(image courtesy freeimages)
By Spencer D. Gear PhD
If a newspaper regularly published articles exposing the negative qualities of Chinese restaurants (one of my favourite foods) but not a word about other restaurants, Iâd suspect the publication had a bias.
If the Brisbane Times only published material in favour of the Labor Party and gave no or little coverage to the Liberals/Nationals, there would be an outcry â as there ought to be.
When it comes to Christianity in religious instruction (RI) conducted in state schools in Queensland, it is legitimate for two writers for the Brisbane Times, Amy Remeikis and Hugh Harris, to denigrate Christianity. The purpose of my article is not to comment primarily on the content of RI in Qld (as exposed in these articles) but to demonstrate the bias of the Brisbane Times in providing journalism against Christianity in the public schools but not to give equal time to Christian responses.
1. Bias beefed up
That is what is happening with the Brisbane Times in its online attack on RI in the state schools. I first noticed it earlier this year with Amy Remeikis, âShould religion be part of the Queensland state school curriculum?â (Feb 28 2016).[1] Here, Remeikis presented the anti-RI perspective. There was not one comment from anyone supporting RI, thus presenting intolerance against Christianity and the content of the RI curriculum.
Remeikis did provide some evidence of the RI requirements in another article, ââNo plansâ to change religious instruction in Queensland state schoolsâ (March 23 2016).[2] However, the presentation of bias in the name of opposition to RI continued by Ms Remeikis in âReligious instruction in state schools âsolicitingâ children to Christian faithâ (June 6 2016).[3]
Remeikis is at it again with âRace elements of religious education materials âhighly offensiveâ: Ministerâ (Remeikis 2016). Particularly note the comments in this article from Indigenous Christian users of the Connect curriculum:
“I fully endorse the Connect curriculum for Aboriginal students,” Rev Corowa said in a statement released by the QRIN [Qld Religious Instruction Network].
“I have been using it for many years across all year levels. I love it. No student or instructor of RI has ever expressed a problem about the material to me. I believe that the teaching approach is culturally sensitive to the particular needs of Aboriginal students.
“In particular I agree that Aboriginal students can be most teachable when sitting outside in small groups under a tree. And I never met any student who did not enjoy a barbecue lunch on a Friday.”
Comment was also anonymously provided from a second “Aboriginal community member and Christian leader” via the QRIN.
“I dispute any attempt to claim the Connect material is racist,” the unnamed defender said.
“…I am grateful that Connect has acknowledged the cultural differences of Aboriginal students and our unique role as first peoples of this land. I’m also sure that all my students, of any culture, would much prefer any education and yarning take place sitting under a tree with a BBQ lunch afterwards.”
2. Controversial, biased articles
It seemed as though writers for the Brisbane Times were watching for opportunities to pounce on something in the RI curriculum to complain about in the next article. This happened in three contentious, anti-Christian articles from a member of the Rationalist Society of Australia, Hugh Harris:
(a) âReligious Instruction in Queensland schools is discriminatoryâ (March 14 2016);[4]
(b) âThe horrifying religious instruction classes planned for Qld schoolsâ (April 20 2016),[5] and
(c) âConnect religious instruction says vampires fake but Bible is factâ (June 27 2016).[6]
There are issues that emerge from these articles in the Brisbane Times that include the fact that not one writer in 2016 has been published prior to 30 June 2016 who supported Christianityâs place in the RI curriculum in the state school system. This is an example of partiality in favour of writers who are antagonistic to Christianity and one who overtly supports the agenda of the Rationalist Society of Australia.
I have at least two major issues with Harrisâs article of June 27: (1) He promotes a begging the question fallacy, and (2) His refusal to recognise or demonstrate that Christianity is an historical religion. I will address only the first of these.
2.1 Circular reasoning explained
What is a question begging or circular reasoning fallacy? If you start an article or discussion believing that Australian state schools ought to be secular and your conclusion is the same (schools must be secular), then you have committed the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. This also is called begging the question. Hugh Harris begins with the assumption that schools should be secular and concludes that RI should not be taught because we need secular schools.
