The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Ethics classes: the battle for children’s hearts and minds in NSW > Comments

Ethics classes: the battle for children’s hearts and minds in NSW : Comments

By Max Wallace, published 15/6/2010

There should be no Special Religious Education in state schools at all: the class is a hangover from the 19th century.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
Morals and ethics are matters on which parents need to educate their own children. School is where kids need to spend their time learning the basics of maths, english, sciences, history, geograpahy etc.

And anyhow, do people really want their kids to learn morals and ethics from a third party? That is just lazy parenting; an abrogation of responsibility.
Posted by Phil Matimein, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 10:15:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm with Phil Matimein on this.

There are almost as many traps for the unwary in delegating ethics to the classroom environment, as there are with "religious instruction", as it used to be called when I was at school.

Realistically, the quantum of the problem is fairly insignificant. In the same way that 95% of the class switched off during RI, the majority of kids will sleep through ethics.

However, the minority still needs protection, and exposing them to a stranger's view of morality in a classroom can only be a lottery.

The entire argument (for ethics classes) is a form of bait-and-switch anyway.

If we did not already have itinerant god-botherers taking up valuable space in the curriculum, we wouldn't even be considering what should replace it.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 10:41:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The main point, for me, in this topic was Wallace's point:

>>>... this stuff called “reason”. It’s not a bad idea that kids should think about appropriate ways to behave in tricky situations, or to apply the golden rule (long devised before Christians came on the scene) that it’s preferable to treat others as you would prefer to be treated yourself. With bullying a serious problem in our schools, some workshops in primary schools with a well thought out curriculum is a good idea. <<<

Schools can teach critical reasoning, a subject that many parents may have difficulty teaching, particularly if they have not had tertiary training themselves.

Critical reasoning does not have to come with an attachment of values, morals or ethics. Therefore, should not be an issue with religions or other ideological groups.

However, the risk for religions is that critical reasoning leads to people asking questions. Asking questions conflicts with uncritical faith. After all the argy-bargy that is being tossed around, reason is the greatest hurdle for religions to leap in their quest for the faithful.
Posted by Severin, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 10:51:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Expecting religious authority to act reasonably when it comes to childhood indoctrination is asking too much.
Religion is about dogma, not reason.
Philosophy and ethics are actually threats to religion as they free a child's mind to question things and to hold contradictory ideas...not habits that any religion encourages or tolerates.
The sneaky way that church groups get access to power and influence in Australia is a disgrace.
Hopefully the internet censorship issue may raise awareness of the ongoing secret campaign of church groups against freedom of thought, transparency in government and free education.
Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 11:18:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More tiresome rhetoric from old mate Max Wallace. Wallace wants us to believe that NSW is "legally theocratic". He proceeds to list a large number of examples to back up this claim. Of course, none of the examples even go close to proving anything of the sort. Australia is not a theocracy, nor is it even in the ballpark. A quick look at the word and it's meaning will confirm this. In Wallace's world it would seem that a theocracy is clearly any form of government which allows the religious to hold any kind of voice in the public square. This kind of dishonest reinventing of definitions is typical of much of his writings.

One would hope that the citizens of this beautiful country, and this particular online community are smarter than the folly Wallace is taking us all for.
Posted by Trav, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 11:44:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree Phil and Pericles, I'm just not convinced that an effective and non-partisan ethics curriculum (which, as you said only exists to fill a class that shouldn't even have been there) can be handled by a third party.

Especially when there is no concensus on what makes proper 'Australian' ethics.

Also, what happens if abortion comes up? Or asylum seekers? Or 'rescuing Iraq from Saddam'??
I might add that the full cognition to evaluate these issues does not come about till later in the teens for most people, so it would be easy to steer younger kids on a discourse of outright indoctrination of 'particular' values.

A class on manners and ettiquite (maybe proper driving logic), maybe, but teaching something so subjective, no.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 12:02:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You can't fully separate morals/ethics from religion/spiritual philosophy.

If you have morals/ethics then you have to have some reference standard of what is right and what is wrong-- this is basically the very definition of an ethical action. Furthermore, the standard is something that the person has to *believe* in if you are going to act ethically according to the standard. (If you act according to the standard but don't believe in it then you are *not* acting ethically-- belief in the standard is a *necessary* part of an ethical action.) This faith/belief in the standard means that it is a religious or spiritually philosophic entity to some degree.

