One of the things that is consistently overlooked in the discussion of “religion in school” is how important it is to one narrow subgroup of Christians: Evangelical Protestants.

You won’t hear Australian Greek Orthodox leaders clamoring for a go at preps.  Why?  They run “Greek schools”, where Greek families send their kids, AFTER SCHOOL to engage in their traditions and forms of worship.

The group however that is most activist in threatening our society, and the group who has chosen to be the most hostile to our traditions of secular democratic values?  Evangelical Protestants.

Who is the Chairman of ACCESS Ministry?  An Evangelical activist.  Who is the CEO of ACCESS?  An Evangelical activist.  How do we know this? They openly admit it. and serve on the organizing group for the a worldwide evangelical movement called “The Lausanne Covenant”.

To most people this is meaningless.  So what?

Thanks to the Pew Forum on Religion, we now have a peek at what the leaders of these activist evangelical parachurch organizations actually BELIEVE:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2036/worldwide-evangelical-christian-leaders-poll-lausanne-congress

Please read the summary or the report if you’re interested in getting a snapshot into this subset of Christian thinking.

The troubling thing is that the leaders of our schools don’t seem to pay any attention to just how incompatible this group is with the basic ideals of our society and of our education system.

How do we know this?  They tell us!  The first thing to notice about Evangelical activists is that it is “us and them” all the way down.

If you aren’t part of their group, they don’t look very favorably on you, what is the dividing line in their world view?  You guessed it, the bible, so Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and people who don’t believe in God … pretty much get looked down on.  Take heart you Buddhists, you live in a “secular society” where you are equal under the law!

The second thing to realize about Evangelical leaders is that their opinions tend not to be “their opinions”, 60% believe God reveals things to them, and 40% believe they are prophets.

In medicine and health they have a leg up on doctors because they have either experienced or witnessed God healing people (what does this say about those who God doesn’t choose to heal?)

This should be enough to warrant NOT hiring evangelical leaders to run school programs, but wait, it gets worse, close to 60% believe that people can be possessed by evil spirits.  Folks this kind of thing has no basis in reality.  People are not “possessed by evil spirits”, these are views of the dark ages, of backward tribes or of cults.  If someone’s eyes roll back in their head and they convulse on the floor, this means they need a doctor, not an exorcist.

What do they believe is a “threat” ?  The number one thing is “secularism” … far from having a positive view of this core part of our system of laws, 71% say it is a major threat.

Got that?  Instead of being the source of their freedom to worship as they choose, “secularism” is held as a “major threat”.

It is important to keep in mind that a core tradition of Australian Society, and of our education system is “secularism”.  These same people propose to be given ACCESS to teach “values”.  What kind of value system views secularism, as a threat?

Former High Court Justice, Michael Kirby recently wrote that the invention of secular traditions within the British system of law, is probably the single most important advance in the development of human rights in all of history.  So much for teaching our kids values or traditions!  While it is great to see that Catholics no longer rank as a leading threat, what is really sad to see is what is NOT on this list:  ignorance and illiteracy, seemingly pose no threat.

Lastly, who do evangelical leaders most want to evangelize?  Not surprisingly, they want to evangelize people who are “not religious”, seconded only by people whom they wish to convert from their current religion … this is not good news for families in Australia who wish to raise their children without religious teachings or in a faith tradition other than the one they believe is the only way to “know God”.  What does this mean in practice in our schools?  It means you must opt out to avoid THEM, because in our public school … evangelical leaders have lobbied to put a policy in place to pursue their agenda.

Four parents interviewed by Ali Majokah of The Moving Media Project discuss ACCESS Ministries, religious education, it’s role in the public education system and more.

Topics include ACCESS Ministries volunteer suitability, evangelism of literal biblical belief to small children, exploitation of Victoria’s secular education legislation, the impact on children through segregation and divisiveness and the importance of inter-faith education – presently lacking in the ACCESS model.