We can explain this in a more detailed way. The Nizkor Project[7] demonstrates that this fallacy is one in which the premise includes the claim that the conclusion is true. It generally has the following form:
- Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
- Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
It is erroneous reasoning because assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) does not provide evidence to reach that conclusion. Harrisâs question begging fallacy follows from his association with QPSSS (Queensland Parents for Secular State Schools) and has this pattern:
Harris: The organisation, QPSSS, does not want Christianity in the Qld state school curriculum. (Note: He provided the link to the QPSSS webpage[8] in the first sentence of his article, thus indicating his support of its position.)
QPSSS: âQPSSS is a movement for parents and other interested
persons who would like to see state schools become truly secular as befits a multi-cultural, multi-faith country such as Australiaâ (also found on the website of Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc).[9]
Harris: Let me find stories in the Connect RI curriculum so that I can denigrate Christianity in the RI state school curriculum. This included rejecting the aspects of the Bible as history.
QPSSS: âTell us what you think. What role should religion play[10] in state school education?â
Harris: âThe gravest concern is the contest for children’s souls,[11] which is the clear and explicit focus of the Youthworks Connect RI programâ.
[For a simpler explanation of how circular reasoning works, see the âFeedbackâ section 5 below.]
Of course Harris would conclude with objections to contesting for childrenâs souls through the Christian Youthworks Connect RI program. Why? That is the premise on which he began his article, with a commitment to secular school education.
When he concludes with his presuppositions, he has not dealt with the issues relating to why there is Christian RI in curriculum time in Qld schools. This is question begging erroneous reasoning that the Brisbane Times should not be tolerating from its writers. To which religion did Australiaâs head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, swear at her coronation in 1953? She is still Australiaâs sovereign.
3. Rationalist, secular worldview in action
In addition, as a member of the Rationalist Society of Australia, Harris affirms the â10 Point Plan for a Secular Australiaâ[12] in which âall Australian constitutions should be reformed to ensure clear separation between religion and the State, and all references to God removedâ. His presupposition as a rationalist is for âa secular, pluralistic and democratic Australiaâ which is promoting godlessness.
What are some of the other beliefs of the Rationalist Society of Australia?
- âAll Australian constitutions should be reformed to ensure clear separation between religion and the State, and all references to God removedâ. Why remove all references to God if God exists and belief in God needs to be supported?
- âChildren not to suffer because of the religious views of their parentsâ.
- âEducation to be strictly secular, not promoting any particular religionâ.[13]
Thus, Hugh Harrisâs commitment to secular, atheistic thinking in his worldview influences what he promotes in opposing RI in the state school system. This most definitely is circular reasoning. He starts with the presupposition that Australia is to be a secular, pluralistic and democratic society. This manifests itself in education that is to be âstrictly secularâ and favouring no one religion. So, it gets up his nose when he finds RI taught in the public school. So he opposes it in print and the Brisbane Times gave him space to present his biased worldview of secular atheism.
3.1 Whatâs the definition of secularism?
The National Society of Secularism (UK) states that âsecularism is a principle that involves two basic propositions. The first is the strict separation of the state from religious institutions. The second is that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the lawâ.[14]
Secularism is not atheism.
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Secularism simply provides a framework for a democratic society. Atheists have an obvious interest in supporting secularism, but secularism itself does not seek to challenge the tenets of any particular religion or belief, neither does it seek to impose atheism on anyone.
