured’ coupled? Are these biased people, y’know, influenced or coloured by a negative life experience?

Coloured people. How bloody insulting.

And I’m WHITE.

Jayel says:

09:50am | 15/12/11

Goodness me, Subiotic - why do you think there are quote marks around the phrase? To put the dots more closely together for you, it was a reference to the language used in the US where some Christians used the tenets of their religion to try and justify segregation of African Americans and the white population and deny them civil rights. People don’t choose their skin colour, sexual orientation or a disability - that was my point. Just because religious organisations are given legal dispensation to discriminate on the basis of what is written in their religious text of choice doesn’t make it right.

subotic says:

10:30am | 15/12/11

@Jayel, just to fill in the blanks, I’m a white Australian male, my wife is bi-racial African-American/ Hispanic from Indiana, USA, and nobody there from any side of the racial street uses ‘coloured people’ in any conversation.

No, really….

Jayel says:

11:33am | 15/12/11

@Subotic - I can see why I’ve inadvertently hit a sore spot and I am sorry to have done so. But please note the use of past tense in my post, as intentional as the use of the quote marks in the first instance. Just to fill in the blanks on my side of the equation, I am white, and my partner is Asian, so our kids are what might be termed ‘biracial’. Hope that helps clear things up.

Tom says:

03:08pm | 15/12/11

subiotic, get a life.

subotic says:

03:45pm | 15/12/11

@Tom, get a spellchecker.

And while you’re at it, go back to Myspace.

Tom says:

04:41pm | 15/12/11

@Subiotic (Psychotic). I am COLOURED and don’t have a problem with that term.

... “and nobody there from any side of the racial street uses ‘coloured people’ in any conversation”.

I don’t care what happens in your little world in Indiana. I am from Australia not Indiana, and we don’t give a rats about the term. We use it all the time and no-one gets precious palpitations.

I suggest you lose the chip on your shoulder.

subotic says:

08:31am | 16/12/11

@Tommy boy, you douche, I’m a white Australian male living in Australia. My missus is from the States. Can’t you read sunshine?

And I’m happy you feel “coloured”. I really don’t give the cuss of a dirty old tinker about your colour. And I’m guessing by “coloured” you just mean non-white, which leaves it all open to debate. A lot of Italians consider themselves non-white. Big deal-a-roonie.

Make sure you stay inside the lines, huh?

Tom says:

01:33pm | 16/12/11

@Idiotic,  I suggest you lose that chip on your shoulder. Feel free to move to Indiana. Australia doesn’t need toxic pricks like you.

David says:

05:19pm | 14/12/11

Hmmm so homosexuals can’t procreate? So how did my gay friends end up with kids?

Jess says:

05:30pm | 14/12/11

First of all family is what an individual wants it to be. My friends are my family. family is not limited to blood relation. There is not difference between a hetro couple adopting and a same sex couple doing the same. Both wish to be able to have families to love and cherish regardless of the reasons they can not have children naturally. To be so heartless and blind sighted is something you would expect from a nazi!! You can not tell people who they may call family or who they are allowed to love. I am gay and proud of it, i dont wish to normalise anything. Am i asking you to have a same sex relationship?? Am i telling you its wrong to be hertosexual?? I feel sorry for your children if you have them or plan to…because its not their fault they have you as a small minded, soulless father

Markus says:

05:55pm | 14/12/11

@David, short of immaculate conception, I’m going to go out on a limb and say by means that didn’t involve sex with their partner.

just another opinion! says:

08:02pm | 14/12/11

@Luke, in this case I would say that this child has been blessed to be born into a loving, caring family environment, whom clearly want the best for their child, and are open to allowing the child to recieve a religious overview and a good education…  “God” help the world if you manage to procreate!

Mumofmany says:

06:05pm | 14/12/11

No, God does not discriminate, he loves everyone.  But His response to those who call out to Him is, “You are forgiven, now go and sin no more.”

Mattyc says:

06:12pm | 14/12/11

hear hear. One day if I get to meet god I will ask god if he/she gets frustrated that the message of love and kindness, doing onto others etc that Christianity was supposed to be built is lost because humans are selfish hate filled tribal idiots…..... Mind you if the Christians are right about god I might be heading downstairs where it’s a little hotter

Greg says:

06:29pm | 14/12/11

That’s why I am not a Christian, despite coming from a Christian heritage.

All that “turning the other cheek” and compromising your beliefs upon demand. Pathetic behaviour, from a religion whose members would have once preferred to be burnt at the stake rather than compromise their beliefs.