Even if you are are atheist-- if you have a notion of ethical/moral behaviour then you have a religious side because your notion of ethics requires an act of faith. Being atheist doesn't preclude somebody from being religious- for example, many forms of Buddhism are atheistic yet they are all commonly considered to be religions/spiritual.
Posted by thinkabit, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 1:24:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't agree with that logic, thinkabit,

You certainly need some philosophy on life to have moreals and ethics, but you don't necessarily need a religion or to follow any of the spiritual paths you have used as examples. I was brought up without seeing the inside of a church or being educated on any particular sprirtual path.

My parents simply taught me to respect other people and not do anything to others that I would not like done to myself. You can argue that is spiritual if you like, but I would disagree - it's just being humane.
Posted by Phil Matimein, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 1:44:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
seeing the perverted ethics of the secular ethicist on Q&A last night shows how bereft of morals these high priests are. They are so worried about a chook being eaten while promoting bestiality. Ethics without absolutes is just plain nonsense and anyone with half a brain knows that.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 1:44:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doesn't the push for ethics classes in NSW public schools emanate from some kind of rule that proscribes any other kind of learning taking place while the weekly scripture classes are in session? My understanding is that currently, students who opt out of religious instruction are prevented from doing anything else educational as an alternative.

I agree that "religious instruction" classes have no place in government schools. If parents want their kids proselytised, they should send them to religious schools or Sunday School.

While I'm not as sceptical about ethics classes for all students as some others are, I'd like to see the content before supporting them or otherwise.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 1:48:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep, someone with half a brain certainly does.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 1:49:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is an example of an ethics dilemma that may be put to children in an ethics class.

There are 2 men. One rich, one poor. The rich man gives the poor man $20. The poor man can now buy food for the day, get somewhere to stay or maybe buy himself a blanket to keep him warm.
The rich man hardly noticed the loss of $20 but the poor man gained a lot. The poor man gained much more than the rich man lost.
Given that, is giving the poor man the money the right thing to do? Would not giving him the money be wrong?
What if the rich man said "no Im not giving him anything let him go out and get a job and work hard like I do". Would that be wrong?

If you think it would be right to give the poor man the $20 and wrong to not help him do you think it would be right to "force" the rich man to give the $20 to the poor man?

There is no "correct" answer and everyone has to decide for themselves and most importantly they have to think! Ethics isnt about "right" and "wrong" it is about using your own mind and thinking for yourself. Not mindlessly parroting the god said this is good, god said that is bad line. Which is what you will get in religious education classes.

All kids should have ethics classes. It will make them better people and better citizens. It will also teach them how to think for themselves and how to cope with disagreement and conflicting opinions.
Religion has no place in schools and personally I think the brainwashing and indoctrination churches practice in relation to kids is a particularly harmful form of child abuse.
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 2:06:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan

I cannot believe that the designation of children who opt out of religious classes and then left to sit either in the back of the class or in libraries without any structured class, has not become a case for the Anti-Discrimination Board.

Particularly when the NSW education has tried to address this situation with an Ethics class. I understand how people may feel about ethics being taught in schools, and, as I previously posted classes do not have to include values that parents feel is their role. However, to dispute teaching a skill like Critical Thinking is simply reprehensible. This is a skill that will see children throughout their lives - to navigate between truth and deception is vital. Never more so than now where we are bombarded by information by various vested interests - from advertising to proselytising.
Posted by Severin, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 2:18:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
and of course MIkk is absolutely sure of his support for ethics classes. Oh that's right he/she does not believe in absolutes.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 2:22:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner
The ethicist on last night's Q&A, Peter Singer, issued a challenge. He asked why contact between an initiating human and an animal under no duress, in private, that hurt nobody, was anyone else's business. Why is it yours?
Posted by GlenC, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 2:44:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see Glenc so you approve of Singers endorsement of bestiality. You might be comfortable with people with perverted views teaching their perversion to your kids in schools but I certainly aren't. NO doubt the ABC love broadcasting views promoting woman having oral sex with dogs. This kind of sick thinking is justified in people's minds who are foolish enough to believe they won't be held to account one day.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 2:54:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wellll....you found us out :)

WE RUN the place... "Theocracy" no less.

