Let’s place this one in the bloody good idea file.
Catholic parents are campaigning for new high school courses that teach children how to defend their rights under the Federal Government’s proposed workplace changes.
The Council of Catholic School Parents, which represents 470,000 parents in NSW and the ACT, said young workers should know how to negotiate contracts and bargain with employers, since the changes would leave them “particularly vulnerable”. Lessons could be added to existing subjects such as personal development, health and physical education or vocational courses, a spokeswoman for the council, Danielle Cronin, told the Herald.
Predictably.
A spokesman for the federal Minister for Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, said the proposal was “an insult to the intelligence of young people … and would be politicising the curriculum”.
Yeah right, it’s ok to teach ID in our schools, but god flying spaghetti monster forbid that we teach IR.
If they teach negotiating skills, those kids won’t have to bring their mummies and daddies into job interviews, but that’s the only good that can come of such an addition to the curriculum. Those lefty elitist teachers – commies who couldn’t get real jobs – would fill the poor tykes’ heads with un-Australian propaganda, at least until the new sedition laws come into effect.
Apparently ID is being taught at King’s because decriptions of command economies are actually more in line with the divine right of kings.
that’s not politics that just reality, isn’t it?
Most schools already teach students about how to handle the workplace. I would assume it would be their duty to teach them how to deal with contracts that come into effect should this legislation be passed. I dont see what Kevin Andrews’ problem is.
Yeah, imagined being informed of your rights. What a threat to economic and social order.
The rights agenda that Catholic parents’ organisations insist on begins with the importance of defending the unborn.
Will the moonbat ‘fetuses are not alive’ lobby get behind that too?
Stay on topic, CL.
Where does Andrews think these skills will be learned? Employers will hire – or outsource to – professional recruiters and negotiators. How will people know how to respond to the “how much do you want to be paid” question if they have never had that experience before?
Employers will bargain from a position of strength by default. Denying education to young workers who are about to enter this “enterprise” world of work will serve to further strengthen the position of employers.
It is a myth that bargaining is fair because workers lack the resources at the disposal of employers. And no, it is not patronising workers to suggest that they need help when “negotiating” with a more powerful party. It is simply a statement of fact.
Funny how support for private schools dries up on this issue.
CL, does your comment mean that you disagree with the suggestion that school kids should be taught workplace negotiation skills?
Not at all. Provided, of course, that school children are also taught the relevant history: union unwillingness to allow members to participate in decision-making, union corruption, union funding of the ALP, instances of union thuggery and violence, the union movement’s decades-long commitment to the White Australia Policy (abolished by Liberal governments), John Howard’s 30 year commitment to reform (which is no surprise to anyone), the government’s mandate to make changes. As the left decries that disregard for the whole truth evidenced by ID advocates, I can ony presume they’ll have no problem with these suggestions.
Students should also be taught that they can vote against the government a year after their schooling concludes and the Opposition will demolish the whole stupid package.
But my comment was not off topic. From the linked story:
Like Cardinal Pell, I’m devoted to the holistic approach to human rights. We believe civilisation tends to unravel when individually chosen threads are torn from its tapestry with nihilistic or utilitarian intent. Catholic school authorities realise there’s not much point defending the rights of soon-to-be employees if you’re not prepared to defend the rights of soon-to-be humans.
Ah, but you were (and are) off-topic, CL. The post is specifically about the proposal to teach negotiation skills, and Kevin Andrews’ response. If you want to discuss abortion (again… and again) then I suggest you do so in the Saturday Salon post.
I’m sorry to be such a pain, but we regularly receive complaints that every single comments thread is hijacked by one RWDB or another and aimed at women’s rights. So please, make an effort to be more considerate. As I said, you’ve got the Saturday Salon post to debate whatever you like (though discussing abortion again and again will kill those threads, too) and if that’s not enough, then why don’t you take your own blog out of hibernation?
Listenting to CL, you wouldnt realsie there was a 115 year traditon of Papal support for (non-communist) trades unionism.