Now the bishops turn to jelly every time a journalist gives them a phone call.

It’s no wonder that Christianity’s many enemies treat it and treat Christians with such disrespect. They deserve it. At least Jews and Muslims stand up for themselves.

Greg says:

06:34pm | 14/12/11

Clearly not. The “parents” are teaching the child values that are in direct conflict with those promoted by the school.

The school was also willing to forgo the government funding associated with the extra enrolment, in order to maintain its principles. At least until the weak kneed Bishop got involved.

David says:

08:43am | 15/12/11

Actually no they can’t. A private organisation like a commercial enterprise can not discriminate against homosexuals. It is against the law. I don’t see how a school should be any different.

Al says:

10:38am | 15/12/11

David - actualy an organisation that is run along specific religous doctorine can’t be prosecuted for discrimination for enforcing that doctorine. It is SPECIFICLY provided for in the Anti-discrimination Act.
As such there would be no issues for a Catholic school refusing the enrolement of an openly gay student as it is part of the religous system the school is run under. They could even refuse access to school grounds for the homosexual parents/carers of the child on religous grounds.
But punishing someone else for another person/s sins/actions may be different. A little like punisihng a child under law for a crime commited by their parent/s.

Greg says:

06:15pm | 14/12/11

“While these schools are happily pocketing taxpayers’ money, they abrogate their right to discriminate against ANYBODY. “

No they don’t. They are saving the taxpayers’ money, as the cost to the taxpayers would be higher if all private school students suddenly decided to go to public schools.

So they are already providing a benefit to taxpayers, and they shouldn’t be penalised for it by having to compromise their beliefs.

yourname says:

06:35pm | 14/12/11

“hate-filled” is going too far. There are plenty of extremely decent people in Catholic schools. A bit fuzzy-minded, perhaps, given their proclivity of believing in things that aren’t there. But good people otherwise.

Tom says:

06:35pm | 15/12/11

Colin, its all in your term “riff-raff”.

Jesus advocated a belief system based on Jewish law, which incidently did not allow homosexuality. People who did not follow that law properly were “riff-raff”. However, he also opened the door to “riff-raff” to change themselves by coming to him.

However, he did not accept the ones who rejected his teachings. When they chose to remain as “riff-raff”, he focused on the ones who did change. This seems pretty consistent with what the Catholics were doing in this case.

hawker says:

08:03pm | 14/12/11

I went to a Catholic school. Noone taught me there was anything “intrinsically wrong with homosexuals”. Noone much cared.

just another opinion says:

08:59pm | 14/12/11

@get real… I dont believe in all of the related stories this particular article has attracted that any where it states that the parents of the child demanded anything… I do believe a request was put forward some 5 months ago on the possibility of the child attending the catholic private school, on the basis her parents where open to the child receiving the best possible education and also being priviledged with a religious overview.  Most public schools these days do not offer religious classes. I am sure that there is no written curricular condeming same sex relationships within the Catholic school system, I sure the School would be concentrating on spelling, reading, writting and maths!  And if you were fully informed from your comfy computer chair you would actually be aware that the parents have chosen not to take the Schools reluctant offer of enrolement.  Children don’t discriminate, unfortunately it is a learned behaviour…
And to even consider making a statement relating this little girls circumstance to a vegetarien restaurant… Really? may be you are the one who needs to get real!

Little Joe says:

08:08am | 15/12/11

@ Get Real.

Exactly!!! A little “Look at Me” stunt!!!

Mrs Mouse says:

08:25pm | 15/12/11

Oh no, its just that they are such disadvantaged, quaint, well-intentioned peaceful people. We love them in Newtown and would not consider attacking them.

After all isn’t Australia multicultural and tolerant. If that is their belief then I say, jolly good luck to them.

And also, we would not want to offend them ....

badwof says:

08:25am | 15/12/11

Autism is also naturally occurring so lets give special rights to them and have them flaunt the disability.
Seriously i am sick of hearing about these sexually disabled people all the time.

Ezza says:

12:05pm | 15/12/11

Flaunt Autism! Sexually disabled! You Sir, are a narrow-minded, ignorant bigoted wanker. It’s people like you that embarrass this nation.

Andre says:

03:54pm | 15/12/11

Sexually disabled is an interesting way to put it.