* no section separating church and state in its constitution;
* a governor who is the Queen’s representative;
* a parliament that opens with Christian prayers;
* Christian crosses in the state flag;
* Christian holidays;
* Christian ministers of religion elected to the Legislative Council;

GEE...you could be forgiven in thinking we had a 'Christian'....culture and heritage.. perish the thought ! !

BUT WAIT...I thought under a 'Theocracy' we were supposed to lynch the likes of Pericles and Morgan as heretics.. stone them outside the city walls or something... but it's not happening ? ? ? *confused look*

The 'Christian' ness of the American situation is being attacked without mercy by another 'faith' group...

http://www.jdl.org/index.php/threats-adversaries/assimilation-intermarriage/

Hmmmmm....if we 'white' Aussies declared Jews or Muslims as a 'threat and adversary' we would be called 'loathesome haters' and racists.....
Is any such name caller prepared to make a 'declaration' openly on the web site group linked to above ?

If we DO happen to have a strong and prevailing 'Christian' flavor to our culture, government and society.. hmmmm.. *thinks*.. we might consider that attacks on that flavor,culture and social fabric to be overtly racist and vilifyingly hateful...even seditious.

It also gives serious credence to the notion of requiring migrants to assimilate and adjust their cultures to fit in with ours..and specially our laws.

Yes..let's do it.. away with all these PC and MC seditious socialist elements.
Away with all those who would undermine our clear and present heritage. Those who would rejoice at our cultural destuction. *shoo*
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 2:54:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
--- this post follows from my previous post ---

To demonstrate that an ethical action *requires* belief in an ethical standard let's examine the following scenario:
A woman is walking down the street with a briefcase full of money. She trips over, dropping the case and a wad of money rolls to a man walking towards her. The man sees this and picks up the wad returning it to the woman and then helps her back up. They both depart on their way.
case 1: The man believes the ethical standard "You shall not steal"-- believing in this standard is why he returned the money.
case 2: The man doesn't believe the ethical standard "You shall not steal"-- the reason he gave back the money is because he plans the circle back, stealthily follow her to where she is going then rape her, kill her and steal all the money in the brief case not just the one wad.
In both cases the man returns the money. Returning the money is in accordance to the "no stealing" standard however only in case 1 is he acting ethically.
The difference between the cases is the *belief* in the ethical standard. Belief in an ethical standard is *necessary* for an action to be ethical according to the standard.

Now once you have a belief system that deals with how you should behave and what the purpose in life is, then you have the foundation and a large part of the structure of a religion. The other main part of religion is the sharing of the beliefs. Religions are organized belief systems shared by more than one person. In contrast, individual personal belief systems are not accepted as religions (both legally and philosophically).

In other words, once you start teaching ethics, specifically if you are pushing a particular standard of ethics then you are more-or-less promoting a type of religion (possibly its more a cult than a religion-- the wish-washy difference between a religion and a cult is basically the number of adherents and how long its been around).
Posted by thinkabit, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 3:06:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another thing to keep in mind in cognitive ethics classes is that if you try to put it to the class to discuss, it is not like (most) of the adult world where the people actively engage the issue, but one where students who think they fall on the 'wrong' side keep quiet due to peer pressure;
Which sets a poor standard for society (although considering how Australia in particular is run, it is precisely the standard that the government would WANT to set- basically, indoctrinated political correctness.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 3:10:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to me that this sort of conundrum was always going to happen as society moved away from tight-knit communities where children were educated about ethics (whether religiously inspired or secular)in the normal course of development and growth within their communities - to a system that outsources its children's education.
Most parents these days can't entertain the idea that they can teach their children much at all - so used are they to sending them to an institution for their instruction. Ethics, unfortuntely, now has become just another victim of the destruction of communitiy values - something that was once absorbed in the normal flow of life is now seen as a special area to be "taught" as a formal subject.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 3:27:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
thinkabit
The difference between "belief" and ethics is that religion tells you what is right and what is wrong. "absolutes" as runner puts it.
Ethics lets you use your brain and think for yourself if something is right or wrong. Everyone is different and in many cases right and wrong is not so clear cut.
Your example is but what about the example I gave?
Many people would consider it "right" for a rich man to give a small portion to the poor man if it didnt really deprive the rich man but greatly helped the poor man. Some will think it is wrong not to. But others will think it is neither right or wrong to give or not to give. There are no "absolutes" in a case like this. Although we all have a stake in the answers since they go to the heart of taxation and distribution of wealth.