Incidentally, that Papal quote Howard used [the govt's role is to facilitat employment creation] goes on to say words to the effect of “provided they are jobs with adequate condiitons, the right to strike etc”.
On your other points: Howard’s doing a pretty good imitation of that trade union protectionist/ racist line on Pacifc Island guestworkers CL. Nice Euro backpackers only!
The shorter CL: vote Workers First tickets in your union election. Buy Green Left Weekly.
When will the latter-day RWDB myth be expunged? The mid 60s saw the creation and expansion of a range of *exceptions* to Australia’s whites-only immigration policies, under liberal governments. It was formally abolished under Whitlam.
Ah, the papal quote game. Rerum Novarum (1891) on Howardian aspirationals:
No, Rob.
The article is about, and I quote, “Catholic parents… campaigning for new high school courses that teach children how to defend their rights.”
The Catholic view of ‘rights’ is holistic. Don’t play the ‘Church in my corner’ game unless you subscribe to the whole worldview. Otherwise, you’re asking readers to ascribe moral force to one Church decision even though you regard its authority under other topical heads to be completely non-existent.
Why would you want to do that? It’s like saying ‘sure I believe in the explanation science provides for the evolution of monkeys, but hey, they’ve got nothing to tell us about the complexity of the eyeball.’
Sound familiar?
Unions call for the banning of Chinamen.
The year – 2004 AD.
Teach that.
Yes, CL. The article is about that. So write a letter to the editor. This post is narrower.
I don’t want to delete off-topic comments, but I will if I have to.
BTW, I support the union’s call to stop the use of guest workers, just as I support John Howard’s refusal to allow guest workers from the pacific islands. But should we allow permanent migrants to fill those jobs? I don’t see why not.
Sure CL. And here’s Howard agreeing with them.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17033057%255E1702,00.html
Oh, and I’d add that guest workers (including South African metal trades workers here in WA) are often effectively indentured — they have to work for a long time to pay back the Chamber of Commerce for processing their immigration applications, then they have to pay the boss for their accommodation, etc, and if they try to go elsewhere the company that sponsors them will withdraw its support and they’ll be deported. I don’t support that.
Shorter CL: I support slavery, because the unions don’t like it.
By the way, we’ve had this argument before.
Why shouldn’t students have access to both IR and ID information in relevant classes? What’s all this ether or nonsense? There needs to be a whole range of life skills training in schools. Mind you, I wonder how many candidates for apprenticeships actually have the opportunity to negotiate anything when they’re applying for a job.
I know.
Hmmm, because ID is unscientific, baseless and wholly imaginary bullshit, promoted by idiot happy-clappy Christian losers who cant handle the truth?
*Did I say that, or just think it*
You’re dead right, FaceLift: ID should be taught in a religious studies class, and IR should be taught in work studies classes.
But let’s not waste our time discussing this recent controversy and the subject of the post; CL wants us to rehash the same old debates he drags up no matter what we’re discussing.
Note to CL: it’s getting boring.
By the way, it’s a comfy position you have here Rob when you threaten commenters with deletion even as you accuse them of supporting slavery. I don’t think the problem here is that threads are hijacked by ‘RWDBs’. The problem is that a diversity of smart liberal-left commenters are increasingly bored with LP’s schtick.
Namely, John Howard’s a big fat poo! Discuss.
Come off it, CL. In a post about industrial relations, you decide you’d rather talk about abortion and call people moonbats. I warn you to stay on topic, so you accuse me of being racist because I oppose the use of indentured labour — an argument that we already had, last year, and which is still off-topic.
Well, I’m sick of it, and so are others who have complained that we let every comments thread get back to abortion, or sperm theft, or evil Feminazis, or in your case “Look! I can google papal encyclicals and recite a list of good things about Howard and the Liberal Party!”. If that’s what you want to do, then go and do it in the Saturday Salon posts, or on your own blog.
Conversely, much of the responsibility for teaching young job seekers should rest with parents or guardians, but how many understand how the system works, and will work once changes are made? The left/right debate doesn’t help.