Creationism, Heaven and Hell, Noah’s Ark “facts”, religious discrimination, wasted curriculum time and corrosion of Victoria’s unique secular education policy also come up. Originally in 1872 school education was legislatively protected from any and all religious dominance. By 1950, activist clerics sought to “Christianise” our schools.

The great camera work is by Colin Wirt. Thanks to The Moving Media Project for making this possible.

Unlike Victoria, which adopted a “secular” system of educational administration in the 19th century, Quebec is still navigating the divide, this article is from a government official explaining why the Government is not going to subsidize day care centers who enforce religious identity on children … NOTE TO THE GOOD PEOPLE OF QUEBEC:  Just do what Victoria does, and give the toddlers an opt out.  Any parent who does not want day care workers to lead children in prayers can ask the day care worker to put their child in a separate room.  That is the solution we have in Victoria … works great!

MONTREAL – I would like to set the record straight concerning the government directive on religious instruction in subsidized childcare services.

The Gazette’s June 2 editorial (“Quebec gives new meaning to the term ‘nanny state’”) says that children would no longer be allowed to sing Au clair de la lune. On June 8, an Opinion article (“God protect us from radical secularists”) says that the words “Christmas” and “Passover” would be banished. It also charges that the directive is extreme and that the approach is reminiscent of that adopted by jihadists.

Such an interpretation in no way reflects the letter or the spirit of the directive.

Tolerance, inclusion and respect for individual freedoms are the key principles that have guided us in the elaboration of the directive.

The government has chosen to no longer allow the learning of a specific religion in subsidized daycare centres. However, there is a difference between emphasizing the cultural aspects of Christmas and recreating the nativity scene with children. There is a difference between singing Au clair de la lune and reciting prayers on a regular basis with a group of children. There is also a clear difference between a child who initiates a gesture and a child who repeats a prayer initiated by a person in a position of authority.

That is the line that is being drawn. No religion is singled out.

We respect individuals. Our intention is not, nor has it ever been, to prevent children from being themselves. Our directive is the result of a thoughtful, transparent and inclusive process.

When the subsidized daycare program was created in 1997, religion was not addressed by the Parti Québécois. In 2010, given the numerous questions raised publicly, it was the government’s responsibility to elaborate guidelines to clarify the situation regarding religion in daycare services.

After announcing our intention to no longer allow religious learning in subsidized daycares, the Ministry of Families and Seniors established an advisory committee. Members of this committee included representatives of religious childcare services, as well as a specialist on religious matters.

Our work with the committee allowed us to better understand childcare services that offer religious learning. We were also able to better anticipate some of the challenges of the application of a directive.

In December 2010, I announced the directive on religious learning in childcare services. To give childcare services sufficient time to adapt their educational and activity programs, the application of the directive was delayed until June 1. This transition period was also favourable for older children leaving daycare services to attend school.

The government has chosen to adopt this directive and we take full responsibility for it. The transmission of faith is a responsibility that parents, not government-subsidized childcare services, must assume. Consequently, we have chosen not to prevent non-subsidized childcare services from offering religious childcare services.

It is never easy to strike a balance when addressing issues regarding religion. I understand that these are important issues that must be approached with the utmost sensitivity. I believe that we have done so with respect and tolerance.

The time had come to determine whether or not the government should subsidize religious learning in childcare services.

This year, we are investing $2 billion in tax revenue in the subsidized daycare network. We have drawn the line: while we celebrate and are proud of our diversity, the government will no longer subsidize childcare centres that engage in religious teaching. Our position is clear.

Yolande James is MNA for Nelligan and Quebec’s minister of families.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Opinion+Teaching+faith+parents/4977805/story.html#ixzz1QEonafYF

Tim Heasley co-president of Hawthorn West Primary School, School Council, chats on air with Steve Vizard and Susie O’Brien over the recent interference in a school council review of religious education.