Badwolf says:

11:18am | 16/12/11

@Ezz   You Sir, are a narrow-minded, ignorant bigoted wanker?
wow now thats a bigoted statement if i have ever heard one! do you even know what bigiot means? A bigiot is a person who will not change their mind ever or just plain refuses to listen, i assure you i have listened to both sides and do not agree with the left on this issue and have become tired of it.

Now i’ll guess you will go on at this point how you are not a bigiot, but the thing is you really are. Calling some one a bigiot at a drop of a hat just because they dont agree with you (without even engaging in debate) meets the very definition of a bigiot.

As embrassing this nation. Lets be honest now most other nations dont give a damm about our stance on gay marriage because most are in the same stituation as us or worse.

just another opinion says:

09:43pm | 14/12/11

@Micheal Murphy, from what I understand of the basis of the story, Jack Marx has done a very good job of publishing the information that has been made available about this particular situation.  Being from a small town, I am sure you are aware that everyone knows everyone, and thus can understand perhaps why the parents wish to remain anonymous, given the sensitivity of the circumstance.  I am sure you will agree that the sacred grounds perhaps have changed a little since it was graced by your presence. Having said that, this story relates to the denial of enrolement when the parents applied some months ago, which is the point Mr Marx is making. From my understanding there is no further story to obtain.

Michael Murphy says:

07:35am | 15/12/11

@just another opinion Is that you Jack?

St. Michael says:

11:45pm | 14/12/11

“So I can send my non-religious daughter to an Islamic School and DEMAND that her needs be catered for including regular Pork Sangas from the tuckshop?”

At the risk of being facetious, are you selling front row tickets to her first day at school?

Little Joe says:

06:19am | 15/12/11

Yep!!

Tom says:

08:18pm | 15/12/11

Agreed, I think you should stay away from the Catholic Church, their schools and their priests. Knowing so much about Jesus, perhaps you should start your own religion too.

subotic says:

02:40pm | 15/12/11

Middle eastern religions…. Bah humbug.

Islam - Seventy-two virgins. Does that make sense to anyone? And it’s an ancient religion, maybe it was misinterpreted? Maybe it’s not 72 virgins, maybe it’s a 7-foot-2 Persian.

And look at the insane things the Jews believe. The Jews believe that Barbra Streisand is worth $1,000 bucks a ticket.

Old Chook says:

11:31am | 15/12/11

It dosen’t matter !!! Christians Muslim or any other religion, same old shit only the depth varies

subotic says:

11:43am | 15/12/11

And more of a chance of getting their hands cut off for thieving.

Allahu Akbar!!!

prosperity says:

01:46pm | 15/12/11

Please be clear on one point.  Homosexuals are not paedophiles. Paedophiles are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent boys. Homosexual men and women are only attracted to men and women who have reached their puberty. More often than not they prefer a partner of a similar age to themselves. Gay and lesbian people have the same sort of healthy attitude and affection for children as do most people.

St. Michael says:

01:51pm | 15/12/11

If, as you seem to be implying, you think that paedophilia has anything to do with homosexuality you are very, very misinformed.  They’re two separate desires entirely.

It’s like the dialogue out of Shawshank Redemption:
“The Sisters have taken a real liking to you.”
“I suppose it wouldn’t help to tell them I’m not homosexual.”
“Neither are they.  You’d have to be human first.”

subotic says:

02:26pm | 15/12/11

@prosperity, are you delusional? Have you never heard the term Twinks?

Go check out a gay terminology site and look up ‘Twink’.

“Homosexual men and women are only attracted to men and women who have reached their puberty”.... BWAAAAHAHAHAHA….

Jeebus… save me… I can’t stop laughing…

holden says:

02:32pm | 15/12/11

Protest all you like but my definition of a ‘homosexual’ is simply one who prefers sexual experiences with someone of their own sex. Maybe I’m wrong, and if so I’m happy to be corrected, but it seems to me that whether your particular preference is for boys, young men, middle aged men, or old
men, is of no import. The fact is, and will for me remain, that sex with your own gender is homosexual sex.
Ergo paedophiles are homosexuals. Maybe not all homosexuals are paedophiles, but that’s not the point. You both say that homosexuality and paedophilia are completely different things. In my opinion, you are not only wrong, but knowingly wrong.
Ask a man who has been buggered by someone usually in authority, (priest, teacher, guardian, et al), when he was a boy whether he feels that he has been through a homosexual experience. I think that he will correctly answer, “Yes”.
Anyway, look the bloody term up. Google it. ‘Man with male child, women with female child, male with mature man, woman with mature woman, all homosexual unions’. Some paedophilic, some not, but ALL homosexual. It is also loosely called “same-sex sex”. As in ‘same-sex marriage.