We’ve just gone through two expensive ad campaigns on IR changes, and who can trust that either gives enough real information to help parents or their kids understand what is right or wrong about is whole deal? It has been so politicised that confusion will reign unless someone takes it on themselves to give truthful, detailed, understandable information to both employers and potential and present employees.
CL, what’s this about a ‘diversity of smart liberal-left commenters’? I thought it’d take more for you to acknowledge the existence of such a thing.
…
Seriously though, all of the lessons you mentioned before about trades unionism are taught by any decent history teacher in Australian studies—what I did in NSW as 3 unit history, before it was abolished. That trade unions have been less-than-perfect is a historical question.
That sixteen-year-old workers have a right to refuse to work unpaid overtime, for example, or have a right to question their pay if they think they’re being dudded, is not a historical question. You don’t need to be historically curious to be exploited—and that goes with or without the IR changes to come. I wish I’d been told how to say ‘no’.
Students need to know that unions may also exploit them, may completely disregard their wishes and will certainly extort their money in order to transfer it, immorally, to one political party.
Rob: I accused you of being racist? What the hell are you talking about?
The post is about industrial relations reforms and the response to them from an institution (a heavy-hitting one) of the Catholic Church. Many people besides me have noted the phenomenon of commentators selectively referring to the Christian churches to bolster their cause. They do this because there is still a residue of moral authority associated with what the mainstream churches teach. My argument is that if you don’t believe the Church has moral authority in several areas, you shouldn’t imply it does when the moment and the topic suit you. Moral authority cannot be conveniently atomised that way, least of all in Catholicism. Conventionally, a blog post and its associated link are considered on topic. As Cardinal Pell was mentioned in the linked story, I pointed out something true about his worldview on values.
Second, it seems perfectly reasonable and on topic to suggest that any new units on industrial relations reform should inform students about the darker, more shameful chapters in the history of the union movement – not merely as part of a pseudo-subject like ‘Australian Studies’ but as part of the proposed new programme itself. It is vital context to understanding a push for reform that has been going on for at least 20 years – in its contemporary manifestation.
A few other points:
- The only people who mention “sperm theft” here, as far as I can tell, are LP’s liberal visitors – one of whom even wants it on an LP t-shirt.
- I have no recollection of ever quoting from a papal encyclical on this blog.
- I’ve commented at LP repeatedly against the government’s IR reforms and its security legislation.
You say, Rob, that you’ve been told by visitors that they’re tired of RWDBs taking over threads. As Paul Keating once said of someone who complained he’d been bullied by Placido, “even if it happened you wouldn’t tell anyone about it.” Personally, I think LE, Liam, Mark, Nabakov, Kate, etc etc are big and ugly enough to take care of themselves.
Forgot one point: the thread discussion in which I recently discussed abortion was about abortion. It was shut down because it wasn’t an agree-a-thon – as could reasonably have been predicted.
Anyway, so as to comply with LP’s new Harrisian/Lambertian comments policy, let me say that – considerations and qualifications notwithstanding – I too think it’s a “bloody good idea” to adopt the Council of Catholic School Parents’ suggestion.
Let the agreement roll on.
I have no recollection of ever quoting from a papal encyclical on this blog.
Short memory, then.
Sperm theft is EP’s pet topic, and yes, sometimes we joke about it to show how ludicrous his views are. But it’s the fact that he (and you and others) turn every thread into an attack on women’s reproductive freedoms that gets very, very tedious.
That’s why I warned you to stay on topic. We do receive complaints about it — including from some of the people you think can take care of themselves. Well, of course they can, but sometimes people want to spend some of their time doing something other than going through the motions on your or EP’s pet topics, again and again.
We have pet topics of our own that we’d like to go through the motions on!
Oh, and the fact that you now say you agree with the substantive point made by the post, but still had to raise abortion, tends to confirm my belief that you were trolling.