Secularism is simply a framework for ensuring equality throughout society â in politics, education, the law and elsewhere, for believers and non-believers alike.[15]
The Macquarie Dictionary (3rd ed) defines secularism as âsecular spirit or tendencies, especially a system of political or social philosophy which rejects all forms of religious faith and worshipâ and âthe view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious elementâ (1997. s v secularism).[16] Christian philosophers, J P Moreland and William Lane Craig explain that secularism is âa system of doctrines and practices that disregards or rejects any form of religious faith and worship. Its primary objective is the total elimination of all religious elements from societyâ (in Got Questions? 2016)[17]
The Rationalist Society of Australia states, âItâs time to return Australia to its secular rootsâ.[18] To the contrary, Australia was founded by Christians through the chaplain on the first fleet, evangelical Anglican clergyman, Richard Johnson,[19] and our roots were affirmed by our current head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, who swore allegiance to the Christian faith at her coronation on 2 June 1953.[20] We have a Governor-General in Australia to represent the Queen and her support of Christianity. Australiaâs roots are not secular, but Christian.
Therefore, Harrisâs secularist worldview drives his presupposition that schools in Qld should be secular. What is a secular school? He does not answer this and I found its promotion on an atheism website.[21] Therefore, Australian atheists have some bonding with secularists.
Circular reasoning amounts to illogic in action. No Queenslanders should fall for Mr Harrisâs erroneous thinking. He wants RI out of the state school system and suspended immediately.[22] Thatâs the presupposition with which he begins and thatâs where he concludes. Itâs fallacious question begging reasoning.
3.2 One-way street untilâŠ.
What did the Brisbane Times do with Harrisâs promotion of secularism and call for the elimination of religion from state schools? It gave him several opportunities to ply his rationalist, secularist wares but without opportunity for Christian representatives to respond to expose his tactics. This bias in favour of secularism is exposed in my article. They should have been seeking people from the RI network in Qld to respond to Harrisâs allegations.
However, it was only on the day I was writing the first draft of this article (June 30, 2016) that I became aware that the Brisbane Times eventually gave opportunity for Paul Clark, a promoter of RI, to show some of the benefits of RI in âQueensland religious instruction gives parents freedomâ (Brisbane Times, June 30, 2016).[23] Clark is âacting chair for Queensland’s Christian Religious Instruction Network, a former, decorated teacher, a children’s author and religious instructorâ. Rev Clark of Redcliffe Uniting Church, Qld., told me that he had previously submitted an article of reply to the RI antagonism to the Brisbane Times but it was rejected for publication.
4. Am I using the same fallacy?
Could this be the pot calling the kettle black for me, a Christian, when I support Christianity in the RI state school curriculum? It could be seen that way if you didnât know the facts.
In my education and ministry over the years, I have sought to verify or falsify the tenets of the Christian faith through careful testing of hypotheses relating to Christianity. This was pursued especially in my doctoral dissertation that examined the presuppositions of an eminent historical Jesusâ scholar and I could not verify his conclusions concerning the postmodern Jesus. The Jesus of history will be pursued in another article. However as a starter, see my brief article:
 The Bible: fairy tale or history?
Eminent Australian historian (he has been visiting fellow in ancient history at Macquarie University)[24] and former Anglican bishop of North Sydney, Dr Paul Barnett,[25] has concluded that the âpoints of intersection between early Christianity and âsecularâ history establish that the history of early Christianity is, indeed, genuinely historical and not âmythicalâ in characterâ (Barnett 1997:120).
Barnett as an ancient historian provides evidence that challenges Harrisâs attempt to deride the Connect RI curriculum content which states, âThere aren’t any vampires in the Bible because the Bible is not a made-up bookâ (Brisbane Times, June 27 2016).[26] Harris took opportunity to spoof at the curriculumâs statement of the Bible being fact when compared with vampires with language such as, âA fundamentalist adherence to the literal truth of scripture is a key element of Connectâ.[27]
5. Feedback
Two online newspapers rejected this article.
5.1 Comments, but no publishing of article
I submitted it to the Brisbane Times, 30 June 2016 and was advised on 1 July 2016 that it would not be published because a piece defending RI was published on 30 June 2016. If I wanted to comment on news stories dealing with RI I could send in a comment on that story to make any point I wanted.
