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?

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

4 Comments to “Why are we paying to teach ID?”

  1. arthurvandelay says:

    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 says:

    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. ozatheist says:

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

  4. Grumpy says:

    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

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>