Council went to extraordinary lengths to provide a bipartisan and inclusive parent survey. This included consultation with ACCESS Ministries C.E., Evonne Paddison and Education Department representatives. However, departmental pressure has now been applied to withhold the survey.

Citing failure to mention the legislative clause that’s on everybody’s lips – that RE is compulsory – the Department of Education now refuses to endorse the survey.

As reported recently in Fairfax:

“A department spokeswoman said the council had not been prevented from issuing its survey but added that ”the department does not endorse it”.

”The survey withheld the fact that under the present legislation schools are obligated to offer special religious instruction when it is made available by providers,” she said. ”What we have asked is that the school council remember its obligation to ensure the school complies with the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 … and that it respects the views of the entire school community and maintains a constructive working relationship with the department.

The spokeswoman did not answer questions about whether the department was acting under instructions from the minister or under pressure from Christian religious education provider Access Ministries.”

The Education Act empowers a school council “to inform itself and take into account any views of the school community for the purpose of making decisions,” Mr Heasley said.

Education union secretary Mary Bluett said she was “amazed at the interference of the department in the operations of the school council”.

The school council intends to continue with plans to distribute the survey today.
 

Mike Stuchbery hosts his blog with major blogging software provider WordPress.

At 9:30 AM today he tweeted; “I’ve been silenced! WordPress has disabled my ability to post on my blog, presumably upon a complaint from Access Ministries!”

One assumes – confidently – this is related to his June 15th post Cowboys and Chinamen? in which Mike originally published parts of an ACCESS Ministries resource, Man Hunters and linked to a PDF he had uploaded to his blog containing the full text. I’ll leave you to follow the link to Cowboys and Chinamen? The post describes a disturbingly anti-science theme to a story set in violent Victorian gold rush days with ample revenge, blood and shoot outs. Heading the post is an update – the reason for which I’ll get to immediately. Mike writes:

NOTE: As you may be aware, Access Ministries have threatened me with legal action over this blog post. I’ve made transcripts of the dialogue and removed all but one of the images. I believe what remains constitutes fair use of the text for the purposes of a critical review of the text.

This came about following circumstances outlined in ACCESS STRIKE BACK! posted by Mike on June 17th. Pop over to read the “Access Ministries, Infringement of copyright” letter from Nils Versemann, senior lawyer and trademark attorney for Moores Legal. We can spot what’s happened here. Mike’s response and intention is summarised in the quote above. It would seem this doesn’t satisfy “Our client’s requirement” as relayed by Nils Versemann. Namely:

Our client requires that by 5 pm on Saturday 18 June you:

• delete your 15 June blog post;
• delete the reproduction of our clients book from WordPress.com
• destroy any other infringing copies or our client’s book in your possession, including any infringing electronic copies.

Our client further requires that by 5pm on Wednesday 22 June you provide a written undertaking not to reproduce our client’s book in whole or part without our client’s prior written permission.

If you fail to comply with these requirements in full, our client reserves the right to take copyright infringement proceedings against you without further notice.

You may read the full letter as a scanned image here and here.

It was certainly a bold move on Mike’s part. On the other hand, there are requests from ACCESS that are simply unrealistic and bullyish. Namely to delete any electronic copies – a demand impossible to police without infringing on Mike’s rights. Furthermore insisting on “a written undertaking not to reproduce”, is arrogant and unnecessary. Particularly given the quality of legal help Victorian’s are funding for ACCESS. Copyright law is quite clear in protecting the owner.

Mike’s letter would no doubt be filed to use as a legal sledge hammer against any further examination of the material that ACCESS deem appropriate to fill young student’s heads with. I would query the legitimacy of such a request made outside of the context of obligations to parties in fulfilling contracts.

It is distressing to see taxpayer monies being used in this aggressive fashion. No doubt similar requests to WordPress have led to an apparent suspension of Mike’s account. In proceeding with this action ACCESS have again sent a loud message to Victorians that they shall hold to their own script and defend it aggressively. If Man Hunter carries the theme of revenge, it appears it is mirrored in ACCESS’ defence of material. So, was this necessary or a ridiculous and vengeful overreaction by ACCESS?