But how’s this: in the next couple of days I’ll write a post on moral authority and cherry-picking and the like, and we can discuss it there.
——–
And now, back to the topic. Schools should be teaching these things even without the threat of the Government’s IR reforms. It’s interesting to see the Government talk about how schools should set people up for entry into the workforce, and then oppose their teaching skills like these that are absolutely necessary if you’re going to get a job, no matter what end of the market you’re on.
FaceLift is right that parents have a responsibility to teach their kids how to negotiate, but at the same time we’ve got to recognise that some parents don’t have the skills to pass on — and they’re the ones whose kids probably need the most help.
I evidenced the holistic nature of Catholic values as these are inculcated in Catholic schools. Don’t subscribe to the whole? Then don’t propagandise on the parts.
As no-one is capable of refuting this, the charge of “trolling” is made instead.
C.L, I get the impression Phil didnt care that it came from Catholics or from Satanists, its a good idea so credit where credit’s due. He didnt say anything about the Catholic Chruch and that this is somehow reflective of their values or anything else.
Therefore you are indeed off topic, as the faxt that they are Catholic is irrelevant to Phil’s point. Credit where credit’s due.
Just sayin’
Can we get rid of the term RWDBs and perhaps start using RWFs?
Teaching kids how the real world works sounds like a mighty fine idea to me.
What rights are and how they work.
How taxes work.
How our system of government works.
etc etc
“”an insult to the intelligence of young people…”
Is a comment that simply beggars belief.
Young people start working when they are about 15. That is the _perfect_ time to teach them about this stuff. It’s relevant and 100% applicable.
Ta daaaaaaaaaaaa!
Yes, and given that the worker-hating pack of mongrels aka the Howard govt have actually *criminalised* certain bargaining practices and agreements, it only adds weight to the case that young people should be educated as to their standing at law in these matters.
Id like to see Andrews explain why its a good thing to allow employers to dismiss workers *unfairly*.
Not *fairly*, mind you, thats fine for an employer, always has been.
No, he wants it to be lawful to do so *unfairly*. In other words, on an unjust basis, or in an unjust manner.
I dont support that.
Yes Phil, I enjoyed that story this morning. The difficulties 15 year-olds will face in negotiating reasonable contracts is plain, not to mention young adults generally. There is a kind of insanity in this whole thing, if you are to take it on its face. Implicitly, in theory every individual has to gear-up with the equivalent of union skills. Of course, this won’t and indeed can’t happen like that, since the weight of transaction costs would explode exponentially. Most people will just be stood over in a take it or leave pro forma deal. Still, soem education can enable you to measure how far back you’re falling.
Currency, it is absurd to conflate the history of the trade union movement with instances of failure, bloody-mindedness and racism. Would you explain the history of business by reference to the arms dealers and Enron? With respect to racism in particular, while it may have once been a keystone among the unions that recruited among the pastoral proletariat up there in banana land Laddie, down here in the big smoke there is a history of principled union opposition to racism reaching back to the 19th century.
Can’t agree, Nic. The post was a one-line intro to two blockquotes, followed by a reference to a non-IR topic. The convention is that the more generalised the post, the more tangential the comments may be. The two topics I’ve mentioned – the holistic nature of values education and the subject-matter of any new IR training subject in schools – are not only on-topic but culturally front-and-centre.
For a blockquote post, what else are we supposed to say? Facelift has had a real go, to his credit. Always tolerant commenters Dirtbike and Lefty Elitist offered something about right-wing fuckwits and “idiot happy-clappy Christian losers.” Imagine if LE had said ‘idiotic ululating Muslim losers.’ Oh my!
Have you anything to contribute Nic, incidentally?
Thanks for engaging Chris, as always.
Would I explain the history of business by reference to the arms dealers and Enron, you ask. If I was teaching a capitalism unit in a Catholic secondary school, I would most certainly highlight such things – strongly.
As for Queensland versus the Big Smoke, it was good to see the move to stop the shocking exploitation of thousands of migrant women in the Sydney clothing trade a few years ago. What became of that debate? Something good, I hope.