This is a fob off because the Brisbane Times had published 6 articles opposed to RI and only one in favour from January 1 â June 30, 2016 as far as I could see and I read that newspaper daily. The editor wants me to make âcommentsâ to RI articles but would not accept a 1200 word article addressing the anti-RI issues.
Imagine it? Encouraging me to write words of comment (generally 20-50 words) to an article and rejecting a full length article challenging Harrisâs content, presuppositions and a logical fallacy he used. Thatâs a cute way to minimise the importance of refuting false reasoning and bias by the Brisbane Times. In taking this line, it censored an opposing view. This is not freedom of the press. It is freedom to gag those who challenge secularism.
5.2 Rejection, but helpful comments
After the rejection by the Brisbane Times, I sent the article to another online newspaper for consideration where it also was rejected and these were the reasons given.
5.3 These are some issues with the article
The editor of this online newspaper wrote:
a. Too close to issue: âIâm going to decline it. I think you are too close to the issue and you are not explaining yourself particularly wellâ.
How can I be âtoo close to the issueâ when I have no connection with RI in the schools and am on no RI board? In this article sent to this magazine (see content above) I stated that ‘the purpose of my article is not to comment primarily on the content of RI in Qld but to expose the bias of the Brisbane Times in providing journalism against Christianity in the public schools but not to give equal time to Christian responses’. My article was not designed to address RI but the bias of journalism.
Is that not a reasonable critique of what the Brisbane Times did? Or does this online newspaper not like publishing an article that is critical of the content of another online publication?
When I sought clarification from the editor on this, he said that it meant I was not looking at the issue as a member of the general public might. My assumptions about what they might think are wrong were not persuasive. Why? It is because Iâm a Christian minister and that is the problem. His view was that I need to try to walk in the publicâs shoes a bit better so that I can try to explain what Iâm saying in a better way.
My reply to him was that he had assumed too much about my being a Christian minister. It is 24 years since I was pastor of a church. Before my retirement in 2011, I worked 17 years straight as a counsellor and counselling manager with rebel youth and their disillusioned parents. Most of these were with secular clients. I’ve been up to my neck in dealing with out of control youth, drug addiction, severe depression, marriage and family breakdown. I know what it is to walk with the down and out.
However, I’ve spent the last 5 years writing a 488 page PhD dissertation exposing presuppositions of one of the leading postmodern, reader-response historical Jesus scholars. I didnât tell him that that scholar was John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar.
b. Defend religious instruction in schools: âRather than complaining about the Brisbane Times I think you would be much better off mounting a defence of religious instruction in schoolsâ.
That is not my role or responsibility because I do not work in the RI network or instruct RI in schools. It is for those people to pursue.
c. âA lot of Christians think it is badly done, alienating and a waste of time, and that might be worth dealing with as well as the issues raised in the Brisbane Times piecesâ.
From where did he obtain that information? What are the stats to back it up? Is this based on his and othersâ anecdotal evidence? It seems that more research needs to be done by this newspaper before making those kinds of presumptive statements.
His feedback to me was that he doesnât have any stats to back up his statement about âa lot of Christiansâ. It is anecdotal evidence, and by âa lotâ he was not referring to the majority. His evidence is from priests, lay people and his own kids. This was not meant to be a conclusive statement.
I find this to be poor evidence from the editor of an online journal. Surely he deserves better data than anecdotal evidence. At least he was not publishing this but it was in an email to me.
d. Argument hard to follow: âI had some difficulty following your argument about assuming the conclusion as well. Might need to look at that againâ.
He is correct that my explanation of the Hugh Harris’ use of circular reasoning was not as clear as it ought to have been. He said he had ‘some difficulty in following my argument’.
In addition, my language was too academic. It should be at the literacy level of a 15-year-old, one journalist has told me, if I want to be published in newspapers. I received similar feedback from another person to whom I sent the article. Thanks so much for drawing this to my attention. I hope this is a simpler way of explaining circular reasoning (question begging fallacy). I have created this example, using some information from Hugh Harrisâs articles:
Hugh: Qld state schools need to be secular.
