Author Topic: NEO-SSPX SCHOOL IN AUSTRALIA (Read 4561 times)

untitled · « **on:** October 28, 2013, 06:41:00 PM »

BEFORE:

the programs of, and teaching at St Thomas Aquinas College, support and promote the principles and practice of Australian democracy, including a commitment to:
(...)
Freedom of religion.
Freedom of speech and association.
The values of openness and tolerance.

NOW:

In keeping with the government requirements (Education and Training Reform Act 2006) the programs of, and teaching at St Thomas Aquinas College, support and promote the principles and practice of Australian democracy, including a commitment to:
(...)
Freedom of religion.
Freedom of speech and association.
The values of openness and tolerance.

http://www.stac.vic.edu.au/index.php/college-ethos/philosophy-of-the-college

Nadir · « **Reply #1 on:** October 28, 2013, 08:59:03 PM »

In other words: We kow-tow to the government so we can get their money.

Machabees · « **Reply #2 on:** October 28, 2013, 09:19:09 PM »

Quote from: untitled

BEFORE:

the programs of, and teaching at St Thomas Aquinas College, support and promote the principles and practice of Australian democracy, including a commitment to:
(...)
Freedom of religion.
Freedom of speech and association.
The values of openness and tolerance.

NOW:

In keeping with the government requirements (Education and Training Reform Act 2006) the programs of, and teaching at St Thomas Aquinas College, support and promote the principles and practice of Australian democracy, including a commitment to:
(...)
Freedom of religion.
Freedom of speech and association.
The values of openness and tolerance.

http://www.stac.vic.edu.au/index.php/college-ethos/philosophy-of-the-college

What is scary, and is still a liberal compromise, is that they had left the words:

"In keeping with the government requirements (Education and Training Reform Act 2006) the programs of, and teaching at St Thomas Aquinas College, support and promote the principles and practice of Australian democracy, including a commitment to:
(...)
Freedom of religion.
Freedom of speech and association.
The values of openness and tolerance."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They could have worded it differently to be neutral, even with all of the flax the sspx has received over this, just to say:

"In keeping with the government requirements and regulations (Education and Training Reform Act 2006), the programs at St Thomas Aquinas College must allow the practice of Australian democracy; in its:
(...)
Freedom of religion.
Freedom of speech and association.
The values of openness and tolerance."

Frances · « **Reply #3 on:** October 28, 2013, 09:38:09 PM »

:confused1:Here's the question. Do you put an amended, but probably (hopefully!) false statement in your literature and proceed as before, or do you shut down your schools?

Nadir · « **Reply #4 on:** October 30, 2013, 03:51:38 AM »

No third or fourth option?
Run an SSPX school without government money?
Reorganise for a parent-run school?
Homeschool?

State aid has meant the death of Catholic education and accepting it is tantamount to ѕυιcιdє.

This area is flush with SSPXers. Many have fled to this area because of the presence of the SSPX establishment there.

Maybe it's time for parents to take the full responsibility for their own children.

Wessex · « **Reply #5 on:** October 30, 2013, 04:35:07 AM »

Entirely compatible with new Society policy which is moving towards accommodating state liberalism and conciliarism. I doubt many parents are objecting. The notion of the Society fighting the system has long gone. You can have your Latin Mass but you must be in tune with modern trends. Most folk are in their everyday lives.

TraditionalistThomas · « **Reply #6 on:** November 05, 2013, 10:56:17 AM »

Quote from: Nadir

In other words: We kow-tow to the government so we can get their money.

You don't know what you're talking about. It's got nothing to do with getting "government money".

In order to be an "accredited" teaching institution under current legislation, it is a requirement that the institution upholds and supports the principles of Australian democracy. Whether or not that is a good law is a separate question. For the school to be legal, it has to obey this law.

To what Machabees said, they can't "word it differently". They are quoting the legislation itself:

Quote

1.2.1 Principles underlying the enactment of this Act
Parliament has had regard to the following
principles in enacting this Act—
(a) all providers of education and training, both
Government and non-Government, must
ensure that their programs and teaching are
delivered in a manner that supports and
promotes the principles and practice of
Australian democracy, including a
commitment to—
(i) elected Government;
(ii) the rule of law;
(iii) equal rights for all before the law;
(iv) freedom of religion;
(v) freedom of speech and association;
(vi) the values of openness and tolerance;

Perhaps you should retract your false assertion, Nadir, now that the hard facts have been presented?

Matto · « **Reply #7 on:** November 05, 2013, 02:48:58 PM »

If the school is forced to teach heresy, than it would be better that the school never existed and all the priests and laymen who teach at the school commit mortal sin for teaching these revolutionary principles to the children.