St. Michael says:

03:20pm | 15/12/11

Too bad you missed the many instances of male paedophiles who sexually abuse little girls.  Or, as is increasingly common, female paedophiles who sexually abuse boys.

Are heterosexuals paedophiles?

prosperity says:

05:14pm | 15/12/11

subtonic: “Twink” is a gay slang term describing a young or young-looking gay man (18–23 age category) with a slender, ectomorph build, little or no body hair, and no facial hair. In some societies, the term chick or chicken is preferred,  What is your point, exactly?

holden says:

07:52pm | 15/12/11

St Mick. All paedophilia is horrendous. Yes, many paedophiles are hetero’s, but that is not the point. What is the point is that ALL molestation, all abuse, of the male on male, female on female is, by definition a homosexual situation.
All sexual abuse of the opposite gender is hetrosexual, ALL abuse of the same gender is homosexual. Ergo, homosexuals ARE paedophiles. Not all of them, maybe, but you try to quote “experts” to deny what is an obvious truth. Prosperity, you and St Mick are trying to defend the indefensible. Typical pathetic justification for the patently unjustified behaviour of Homosexual paedophilia.

St. Michael says:

10:41pm | 15/12/11

“Ergo paedophiles are homosexuals. Maybe not all homosexuals are paedophiles, but that’s not the point. You both say that homosexuality and paedophilia are completely different things. In my opinion, you are not only wrong, but knowingly wrong.”

You are implying that only homosexuals are paedophiles.  Paedophilia is a disordered desire to have sex with children.  Gender is not a factor.  Paedophilia is not directly connected with homosexuality per se any more than it’s directly connected with heterosexuality, because paedophiles can and often do abuse children of opposing genders, just as paedophiles can and often do abuse children of the same gender.

You are being highly disingenuous by suggesting that all homosexuals are paedophiles, which is what you seem to be implying.  Do I have your view wrong?

subotic says:

08:21am | 16/12/11

@prosperity, I have yet to see anything anywhere that defines Twinks as having a defined age bracket, but you are correct about the gay slang term describing a “young” or “young-looking” gay man.

The next logical question is, how young do you want them to look?

23? 20? 18?

Yea, right.

Seriously, let’s get real here…..

prosperity says:

11:17am | 16/12/11

subotic: “A next logical question is, how young do you want them (young men) to look? 23? 20? 18?”
Why don’t you ask this question of heterosexual men of a mature age who ogle well endowed young girls and make lewd comments about what they would like to do with them?  What about older men who seem attracted to young, especially Asian girls? What about the men who marry them, or other women many years their junior?  Are these things acceptable when they relate to heterosexuals, but perverted in same sex circumstances?

subotic says:

12:00pm | 16/12/11

@prosperity, I understand your point, and don’t disagree, regardless of gender preference.

Your blanket statement of “Homosexual men and women are only attracted to men and women who have reached their puberty.” is the issue originally raised. You know, and I know, and everyone else here knows; that’s crap.

That is all…..

prosperity says:

01:24pm | 16/12/11

subotic: “Your blanket statement of “Homosexual men and women are only attracted to men and women who have reached their puberty.” is the issue originally raised. You know, and I know, and everyone else here knows; that’s crap”.

Do not attribute to me (and others) your own foolish, bigoted, ill-informed opinion. If you choose to ignore empirical clinical research on the subject and any amount of anecdotal evidence, that is your business. Or it would be, if it didn’t give rise to hatred and violence directed against homosexuals by people in the community who wrongly believe homosexuals are paedophiles

I say again, irrespective of your opinion, which is a dangerous and mischievous falsehood and the product of a closed mind, the truth is that gays are only sexually attracted to post-pubescent males. 

That is all ...

St. Michael says:

10:42pm | 15/12/11

“I’ll be buggered…”

Not literally, I hope?

subotic says:

08:24am | 16/12/11

@St. Michael, and what’s wrong with a bit of the “back door man” action?

Rum, sodomy and a bit of the lash never hurt anyone….

prosperity says:

07:28am | 16/12/11

For all the talk of the Bible and Our Lord Saviour the Jesus Christ, and despite the fact that homosexuality is an abomination akin to eating crustaceans, it is my understanding that nowhere in the new testament did Jesus Christ explicitly even utter the word.  Of course any number of texts can be interpreted to suit, but that is the way of the Holy Bible.