There is an ongoing debate in politics as well as in the media about government funding of independent schools – and there have been a lot of misconceptions and distortion of facts.  In particular The Age has been running a campaign against funding for independent schools using phrases such as “a flawed funding model” and “generous funding to independent schools”.  In 2007, columnist Katherine Deveny put it more bluntly when she wrote, “private schools should not receive funding.”

What is often not mentioned is that the existence of independent schools actually saves the taxpayer money.  For example, one local independent school receives almost $3,000 of funding annually per Primary student and about $3,800 per Secondary student.  The average cost of educating a student in a government school in Australia is over $7,000 (Primary) and over $9,000 (Secondary).

In other words, every primary student at this local school saves the taxpayer over $4,000 a year and every secondary student saves the taxpayer over $5,000.  The combined 2008 saving to taxpayers from families attending this school will be over $13 million.

What needs to be made clear is that scrapping – or reducing – government funding to independent schools will increase fees thus forcing some families to send their children to government schools and putting extra stress on the public school system.  This in turn will cost the taxpayer more.  It would also reduce the education options for families and penalize people of faith who desire for their children to have an education that is consistent with their religious beliefs.

I believe it is the right of every parent to send their children to a school of their choice – be it government or independent, but please let’s not buy in to some of the tripe that is being served up currently by some politicians and media commentators.  It’s hard to believe they don’t have some sort of anti-faith agenda!

Relativism!  It’s defined by Wikipedia as “the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.”  Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth.  To put this in simpler words, relativism is a “make it up as you go” morality.

We hear of an increasing number of examples of relativism weekly.  Relativism says…

  • Its okay to publicly display photos of a naked 13 year old girl, but it’s not okay for a TV personality to make fun of a female reporter.
  • It’s fine to allow a 12 year old girl to have a sex change; but it’s not fine to reveal the names of child sex offenders when they are released back into society even though the likelihood is that they will offend again and rob precious children of their innocence.

Relativism!  Let’s just make it up as we go.  It’s whatever feels right – or wrong – at the time.  In contrast to this the Bible gives an unchanging morality.  It’s these timeless truths that attracted thousands to Jesus in the relativistic Roman Empire of the first century.  It’s these same truths that still attract hundreds of thousands to Christ every week all around the world.

A final comment on the child sex offenders’ issue:  Derryn Hinch
continues to be a leading voice on this.  If you feel strongly about
this issue you can sign a petition on Derryn Hinch’s website:

http://www.hinch.net/name-them-shame-them/name-them-shame-them-rally.html

The radio talk-back waves have been crackling with strong debate this week over a Sydney art gallery’s display of photographs by controversial Melbourne artist Bill Henson.  The 20 photographs are of a naked girl and boy believed to be around the ages of 12 or 13.  These photos have been seized by Sydney police and charges are expected to be laid.

The comments on the radio have been many and varied and this issue has obviously polarized the community.  There are a number of things that I find fascinating from this debate but I will focus this blog on two of them:

First is the call by Cate Blanchett, and dozens of other 2020 Summit delegates, for the Prime Minister to retract his criticisms of Bill Henson as they “damage Australia’s cultural reputation.”  And showing naked pictures of adolescents doesn’t do damage?  There is something even more sinister here when the so-called cultural elite want to gag free speech from those who disagree with them.  I applaud Kevin Rudd for his courage in taking a stand on this issue.  Political, church and other community leaders have a right and a responsibility to exercise a prophetic voice that speaks out for truth and righteousness.

The other issue is the justification of these photos by some people.  If a pedophile is found to have such images in their possession they are arrested and jailed – and rightly so!  In one interview these photos were described as “High Art” and that was used as justification for their legitimacy.  So the man or woman found in possession of photos of naked minors in various poses in alright as long as it’s in the name of high art?  The problem here is that we have a society where black and white are viewed by many as merely shades of grey!  That’s why I love the Bible and my Christian faith.  Some things are right – other things are wrong!  Thank you Mr Rudd for speaking out on this – please don’t let people silence you even if they do happen to be famous!