Even your religions cant agree on such a simple question. Some say charity is mandated by god. Jesus certainly said a lot about it. Many churches do much charity work. But some churches are extremely rich and some preach a "prosperity" gospel message. Plenty of religious leaders live lives of luxury while some give their whole lives over to service and helping others.

You dont need religion to study ethics. Indeed religion does not teach ethics. It teaches obedience, submission and unthinking sheeple behavior. God dosent say here think about this and come up with an answer. He says DO WHAT I TELL YOU OR ILL MAKE YOU SUFFER. That is the difference between ethics and religion. Ethical people think and use their brains. Religious people just cower in fear before their nasty imaginary friend.
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 3:44:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very poignant comments from posters so far.

Poirot you made an excellent observation and really goes to the whole point that Phil made earlier regarding abrogation of parental responsibility.

"Ethics, unfortuntely, now has become just another victim of the destruction of communitiy values - something that was once absorbed in the normal flow of life is now seen as a special area to be "taught" as a formal subject."

There is nothing untoward about schools upholding the values of manners, respect etc through expectations in behaviour but teachers really have enough to be getting on with providing the foundations or building blocks of education so that subjects like Philosophy, Theology or Ethics can be better understood and grasped by an older more mature student.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 3:50:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Earth calling Boaz...

>>BUT WAIT...I thought under a 'Theocracy' we were supposed to lynch the likes of Pericles and Morgan as heretics.. stone them outside the city walls or something<<

I know that is what your mob used to do, Boaz.

But you have been gradually civilized over the years, to the point where only a few of you actually believe that atheism is a mortal sin, punishable by death.

>>If we DO happen to have a strong and prevailing 'Christian' flavor to our culture, government and society...<<

It is probably more accurate and useful to describe us as having a strong and prevailing 'Christian' flavor to our history, rather than culture. After all, most of your examples - prayers in parliament, crosses on the flag, holidays etc. - are generally regarded as anachronistic.

>>It also gives serious credence to the notion of requiring migrants to assimilate and adjust their cultures to fit in with ours..and specially our laws<<

I thought you'd manage to squeeze in a little xenophobia, despite the fact that the thread began with the NSW education system. But honestly, how did you make the leap of logic from the existence of a Christian history, to closing our borders to anyone who disagrees with your religion?

Oh well. I guess to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 3:54:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No runner i dont believe in "absolutes" Pray tell us what they are?
Please look at the question I put forward and tell me where your god stands? Would he say we have to give to the poor? I think he does doesnt he. Your Jesus is almost a commie with the things he goes on about. Smashed up any money changers lately runner? Been through any needle eyes? Your so called absolutes look very thin on the ground these days. Even amongst the faithful. You all support wealth, war, inequality, guns, exploitation and all the other things preached against by your superfriend in the sky. Pardon me if I find you lot hard to take seriously when it comes to ethical behavior. Let alone teaching it to our kids.

As for Q&A Singer has a point. But only if you think an animal could give consent to such things. I dont think they can so it is out of the question and bestiality would definitely be wrong. Imposing yourself sexually on another without consent is rape. Rape is wrong because it infringes an individuals right to decide for themselves what happens with their own body. Even animals have some right to protection from stupid horny humans.

There you go runner an ethical standard that we can agree on but had nothing to do with anything your god says. Showing that people CAN be ethical without all the mumbo jumbo pushed by the likes of you and your godbothering friends.
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 4:06:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear runner,

It really doesn't seem as if reason enters into it when you say something is wrong. If nobody is hurt and everybody involved consents I don't see that it is anybody else's business. If a woman's dog gives her pleasure why should you care? How does it hurt you or anybody else?
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 4:13:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Morals and ethics are a community issue, so go beyond parental influence when such parental influence is so extreme to be outside community standards or norms. Everyone ought to be challenged by discussion on specific cases, as there is no absolute rules for every situation.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 4:14:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that morals and ethics are a community issue.
Parents these days, in a way, are constrained by the system that we employ to conduct our societies. This system dictates that young people are hustled away at the first opportunity from the real world and segregated in an artificial enclave for much of their time. And while they learn something of ethics in the normal grind of schooling, they are for the most part removed from the holistic experience of society as a series of concentric circles, each emanating from a reinforcing core which is their family.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 4:57:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal hits the nail on the head. Secularist want to choose when they can promote and enforce absolutes.