RI instructor: In spite of Hughâs objections, the Qld governmentâs legislation provides for Christian RI in curriculum time in state schools.
Hugh: The only way to guarantee multicultural views are heard is for us to have fully functioning secular state schools.
Thus, Hugh began with the secular and he concluded with the secular, which is erroneous circular reasoning, also known as a begging the question fallacy.
e. RI issues with curriculum in Brisbane Times.
As for the RI issues raised in the Brisbane Times, they are for RI people who are familiar with the Youthworks, Connect RI curriculum to respond. However, I plan to write an article that deals with the historical reliability of the Bible when compared with secular history, vampires and fairy tales. Is this editor interested in considering for publication? I asked this of him in my return email.
f. âIâm also perplexed that apparently in RI you canât proselytise. Not sure how this is supposed to work. This is a comment on what occurs, not on your articleâ.
I think the editor made a valid point when he said he doesnât know how the RI curriculum is not to proselytise. My view is that any explanation, clarification, instruction on the Christian faith (or any other topic) cannot get away from supporting the content of that topic. How can explanations on the Christian faith be excused from proselytising? However, that’s for the RI people to address.
I offered the editor two further articles:
- âComments designed as distractionsâ (this is addressed to those who comment on online articles and push their own agendas. Too often these are not related to the content of the article. I see this happening with many topics in online newspapers or journals.
- âFairytale fables vs facts of faithâ
The editor is interested in my submitting further articles on, (1) The historical reliability of the Bible and, (2) âFairytale fables vs facts of faithâ.
5.4Â A friendâs critique
I sent the article to a friend for critique and she responded:
a. âI think it is a bit too intellectual and deep to be considered in a newspaper. I think the online opinion spot is a better place for itâ.
b. âHowever, the points you make are valid and need to be stated. If I were writing it for publication in a newspaper, I would keep it simple and focus on the hypocrisy/bad journalism of only covering one side of the argument, and then make a case for the historical place of Christianity and RI in our culture and the case for children to be aware of the most published book in history. It has shaped our Judeo-Christian government and society (at least up to recent times) and from that standpoint alone is worthy of teachingâ.
c. âMy son majored in philosophy at university, so I am acquainted with the circular reasoning problem and other devices used in discussion. However, for the âcommon manâ, I think itâs best to use examples and points that they can relate toâ.
Those are excellent points, some of which have been addressed above. She is correct that only covering one side of the argument is poor journalism. However, when I examined J D Crossanâs presuppositions in my doctoral dissertation, he is a leading postmodern, historical Jesus scholar also is interested in only one side of the argument.
He has a one-eyed view of calling on those who principally are his âintellectual debtâ. Crossan is clear (at least to me) about his view of which scholars he should call on for support and critique of his views. It is important to note Crossanâs perspective regarding those who offer a contrary opinion: In quoting âsecondary literature, I spend no time citing other scholars to show how wrong they areâ. Instead, he quotes those who ârepresent my intellectual debtsâ (Crossan 1991:xxxiv; emphasis in original).
That amounts to bias towards his matesâ views. See my articles that deal with this issue:
Crossanâs buddies are his scholarly support
Only read authors who agree with you?
6. Fundamental issues from this encounter
The issues to emerge from this exposure of the Brisbane Times articles and the bias against Christianity include:
- Harris wants to get religion out of the state schools. His is a self-defeating position because he wants Christianity out but wants his own religion of secularism in. Thatâs hypocritical because both are religious positions.
- My view is that the responsibility lies with the Brisbane Times to change to an editorial policy that says, âWe have a responsibility of fairness and justice in our journalism. That means if we present an anti-Christianity article, we MUST allow a right of reply articleâ. They needed to seek a person to respond to Remeikisâs and Harrisâs articles.
- Readers need to be alert to how writers attempt to push their own agendas by the use of illogical arguments, using logical fallacies.