Would I explain the history of business by reference to the arms dealers and Enron, you ask. If I was teaching a capitalism unit in a Catholic secondary school, I would most certainly highlight such things – strongly.
This looks like a very idiosyncratic course indeed to me Currency. Apart from mentioning that businesses are far from perfect, you simply couldn’t go down these byways as there are just far too many of them. Business since inception has had criminality, corruption and immorality as bedfellows. Unless you are teaching business ethics, or a specialised course on business crimes and misdeanours, a reputable course on the history of business would centre on major achievements, large patterns and generic developments, like the emergence of the factory system, the development of joint stock companies and limited liability, the globalisation of production systems, etc, etc and so on. In the same way, union studies would chart the history of craft associations, new unionism, the turn to politics, internationalism, the organisation of the unskilled, the campaigns for factory laws, reductions in hours, key wage campaigns etc, etc and so on. Your pleading for attention to be given to what General Secretary Whosiwatsi may or may not have done in the Amalgamated Whatevers Union on a slow Wednesday afternoon in a Queensland country town in August 1938 strikes me as somewhat trite or loaded.
It may be getting lost in the child-like Lord of the Flies paranoia and fear-mongering lately, but Muslims are a tiny, tiny minority in this country. I have no current reason to be concerned about their impact on the curriculum my daughter will endure when she’s older. These ID – mongering, happy clappy, jump-for- Jesus losers can go tell it on the f’n mountain . Get the Sam T. Hell out of my country’s secular curriculum, you moon-baying, backwoods, preenlightenment enemies of thought.
Am I getting my antipathy across? Good.
But though its irrelevant to the curriculum debate at hand, let me also be clear that religous fundamentalism of all sorts fills me with utter contempt. Any whacko, Maim-for-Mohammed medieval mysogyinst dingbats who want to elbow their way into Caesar’s domain can, likewise, bite my latte.
Here’s an idea, why dont you all go fight it out with the other fundos on an island somewhere in the Antarctic. Hell, Ill pay your one-way fare. May the best Deity win etc: just dont come back.
Get back into your crimson hue and stay under the bed, LE.
Very Tory, Christopher.
There’s no reason at all why the excesses and exploitations of capitalism cannot be discussed in a rational and efficacious way in the classroom. Senior work programmes in economics, history, RE or ethics should, in my view, convey something of the potentially poisonous influence of Gordon Gecko capitalism on our society and culture. Some historical instances may usefully be cited. The Great Depression usually is already.
Your patronising references to Queensland are absurd. Try and remember where the Tree of Knowledge is, to whom it once gave shade and where the world’s first Labor government took office. Queensland led, New South Wales followed.
As usual.
Just got back from a wedding in Bathurst lotsa fun. No religion involved, yaaaay!
Short though it may have been the post was about teaching IR and related skills needed. That is the landscape we are entering and it is educations purpose to teach those kinds of things.
There was no BS about holistic Catholic crappola etc, it was specific. The ID part was pure polemic but necessary, what a load of nonsense for a faceless and no doubt brain dead spokesmodel to suggest that teaching kids about IR and the relationships evolving from it were ‘an insult to their intelligence’, the obvious hipocracy and was there given that some sections of the Govt are apparently interested in seeing it promoted, so I took it, because ID is the real insult to anyones intelligence.
Anyway the connection of the two is just a neat and simple talking point that progressives can use. IR not ID.
And another thing, Robert is a benevelont comments dictator, he is far too kind to many of the usual suspects.
Bed beckons, two long drives in one day have taken their toll.
A whole day at a wedding and you can still drive? Far out.
Goodnight anyway, Phil.
C.L, I made the 4th comment on this thread…
Very Tory, Christopher.
What can I say CL, but OMG! WTF! & LOL!
Your patronising references to Queensland are absurd.
Heh. Spoken like a true supporter of the Qld Reds and AWU ticket-holder. There, there.