A far more suitable way to deal with Mike’s ambitious reproduction would be to file a Digital Millennium Copyright Act – DMCA – infringement. Broadly speaking this consists of a Statutory Declaration pursuant to the relevant Act section, written by the copyright holder to the ISP – in this case WordPress, whose hosting servers are in the USA . ACCESS would claim exclusive ownership of material held at URL X, and claim in good faith that Mike’s use is not authorized, thus constituting an infringement of their copyright.

What follows is an immediate “DMCA Takedown” in which the material in question is removed pending confirmation. The complainant – ACCESS Ministries -  must then provide proof of ownership within ten days to uphold the complaint. The Act itself is explicit in placing the burden of action upon the ISP. They themselves have no jurisdiction over the material once the claim is made.

To satisfy the ISP a brief letter from Moores Legal confirming copyright would suffice. Mike would be free to post material of his own. This is made more compelling – if not absurd – in that to get WordPress to react as they have, the DMCA must have almost certainly been invoked or consulted by either or both parties. The DMCA infringement notice and copyright confirmation could have been emailed together by ACCESS Ministries itself.

Update [June 23]: Automattic is the company responsible for WordPress blogs. Their DMCA online submission form provides for the breach of ACCESS Ministries copyright, as outlined in the Moores Legal letter to Mike Stuchbery. Jonathon Bailey of Plagiarism Today has a comprehensive article on submission to WordPress.com – see Copyright Complaints.

Surely, this would have been a more suitable approach and a more worthy use of taxpayer funds. Such heavy handed tactics by ACCESS herald a most unfortunate precedent by a Christian ministry purporting to propagate Christian values. One can only struggle to imagine just how this particular caper would be relayed via cartoon.

In short there is simply no apparent legal need, beyond flexing financial muscle, served by involving Moores Legal.

Mike has already written about this issue on his other site, under the title Gagged!

His Twitter stream is here for those keen on developments.

School claims bullying over religious education

Michael Bachelard
June 19, 2011 – 12:00AM

THE Education Department has warned a Hawthorn primary school council not to survey parents about religious instruction because to do so would be “provocative”.

The department’s student well-being division, which enforces the law requiring schools to run “special religious instruction” where it is offered, last week tried to clamp down on debate at Hawthorn West Primary School.

It also sent schools in the eastern region a suggested statement for their newsletters, urging school councils not to seek parents’ views on the subject.

Whether parents liked it or not, the requirement to offer religious instruction would not change ”unless there is a change to the act,” the statement said.

The council of Hawthorn West Primary School has been running a review trying to assess parents’ views of the 30 minutes of religious instruction offered by church volunteers on Wednesday afternoons. The final part of the review was a survey of parents.

School council member John Bornas said the department’s eastern region director, Jeremy Beard, phoned the night before the survey was to be published and asked the council to delay it.

Council members were then called to a meeting last week during which Mr Beard and the head of the student well-being division, Denis Torpy, told them that issuing the survey would be ”provocative”, and that it seemed to be part of a political campaign against religious education. They said the survey was beyond the powers of a school council.

“Their main concern was that the school was being used as a vehicle for lobbying for legislative change, which is not true,” Mr Bornas said.

“We have not at any stage said that’s what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to garner opinion of our school community to see what the options are. At the moment, from the department’s point of view, we’re not able to ask that, which is what I find astounding.”

At the same time, without the school council’s knowledge, the department put a notice in the school newsletter saying parents and community members could only canvass opinions “independent of the school”, and they were then ”free to express these [views] directly to members of Parliament”.

School council co-president Tim Heasley said the department was “bullying the school and the school council” and “riding roughshod over all the legislative power and rights a school council has”. The council still planned to issue the survey next week.