- I have learned over many years of freelance writing, that there are more rejections of articles than there are acceptance notifications. This is par for the course for me in submitting articles to newspapers or journals. One experienced Christian scholar gave me some wise advice last year after I had submitted a journal article and it was rejected. He said that you need to take note of any feedback you received with the rejection and then submit it over and over to different journals until it is published. That has been his experience.
- Iâve learned that I need to modify my writing style to be more in line with the literacy of a mid teen if I want to get published. The editor of the online magazine reduced that even further by saying my writing and sermons should be at the level of a 12-year-oldâs education. However, my articles also require more illustrative material for general audience interest.
- How should I respond when Harris was objecting, âA fundamentalist adherence to the literal truth of scripture is a key element of Connectâ.[28] What would happen if I did not read Harrisâs article with a literal understanding of the text? If he wants me to realise that he is talking about a literal RI curriculum called Connect in which there is a narrative about vampires and the Bible not being a made up book, I have to read his article literally. I can imagine some of the creative nonsense I could get up to and write as a postmodern, reader-response interpreter. If he wants me to read his article literally, he needs to give every Christian the right to read Scripture literally.
- Literal interpretation always allows for inclusion of symbols and figures of speech. Literal âmeans the customarily acknowledged meaning of an expression in its particular context. For example, when Christ declared that he was the door, the metaphorical meaning of âdoorâ in that context would be obvious. although metaphorical, this obvious meaning is included in the literal meaningâ (Mickelsen 1963:33).
7. Christians to maintain the higher ground
What are the origins of a civilisationâs greatness and which âmisguided beliefsâ threaten âto unravel its progressâ? âThe Bible transformed the social, political, and religious institutions that have sustained Western culture for the past millennium, and discover how secular corruption endangers the stability and longevity of Western civilizationâ (Mangalwadi 2011:rear cover).
 7.1 Secularism is a religion
Christians must not allow the secularists to control the debate on secular state schools. Secularism itself is a religion. A âreligionâ can be defined as:
a. âa specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sectsâ.[29]
b. âthe body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practicesâ.[30]
c. âsomething one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscienceâ.[31]
d. âA pursuit or interest followed with great devotionâ.[32]
On the basis of these definitions, secularism and atheism can be labelled as religions as they contain fundamental sets of beliefs and practices that people follow with great devotion and build their ethical systems on them. Some beliefs of secularism can be found HERE, while some beliefs of atheism are HERE.
8. Conclusion
I pursued the bias and a logical fallacy of Hugh Harris, an author and member of the Rationalist Society of Australia, in his publications against RI in the Brisbane Times. I tried to demonstrate that he engaged in the use of circular reasoning, which is erroneous logic. When he uses such illogical statements, he cannot reason effectively about the content of RI in the state school system.
Secularism was defined and its influence as a religion on Hugh Harrisâs worldview was noted.
I took the opportunity to critique the response from one editor who was making judgments on my article that were not consistent with my content.
The content of RI in state schools needs to be addressed by those who are RI leaders and the RI mass media liaison officers. However, I expect that the antagonists of RI will pursue their agenda to try to get it out of curriculum time in the schools (like has happened in the State of Victoria). I expect them to comb RI curricula with a fine-tooth comb to find something to grumble about that does not fit the secular, rationalist or atheistic agendas.
As long as Christians have the opportunity to present RI in the state school system, I encourage them to do and be what Jesus said:
 âYou are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfootâ (Matt 5:13 NIV).
 âYou are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hiddenâ (Matt 5:14 NIV).
9. Works consulted
Barnett, P 1997. Jesus and the logic of history. Leicester, England: Apollos.
Cable, K J 2016. Johnson, Richard (1753-1827), Australian dictionary of biography (online). Available at: http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/johnson-richard-2275 (Accessed 4 July 2016).
Crossan, J D 1991. The historical Jesus: The life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.