'Everyone ought to be challenged by discussion on specific cases, as there is no absolute rules for every situation.'

How McReal do you choose what situations you apply absolutes? When it suits your world view?

It seems that some are comfortable with people having sex with animals as long as 'it does not hurt anyone else'. Again an individual right to the detriment and perversion of society wins out in sick little minds.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 5:48:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner
Sorry to have not waited upon your reply but other duties called. Please don't presume to think you know my views about things just because I asked you a question that discomfited you. You don’t and it’s rather naughty of you to behave as if you do. Just for the record, your guess was well wide of the mark. I notice that you did not answer my question, so I’ll put it again: If a person wants to do something in private that hurts nobody, why is it your business?
Posted by GlenC, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 6:39:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh come on Pericles, Christian values in NSW is so tied to Muslim Immigration! You surely can identify this old conservative segue:
Theological debate (anywhere) > Christian culture/tradition > "Real" Australian values > lost to lefties > allow Muslims to attack.

I mean, surely that makes perfect sense when you look at it from the right point of view!
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 6:49:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the religious want religion then go to a church, keep religion out of our secular State schools. Religion in State schools is illegal in the USA and all other democracies. The funniest thing about the religious cult members and their dogma's is that their religion is nothing but an accident of birth. Every frenzied up Christian cult member reading this, if born in another country or culture would have been forced at birth to be another religion, if born in Iran they would be Islamic, if born in India Hindu, etc etc, their that hypnotised and brainwashed with fear and self doubt, they don't even realise this irrefutable fact and even worse are conditioned from birth to never acknowledge this fact! Religious faith should really be called "gullible ignorance" because that is what religion is and always has been, a fraud forced on vulnerable and trusting children at birth by charlatans! I am voting for Max!
Posted by HFR, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 7:08:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner, most situations have straight-forward answers. Some situations require more cognition than others, such as when several separate rights are contemplated; some individuals are able to cope with that, and others cannot.

Peter Singer is a philosopher and so contemplates, publicly; as in his 2001 "Heavy Petting" article, partly a review of "Dearest Pet: On Bestiality" by Midas Dekker, 'a Dutch biologist and popular naturalist'

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm

A discussion does not equal condoning, or deserve stoning, either.

Nor does being ejaculated on by a dog (as happened to a friend of mine when we were children); being raped by an orangutan (last paragraph of Singer's Heavy Petting article); or, being a descendent of an Australian convict who was convicted of bestiality (sex with a goat) -

http://members.iinet.net.au/~perthdps/convicts/con-wa4.html

(search bestiality)
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 9:16:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mikk

you said:

He says DO WHAT I TELL YOU OR ILL MAKE YOU SUFFER. That is the difference between ethics and religion. Ethical people think and use their brains. Religious people just cower in fear before their nasty imaginary friend.

I see you need some guidance and help there.

"For God so loved....the world... that he gave...His only son."

Jesus spoke of the shepherd who had a 100 sheep.. and one became lost.. the shepherd left the 99 in the pen and went looking for the one lost one until he found it.

The picture you paint is in error.

Here is the true picture.

God created mankind, who sinned and turned away.
God reached out to mankind in reconciliatory gestures and a coveannt.

Finally.. God showed us his love in Christ. "I came that they might have life"
In this life, you have a total free choice. Do what ever you wish, you are free.

But it's worth reflecting on Pauls words to the Galatian Christians "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh"

It's up to you. If you pander to your own sensual earthly desires...you will reap what you sow. If you fill your heart with the Holy Spirit in newness of life, you will also reap that appropriate reward.
You know the parable of the narrow and wide gates ?

SECULAR TEACHER in ETHICS CLASS "Now Children.. we must respect others rights to study in peace"

STUDENT "why?"