CL, the term RWDB seems to be well-liked among those who wear the label. I suggested RWF (right wing fuck – a common term, too) instead as it may not be so well-liked. After all, the names thrown from the other side are certainly not ones that the recipients embrace in the same way that many embrace RWDB. Tongue in cheek, anyway. And my thoughts on the topic of this post appeared earlier, so RWF is not the full extent of my contribution.
In terms of contribution, how should we classify your own? Your first comment was, in short, “how can you support the views of this mob when on this topic when you obviously disagree with them on other matters?”. And something about “mooonbats”. This is a predictably fallacious statement: A supports B on this topic, but B has certain views on another topic, which A does not support, therefore A is hypocritical. Too easy. Yet you have the hide the criticise the contributions of others.
It is not fallacious because values taught in Catholic school are taught holistically. That is the whole pedagogical intent of catechetics. To a Catholic educator, a school that taught IR skills and no bio-ethics would be considered a failure and a sham. Especially by Cardinal Pell, who was an authority cited in the linked story.
Phil, try driving to Blayney and back with only a short lunch!!
Robert,
One of the great joys of getting into what blogging was all about was how a thread could change.
Has Andrea Harris had multiple love children or something.
Unless someone abuses someone leave the comment there for petes sake especially when it my little QLD mate CL. He can actually write!!
go and have a cup of tea, earl grey hot!, and settle down.
It’s like a blanket…and over here is the Eiffel tower.
Homer,
I think EP actually abused a high percentage of the Australian population, since around 80% claim religious sympathies of some kind, but never mind, he needs to get his fears off his chest somewhere. But since it was a catholic, and presumably religious, organisation which suggested IR facts should be taught in schools, doubtless he wouldn’t mind his daughter and her peers knowing how to handle future employers.
Homer,
Sorry, not EP, but LE actually abused a high percentage of the Australian population, since around 80% claim religious sympathies of some kind, but never mind, he needs to get his fears off his chest somewhere. But since it was a catholic, and presumably religious, organisation which suggested IR facts should be taught in schools, doubtless he wouldnÄôt mind his daughter and her peers knowing how to handle future employers!!
facelift, I duno why that was directed at me.
Naomi, you should be quite at home with Andrea Harris!!
Sorry for my crankiness yesterday. Was in a foul mood, and am thoroughly sick of every thread coming back to abortion. If people could keep that in mind in future, I’d appreciate it.
Thats OK Homer, I dont know what was directed at me.
Im more a hard core secularist than agnostic, though Im that too. Im abusing fundos – openly I might add – and I suspect that 80% of Ostrayans couldnt give a flying toss.
Fundos Facelift, you know: Happy clappy, jump-for-Jesus, Hillsong, born twice etc.
I notice a few commentators have expressed views on the excesses of the union movement over the years. No argument from me over that point, having seen them first hand during my early working life on the waterfront. There’s no doubt that some unions abused their power.
But what everyone seems to miss is that the unions were formed because the employers abused their power. We shouldn’t loose sight of the fact that many of the working conditions we take for granted were hard won by organised labour.
The abuse of union power has diminished since the Accord agreements of the late 80s. The system of enterprise bargaining has produced industrial peace and productivity gains. What has happened is that the balance of industrial power has shifted to the middle, to the benefit of everyone.
The new IR laws are going to move the balance firmly towards the employer, and the people who are going to get it in the neck are weakest in society. For those people, it’s back to the late 19th century.
One of those disadvantaged groups will be kids entering the workforce for the first time. Congratulations to the Catholic educators for raising the prospect of teaching them some strategies to cope in the new dog eat dog industrial world.
funny that the thread on abortion was stopped because we talked about abortion!
ItÄôs the odour that wafts off the pages when heÄôs here. What odour?
Smells like… victory.
I presume Naomi means the odour of sanctity, C.L.
Still, perhaps you need Robert Mitchum as a new gravatar!
Que?
Sorry, C.L., I’m tired. Of course, I meant Robert Duvall.