Got Questions 2016. What is secularism? (online). Available at: http://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-secularism.html (Accessed 4 July 2016).
Mangalwadi, V 2011, The Book that made your world: How the Bible created the soul of western civilization. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Mickelsen, A B 1963. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Moreland, J P & Craig, W L 2003. Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic.
Remeikis, A 2016. âRace elements of religious education materials ‘highly offensive’: Ministerâ, Brisbane Times (online), June 20. Available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/race-elements-of-religious-education-materials-highly-offensive-minister-20160620-gpnpvi.html (Accessed 5 July 2016).
10. Notes
[1] Available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/should-religion-be-part-of-the-queensland-state-school-curriculum-20160227-gn5bwb.html (Accessed 30 June 2016)
[2] Available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/no-plans-to-change-religious-instruction-in-queensland-state-schools-20160323-gnpv8l.html (Accessed 30 June 2016).
[3] Available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/religious-instruction-in-state-schools-soliciting-children-to-christian-faith-20160606-gpcxtw.html (Accessed 30 June 2016).
[4] Available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/religious-instruction-in-queensland-schools-is-discriminatory-20160311-gngjyd.html (Accessed 30 June 2016).
[5] Available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/the-horrifying-religious-instruction-classes-planned-for-qld-schools-20160420-gobbpk.html (Accessed 30 June 2016).
[6] Available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/connect-religious-instruction-says-vampires-fake-but-bible-is-fact-20160627-gpslcs.html (Accessed 30 June 2016).
[7] Available at: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html (Accessed 20 June 2016).
[8] Available at: https://www.facebook.com/QldParentsSecularStateSchools/photos/a.1444857872442174.1073741827.1443949422533019/1651201725141120/?type=3&theater (Accessed 30 June 2016).
[9] Available at: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=25369 (Accessed 30 June 2016).
[10] Available at: http://pandcsqld.townhallapp.io/en/questions/457 (Accessed 30 June 2016).
[11] Available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/connect-religious-instruction-says-vampires-fake-but-bible-is-fact-20160627-gpslcs.html (Accessed 30 June 2016).
[12] Available at: https://www.rationalist.com.au/10-point-plan-for-a-secular-australia/ (Accessed 30 June 2016).
[13] Ibid.
[14] Nationalist Secular Society: Challenging religious privilege, âWhat is secularism?â Available at: http://www.secularism.org.uk/what-is-secularism.html (Accessed 4 July 2016).
[15] Ibid.
[16] This is the same definition as that in dictionary.com (2016. s v secularism). Available at: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/secularism (Accessed 4 July 2016).
[17] This quote seems to be from Moreland & Craig (2002) but no page number was cited in the Got Questions article and I was unable to locate the page number through Internet searching.
[18] Loc cit., The Rationalist Society of Australia, â10 point plan for a secular Australiaâ.
[19] See Cable (2016).
[20] See details of her commitment to the Christian faith for the Commonwealth countries she rules at: http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html (Accessed 4 July 2016).
[21] Available at: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=25369 (Accessed 30 June 2016).
[22] Available at: http://rationalrazor.com/ (Accessed 30 June 2016).
[23] Available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/queensland-religious-instruction-gives-parents-freedom-20160630-gpv8o6.html (Accessed 30 June 2016).
[24] See Barnett, P Listings 2016. Available at: http://www.moorebooks.com.au/ap_barnett_p.html (Accessed 2 July 2016).
[25] See The Right Rev Paul Barnett. Available at: https://www.moore.edu.au/emeritus-faculty/paul-barnett (Accessed 2 July 2016).
[26] Available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/connect-religious-instruction-says-vampires-fake-but-bible-is-fact-20160627-gpslcs.html (Accessed 30 June 2016).
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] dictionary.com (2016. s v religion). Available at: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion (Accessed 4 July 2016).
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Oxford dictionaries ( 2016. s v religion). Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion (Accessed 4 July 2016).
Copyright © 2016 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 30 November 2017.