Coalition Folds In On Ethics Classes.

[RealityRules]

The Australian Christian Lobby says it’s disappointed by the New South Wales Liberal Leader, Barry O’Farrell’s decision to back away from his commitment to remove ethics classes in NSW public schools if elected.

The ACL’s NSW Director, David Hutt, questioned whether voters could have any confidence in the Liberal Party after breaking its own election commitment, before the election was even held.

Mr. Hutt said the ACL had welcomed the Opposition’s previous commitment to scrap the ethics classes should they win Government and he cannot understand why they have now retreated from this.

“Across NSW many people have been hoping an election might usher in a new era of public confidence in State Government. This backflip means politicians will have to work even harder to restore trust with the community,” said Mr. Hutt.

Christian ethic classes were introduced in NSW by the Labor Government in 2010. [snip]

http://au.christiantoday.com/article...ment/10160.htm

They still emphasis the desire to scrap the ethics classes at the expense of kids who opt out. Bullies.

As cyclist pointed out, they have not broken an election promise, they have just said they won't make one.

Reasoning skills of gnats.

"Christian ethics classes ... "" ??????

Following the Coalition’s backflip on the issue, Christian leaders are hoping that if the Coalition does win the next election, they will revisit the issue, and at a minimum, commit to protect the right of ethics classes not to be held in direct competition to Scripture classes.

That is typical of the wishful thinking that underpins religious fundamentalists, especially evangelists. They are obsessive-compulsive about evangelising.

[RealityRules]

Some interesting letters in today's smh

Honesty the best policy for all parties
February 5, 2011

David Hutt, of the Australian Christian Lobby, has got it wrong (''Christians vent anger after opposition abandons promise on ethics classes'', February 4). The opposition is quite entitled to change its position on any issue leading up to an election, in the face of new information or in response to public opinion.

In this case it is quite appropriate that, having changed its mind, it immediately makes its new policy known to the public. It only becomes misleading when the party goes to an election with a policy, then reverses that policy after winning government (on the basis that its stated policy may have influenced people to vote for it).

This change in policy, provided it is adhered to, will not undermine public confidence in the Coalition; in fact it will probably attract more thinking voters to it.
John Ure Mount Hutton


Kristina Keneally's statement that ''Barry O'Farrell's broken promise to religious leaders … would make a perfect lesson in any school ethics class'' is very much to the point.

It is an excellent example of ethical behaviour. Having announced the policy change before the election, O'Farrell has avoided the breach of ethics that a post-election change of policy could have been.

The change of policy does not preclude any religious group from promoting its offerings.
Brian Bolton St Ives


I am delighted to read that the opposition has withdrawn its policy to cancel the ethics classes in government schools and congratulate it on this wise decision. I will still be voting for our excellent independent, Dawn Fardell, in the lower house, but I now feel able to support the Coalition candidates in the upper house.

Pam Nankivell Parkes


If, as reported, the Australian Christian Lobby is furious at Barry O'Farrell's decision to allow ethics classes to proceed (the only sensible thing he has said recently), it can only be interpreted as an admission that its religious instruction will be unable to withstand what it perceives as competition.

In which case, the proper response of its supporters should be to lift their game, not to try to eliminate their competitor.

John Savage Normanhurst


I note that the 57 schools listed as starting ethics classes this year are almost all in Sydney's north, south and inner-west, with none in western and south-western Sydney. So the more socio-economically advantaged you are, the better chance your child has of attending ethics classes. Does this constitute an ethical issue?

Bronwen Elliott Ashfield

www.smh.com.au/ letters

[RealityRules]

The NSW Lib-Nat Coalition [edit] might controls the NSW Upper House - by holding 19 of the 42 seats, and having the support of 2 Christian Democrats (Fred Nile Group) and 2 Shooters'n'Fishy's members i.e 23 seats

www.smh.com.au/nsw/state-election-2011/coalition-has-a-hold-on-upper-house-20110327-1cc15.html

[Fromm_Nicht]

Originally Posted by RealityRules

The NSW Lib-Nat Coalition now controls the NSW Upper House - holding 19 of the 42 seats, and having the support of 2 Christian Democrats (Fred Nile Group) and 2 Shoters'n'Fishy's members i.e 23 seats

www.smh.com.au/nsw/state-election-2011/coalition-has-a-hold-on-upper-house-20110327-1cc15.html

Kiss the ethics classes goodbye??!!