Pheww. Despite being a ye olde movie tragic, I’ve never been a big Mitch fan.
At this late stage, I presume I may be permitted to comment on a few comments – at the risk of being OT. Robert, it’s I who should apologise. The “Harrisian/Lambertian” description was an exaggeration. On a big blog like this, with multiple posters, some editorial control is appropriate.
On the vexed subject of abortion, however, I don’t think the RU486 post could have been anything other than enthusiastically contested. A post on abortion calls for comments on, well, abortion. To paraphrase a slogan I saw somewhere: “Don’t want an abortion debate? Than don’t have one.”
For the record, and for the umpteenth time (largely in response to Naomi’s remarks), WOMEN ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for the recourse our society has to abortion and no-one should be making judgements of individual women. Were anyone to gratuitously do so, I might support an editorial warning and possibly a deletion of their remarks. My comments are restricted to culture and the culpability of everyone.
I fail to see how these views make me a would-be saint.
The interesting cultural shift that nobody seems to have noticed is that pro-choicers have become anti-abortion. That’s right. They now accept the trauma of the procedure – several years ago they resented the argument – and now routinely preface their observations with variations on “of course, we all want to see far fewer abortions.”
Now we do, yes.
This is a culture battle and the anti-abortionists are winning.
Well, there you go. We’ve both apologised. I’m not going to respond to your continued attempts to debate abortion here, though.
I haven’t sought to debate abortion, Robert. You seem to want to, however, with continued exaggerations about EVERY LP thread ending up in an abortion debate. The post that caused the controversy (and which was shut down) was about abortion FFS.
I’ve made two points throughout: the holistic nature of values education and the curriculum subject-matter in the proposed IR training programme. Both relevant and absolutely on-topic.
Homer,
‘facelift, I duno why that was directed at me.’
You were exhorting Robert to be more relaxed about the thread by saying, ‘Unless someone abuses someone leave the comment there for petes sake…’ And I pointed out that LE had said, ‘These ID – mongering, happy clappy, jump-for- Jesus losers can go tell it on the fÄôn mountain . Get the Sam T. Hell out of my countryÄôs secular curriculum, you moon-baying, backwoods, preenlightenment enemies of thought’, which could be considered abuse.
By the way LE, it would probably be better for you to go to a Hillsong meeting and see what they’re really on about rather than base your opinions on media driven paranoia. I guarantee they’ll have you clapping to their big production, first rate high energy music within five minutes. It’s that good!
But do they have lesbian lipsniger music like Missy Higgins’? That’s the hotness at the moment, man!
I certainly was abusing fundos trying to influence our curriuclum with their ID nonsense, yes.
No need to take it personally Facelift.
I have no objection to anything they do on their own time, by way of worship. Just render unto Caesar, and everbody’s happy.
LE,
I quite like the word ‘fundos’. It’s more fun than ‘fundamentalist’, which has kind of taken on a new meaning akin to ‘hyper-religious-suicide-bombers-blowing-up-innocent-bystanders-for-the-sake-of-some-misguided-cause’, which just doesn’t fit with the concept or outlook of groups like Hillsong.
“I can play anything except a dwarf or a lesbian. I’m no damn good at either.”
- Robert Mitchum.
Oh, yeah, I’d agree too that teaching kids workplace negoitating skills should be be formally placed on the cirriculum – as apposed to working it out ad hoc as we did at skool (as any fol nos).
Sure, fundos it is – but once you do away with science and reason, anything could happen. See fundamentalism.
Better an ounce of prevention, I say!
IS ROBERT MITCHUM A LIPSNIGER? JOSH AND I ARE IN OUR ENGLISH CLASS BORED AND WANT TO KNOW!
What in the blinking blue blazes is a lipsniger?
Yes, like Amanda, I returned a ‘not postmodern’ result on Kate’s quizz.
And that, despite being a major fan of film noir – including, on occasion, the Bobster’s contribution to same.
C.L. you will need to study this thread from here onwards for the answer to that question.