Frances · « **Reply #8 on:** November 05, 2013, 03:05:15 PM »

:confused1:
Must schools be "accredited" in order to exist in Australia? If so, must they be "accreditted " by the government? The school for which I work in the US is not "accredited" by the state or federal government. It merely has a "charter" as a non-public school by the state. It IS accredited by two organizations of independent schools and hopes to be accepted by the Association of Classical Academies in the Spring. We operate completely outside the "system" therefore receive no funding from the state.

Nadir · « **Reply #9 on:** November 06, 2013, 04:02:06 AM »

Quote from: Frances

:confused1:
Must schools be "accredited" in order to exist in Australia? If so, must they be "accreditted " by the government? The school for which I work in the US is not "accredited" by the state or federal government. It merely has a "charter" as a non-public school by the state. It IS accredited by two organizations of independent schools and hopes to be accepted by the Association of Classical Academies in the Spring. We operate completely outside the "system" therefore receive no funding from the state.

Frances, I do not know if schools must be "accredited" in order to exist in Australia.

I only know that I ran a small school (3 students). We did not get accreditation from the government. In fact we were an illegal school because, living in Queensland at that time, the law stated that parents were not legally permitted to teach their own children unless
*they were qualified (state registered) or
*employed a qualified (state registered) teacher or
*followed (and were supervised by) the Government program for Distance Education. None of thos applied to us and we did not owe any allegiance the Education Department.

Nevertheless all three pupils excelled and went on to do well in further education and careers without accreditation.

Which goes to show accreditation is not needed for education.

If it can be done on a small scale within the family, it can be done on a larger scale by the Church.

Nadir · « **Reply #10 on:** November 06, 2013, 04:09:32 AM »

Quote from: TraditionalistThomas

Quote from: Nadir
In other words: We kow-tow to the government so we can get their money.

You don't know what you're talking about. It's got nothing to do with getting "government money".

In order to be an "accredited" teaching institution under current legislation, it is a requirement that the institution upholds and supports the principles of Australian democracy. Whether or not that is a good law is a separate question. For the school to be legal, it has to obey this law.

To what Machabees said, they can't "word it differently". They are quoting the legislation itself:

Quote
1.2.1 Principles underlying the enactment of this Act
Parliament has had regard to the following
principles in enacting this Act—
(a) all providers of education and training, both
Government and non-Government, must
ensure that their programs and teaching are
delivered in a manner that supports and
promotes the principles and practice of
Australian democracy, including a
commitment to—
(i) elected Government;
(ii) the rule of law;
(iii) equal rights for all before the law;
(iv) freedom of religion;
(v) freedom of speech and association;
(vi) the values of openness and tolerance;

Perhaps you should retract your false assertion, Nadir, now that the hard facts have been presented?

Your avatar looks familiar. Who is it?

Tiffany · « **Reply #11 on:** November 06, 2013, 04:49:55 AM »

Quote from: TraditionalistThomas

Quote from: Nadir
In other words: We kow-tow to the government so we can get their money.

You don't know what you're talking about. It's got nothing to do with getting "government money".

In order to be an "accredited" teaching institution under current legislation, it is a requirement that the institution upholds and supports the principles of Australian democracy. Whether or not that is a good law is a separate question. For the school to be legal, it has to obey this law.

To what Machabees said, they can't "word it differently". They are quoting the legislation itself:

Quote
1.2.1 Principles underlying the enactment of this Act
Parliament has had regard to the following
principles in enacting this Act—
(a) all providers of education and training, both
Government and non-Government, must
ensure that their programs and teaching are
delivered in a manner that supports and
promotes the principles and practice of
Australian democracy, including a
commitment to—
(i) elected Government;
(ii) the rule of law;
(iii) equal rights for all before the law;
(iv) freedom of religion;
(v) freedom of speech and association;
(vi) the values of openness and tolerance;

Perhaps you should retract your false assertion, Nadir, now that the hard facts have been presented?

So what we do not worship the governor.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #12 on:** November 06, 2013, 05:04:54 AM »

Sounds like communism.

B from A · « **Reply #13 on:** November 06, 2013, 07:14:37 AM »

Quote from: Nadir

Quote from: TraditionalistThomas

Your avatar looks familiar. Who is it?

American president Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #14 on:** November 06, 2013, 08:24:21 AM »

Quote from: B from A

Quote from: Nadir
Quote from: TraditionalistThomas

Your avatar looks familiar. Who is it?

American president Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower.

Jehovah's Witness, member of CFR and the Bohemian Club.