A department spokeswoman said the council had not been prevented from issuing its survey but added that ”the department does not endorse it”.

”The survey withheld the fact that under the present legislation schools are obligated to offer special religious instruction when it is made available by providers,” she said. ”What we have asked is that the school council remember its obligation to ensure the school complies with the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 … and that it respects the views of the entire school community and maintains a constructive working relationship with the department.”

The spokeswoman did not answer questions about whether the department was acting under instructions from the minister or under pressure from Christian religious education provider Access Ministries.

Access Ministries declined to comment.

The Education Act empowers a school council “to inform itself and take into account any views of the school community for the purpose of making decisions,” Mr Heasley said.

Education union secretary Mary Bluett said she was “amazed at the interference of the department in the operations of the school council”.

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/school-claims-bullying-over-religious-education-20110618-1g95j.html

This is the second go round with blogger sensation Mike Stuchbery who has taken the measure of ACCESS Ministries and found them lacking.

The score stands at Stuchbery 1 ACCESS 0 and it looks like on this second round ACCESS will be using the services of a trade mark attorney, Nils Versemann

http://mike-stuchbery.com/2011/06/17/access-strike-back/

review the replays from Round one of Stuchbery vs. ACCESS and the “you’re asking for it cartoon caper”

http://media.theage.com.au/news/national-news/teacher-fury-over-god-comic-2345814.html
http://www.theage.com.au/national/christian-group-sorry-for-bully-cartoon-20110509-1efth.html

Then ACCESS pulled the cartoon and blamed the cartoonist and claimed that they didn’t really have anything to do with that.

On this go round the cartoonist was hired by ACCESS to produce this fine piece of … well we’re not sure what it is.

Let’s hope that we don’t have to open a Stuchbery Legal defense fund.

Here you can read the email that the group at DEECD who is responsible for SRI has decided will paper over the problems created by their unworkable and unfair policy on principals and to clamp down on school councils who wish to discuss this issue.   On Wednesday, June 15, schools were advised to print the following warning in their news letters.

It is amazing that DEECD thought they should inform parents that they thought it was OK to discuss school policy independent of the school and to talk to their members of Parliament.  Amazing huh?

Note to the staff at DEECD, just exactly who do you think Ted Baillieu’s neighbors are?

SRI

The following is a statement developed by the Student Wellbeing Division to support school principals that are receiving requests from parents or school council regarding SRI. The suggestion is that it be placed in a newsletter. It is up to you if you use it or not, but if you do, please ensure that you have provided all the correct advice and forms re ‘opting out’ and that the students that do opt out are catered for.

“All members of XXXXX Primary School community should note that current provision of SRI within the school is in line with primary legislation set out under the Education and Training Reform Act 2006.

The principal is obligated to ensure the school meets legislative and departmental policy requirements at all times.

In this case, the school is obliged to prepare for provision of any SRI, in line with the individual wishes of all parents, if an offer is made to the school community by any particular SRI provider.

This will continue to be the case unless there is a change to the Act.  The Principal would then be officially informed in writing by DEECD before alternatives may be pursued.

Parents and individual community members are free to canvass views, independent of the school, on any legislative matter and express these directly to members of Parliament.”

You may wish to use a preamble such as:

There has been a great deal of media interest recently in the offering of Special Religious Instruction in our schools. As a result, I feel that the following advice may be beneficial to you. This has the support of the Student Well Being Division of DEECD.

More and more schools and areas are taking stock of the SRI situation, and some it seems don’t want to talk … others are quite happy to tell you how unworkable it is

http://www.caseyweeklycranbourne.com.au/news/local/news/general/schools-lose-faith-in-programs/2194316.aspx

Over at his blog, Mike Stuchbery, a Melbourne teacher has another comic act from ACCESS, who flush with commonwealth cash are in the publishing business to put out … well have a a look:

http://mike-stuchbery.com/2011/06/15/cowboys-chinamen/