Why are we paying to teach ID?

The SMH has been headlining the weekend news with stories of taxpayers over funding private schools to the tune of $2b (yes, that is two Billion dollars). As if that isn’t bad enough, it turns out that some of this money is going to schools which teach Creationism and/or Intelligent Design! Sean the Blogonaut has been discussing this problem at his blog.

I provided Sean with the links to the applicable SMH articles, which make quite interesting, and somewhat disturbing, reading:

Taxpayers owed $2b

Loophole keeps schools in clover

Opinion – In black and white, the unfairness of school funding

The Government needs to plug-up these loopholes and stop providing so much money to private schools.

The opinion piece, and one of the letters to the editor, question why nothing has been done about this. One would think the current Government could have a field day blaming the previous government for this fiasco. Then making themselves look good by fixing it. It’s been two days since the report in Saturdays SMH was released and not a peep out of the Government. Is it because a large portion of this money is going to the Catholic school system?

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under atheism, atheist, christianity, creationism, ID, news, politics, private school funding, religion

4 responses to “Why are we paying to teach ID?

  1. arthurvandelay

    The SMH has been headlining the weekend news with stories of taxpayers over funding private schools to the tune of $2b (yes, that is two Billion dollars). As if that isn’t bad enough, it turns out that some of this money is going to schools which teach Creationism and/or Intelligent Design!

    Not to mention schools which are allowed to discriminate against some of the very people whose taxes fund them–non-theists, (out) GLBTS, etc. Obviously this would have implications for the academic freedom of those applying for science teacher positions in the schools you mention–especially if such applicants think science is what should be taught in science classrooms, and (rightly) consider creationism/ID to be pseudoscientific religious dogma.

    I mean–how on earth is this constitutional. Section 116 says there shall be no religious test for office under the Commonwealth: if private schools are receiving taxpayer funds, and yet require applicants to supply a reference from a priest or pastor, or (in the case of science education) to compromise their integrity as science teachers by promoting pseudoscience as science (thereby lying to students), how does that not qualify as a religious test?

  2. Grumpy

    The latest Religion Report (5/2) has an interview with newly-elected NSW Greens Senator (sorry, forgotten his name) on this subject, in particular, Exclusive Bretheren schools.

  3. Thanks Grumpy, I assume you mean this interview with Senator John Kaye?

  4. Grumpy

    That’s the one. Senator Kaye makes some excellent points – he sounds like he’s from the Secular Party rather than the Greens. It will be interesting to see if Rudd has spine enough to follow up his statements.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s