We should be thankful that we live in a society where freedom of religion exists, and we can celebrate that. First, is it the role of government to teach religion? This is one of the reasons why church groups were invited into schools to teach special religious instruction. Society had acknowledged the role of Christianity and thus believed in giving students an opportunity to understand its basic beliefs and practices. But these half-hour lessons were optional and not taught by teachers. Is it really wise for the government to step into the role of teaching religion? Do we want that? The state school that my children attend has a set of values. These values are taught and encouraged, and they do so effectively without the need for a curriculum on world religions.

Second, there is no neutral theological ground. This is one of grave misnomers that secularists pontificate; they see themselves as religiously neutral and therefore objective, but that is no more true than there being fairies living in my back garden. The worldview one holds inevitably informs and skews the way we understand alternative worldviews. Bergin and Murphy offer a clear example of this failure. "Teaching about the role of religion in society and in the creation of social unity might help students distinguish between religion and ideology," the say. "Outlining the difference between Islam as a faith and Islamism as a political ideology could help young people make sense of the way fundamentalist and literalist interpretations of religions become political movements, some of which turn violent. Teaching about religion could also assist in countering right-wing extremism by reducing the fear of difference." The reality is far more complex. There are Muslims who would accept the above statement, but many would not, and with warrant. Separating theology from ideology fails to grasp the nature of Islam, and ignores the teaching of the Koran and the Hadiths. What Bergin and Murphy have done is erroneously imposed onto Islam a view of religion that derives from Enlightenment and Kantian constructs. Bergin and Murphy introduce this strange paragraph, evidencing their failure to understand religion, and therefore another reason for being careful about introducing any religious course into schools. Bergin and Murphy's proposal is rash and it will remove one of the fundamental building blocks of Australian society, namely the separation of church and state.

"In Victoria, Premier Daniel Andrews has ordered special religious instruction classes to be held outside school time from next year, and replaced in school hours with content on world histories, cultures, faith and ethics. We don't know what's taught in the religious classes of Muslim schools, just as we don't know what's taught in the Rudolf Steiner, evangelical Christian and Brethren schools." I am not sure whether Bergin and Murphy are attempting a moment of political correctness or whether they genuinely believe the SRI program and Christian schools are also dangerous. Either way, mentioning them in this context is poor form; there is simply no parallel between what is happening among some young Muslims and with Christians teaching students the Bible. Bergin and Murphy's own ideological agenda comes into the open when they say: "Providing students with the basic principles of major world religions in their formative years would provide a safe space for students to raise questions about religion that may be uncomfortable, but which require answers from a responsible and open mentor, and are better addressed sooner rather than later. It would assist them to engage meaningfully in a conversation about religious identity and celebrate religious diversity." To what extent should our children be taught to "celebrate religious diversity"? This is hardly a theologically neutral statement. There is a sense in which we want our children to recognise the reality of religious diversity, and to respect people who hold different views (Christians will take it further and say we should love them), but celebrate? We should be thankful that we live in a society where freedom of religion exists, and we can celebrate that, but that word is loaded and can assume that all religions have the same merit or veracity. In other words, any course that teaches the sameness of religions fails theology 101 and insults the people who hold to their faith. Third, my understanding is that where students are being "radicalised" in schools, it is in Islamic schools and not the state system. In other words, the course is made redundant because it won't reach the people it is designed to influence.

I don't want to see the end of secular education in this country. Indeed, it is my Christian theology that convinces me about the separation of church and state, not its absence. Bergin and Murphy's proposal is rash and it will remove one of the fundamental building blocks of Australian society, namely the separation of church and state. They have admitted that this so, but they believe the cost is worth it. My sense though is that they are falling into the fear trap that Islamic State is setting around the world; they want us to change our ways, they want us to turn on each other and to restrict freedoms. It is not the role of government to teach religion. I recognise that the issues are incredibly complex and we must do something, but this proposal is riddled with problems. Are we really willing to sacrifice secular education? I pray not. Murray Campbell is senior minister at Mentone Baptist Church.