If the Liberals had an outright majority on their own I don't think it would be an issue. Undoubtedly though, the extremists will be looking to use their balance of power to block legislation if they don't get their own way.

[RealityRules]

The NSW Lib-Nat Coalition now controls the NSW Upper House - holding 19 of the 42 seats themselves, and with having the support of 2 Christian Democrats (Fred Nile Group) and 2 Shooters'n'Fishy's members i.e 23 seats

www.smh.com.au/nsw/state-election-2011/coalition-has-a-hold-on-upper-house-20110327-1cc15.html

Now it also seems that, of the other 19 seats, Pauline Hanson might take one off the Greens, so those other 19 seats witll be split ALP 14, Greens 4, and Pauline 1.

www.abc.net.au/elections/nsw/2011/guide/lc-results.htm

FFS

24 conservatives and 18 non-conservatives.

[RealityRules]

Originally Posted by Fromm_Nicht

If the Liberals had an outright majority on their own I don't think it would be an issue. Undoubtedly though, the extremists will be looking to use their balance of power to block legislation if they don't get their own way.

What do you mean "I don't think it would be an issue". .. "it" being .. ??

The ethics classes have been enshrined in law. Now the coalition and their fundie friends have the capacity to change that law.

Civil disobedience is looming.

[Fromm_Nicht]

Originally Posted by RealityRules

What do you mean "I don't think it would be an issue". .. "it" being .. ??

The ethics classes have been enshrined in law. Now the coalition and their fundie friends have the capacity to change that law.

Civil disobedience is looming.

I only mean to say that if the Liberals held the power in their own right, without having to pander to the religious and gun nuts then they would probably leave it alone. Barry being a moderate and all that. But with the threat of the nut jobs blocking all their legislation unless they do remove it, I think that unfortunately the ethics classes will be a limited edition.

[lulu]

Shit. I was talking to our principal the other day about doing the training so that I could run an ethics class at our school. Will still enquire and see what happens.

[Bolero]

If they really do ditch the ethics classes, what will happen? Is the AFA behind any moves to protest such action?

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by lulu

Shit. I was talking to our principal the other day about doing the training so that I could run an ethics class at our school. Will still enquire and see what happens.

Good stuff lulu. Not sure if you have visited the Primary Ethics website as well? It's the dedicated organisation set up to deliver the ethics classes, and might provide some additional info to what you're getting from the school

Originally Posted by Bolero

If they really do ditch the ethics classes, what will happen? Is the AFA behind any moves to protest such action?

I'd expect any major protests are likely to come from the St James Ethics Centre, as the instigator of the program, and relevant school stakeholders (eg: supportive parents/school communities).

The AFA have been publicly supportive of the ethics classes (see HERE and HERE). I can't personally think of a reason why that wouldn't continue. What form any support might take, I'm not sure.

Hard to tell what will ultimately happen, but as one of my hobbies is "reading between the lines"... from the SMH ARTICLE:

Mr Piccoli told the Herald the Coalition has decided against that course of action if it is elected next month.
''We voted against the legislation, so once the legislation passed through the Parliament there was a recognition that ethics classes are going to be in place,'' he said. ''The view was it has been legislated and we are going to allow them to continue. The battle over ethics classes is finished and we will be part of it.''
Mr Piccoli said a Coalition government would work with the St James Ethics Centre, which had designed the classes and special religious education providers ''to create a course that makes everyone happy''.

Hmm... my cynical concern, is what "that makes everyone happy" might constitute, if SRE providers and the religious lobby are included under "everyone".