SECULAR TEACHER "Errr... ummmm.. errr *because*"
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 9:39:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Boazy, how do we get from all that quite pleasant Christian fluff to

<< If we DO happen to have a strong and prevailing 'Christian' flavor to our culture, government and society.. hmmmm.. *thinks*.. we might consider that attacks on that flavor,culture and social fabric to be overtly racist and vilifyingly hateful...even seditious.

It also gives serious credence to the notion of requiring migrants to assimilate and adjust their cultures to fit in with ours..and specially our laws. >>

??

There seems to be something of a disconnect between the preaching and the practice, no?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 10:45:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HFR:

The United Kingdom is a democracy. Religious education is not illegal there - in fact, it is compulsory.

Germany is a democracy. Religious education, although not compulsory, is permitted and is also publicly funded.

China, though, has banned religious education, as did many other communist states. Perhaps their tendency to use the word 'Democratic' in their full names has confused you.
Posted by Otokonoko, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 11:11:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

SOME GO FOR THE BODIES & "SOULS" AS WELL

.

There are no "more noble" or "less refined" parts of a child, whether it be the hearts, the minds, the bodies or (for those who believe in such things) the souls. Everything is worthy of consideration. Nothing is to be neglected or ignored.

And, naturally, though some may do so, others are hovering in the background waiting to pounce, licking their lips and rubbing their hands at the thought of such a prodigious windfall.

Proselytisme in every shape and form should be banished from public schools.

Sport and cultural activities are to be encouraged alongside academic studies.

An introduction to philosophy would be beneficial as would civic education.

So-called ethics or religious instruction are private matters for the individual families to decide for their children if they so wish, at their own expense.

They have no place in public schools.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 11:33:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I feel it’s important that I provide a little more in-depth background to your claims to paint the real “true picture”, Boaz.

<<God created mankind, who sinned and turned away.>>

Considering god would have known in advance what was going to happen and that the mythical figures of Adam and Eve wouldn’t have had any concept of, or known the consequences of doing wrong, this would be the equivalent of giving a toddler a loaded gun, knowing in advance he was going to hurt himself with it, then punishing him for the rest of his life for doing what you knew was already going to happen.

What a disgusting god.

<<God reached out to mankind in reconciliatory gestures and a coveannt.>>

And all the while committing mass genocide like a petulant, psychotic little child and effectively losing the moral high ground by ruling with a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do mentality.

<<Finally.. God showed us his love in Christ. "I came that they might have life">>

Finally, after screwing up with the creation of the first humans, then screwing up with mankind and having to wipe them out by drowning them in an horrific flood survived only by the most “righteous man” who ends up blind-drunk and naked and then curses his son for seeing him naked, then having to create multiple languages following the Tower of Babel, then having to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah survived only by the most “righteous man” who - again - gets blind drunk, only this time he sleeps with his daughters.

Finally, after all this, the only way this god can think of to correct his mistake and save us from he’s going to have done to us because of his own screw ups, is to sacrifice his son.

Yep, that’s the best he could think of: Send someone to Earth who’s going to be a really nice person, but we have to kill him otherwise it’s not gonna work.

Everything this god does ends up a total catastrophe!

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 11:39:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

<<In this life, you have a total free choice. Do what ever you wish, you are free.>>

But if you don’t do what god says, then he’ll have you tortured for an eternity. That’s right, infinite punishment for finite crimes.

Because he loves you.

But wait! If a god already knows what’s going to happen, then that means everything we have done and will do has already been pre-determined. So we don’t actually have free will after all, do we?

As for the argument that a secular ethics class teacher would have no response for why we should behave ethically, I take it you would be raping and pillaging if it weren’t for you religious beliefs, Boaz? What about the fact that we are all accountable to each other?

Someone who only behaves themselves because of the threat of punishment or the promise of a reward deserves no credit for their behaviour and kindness.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 11:39:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ... well observed :) I was doing 2 things.

1/ Showing that there is good cause for traditional "Christians" of a nominal nature to be concerened about the erosion and attacks on their cultural well being...

2/ By taking a harsh line, I am highlighting how it 'could' be if people really did take such things in a much more serious way.

By such highlighting.. it is a kind of 'hint' that people who are so dedicated (it would seem) to destroying any vestige of "Christendom" in our government culture and popular practice.. should re-think this, because if nominal Christians (emphasis on 'nominal') were to take unkindly to such.. it could end up like the time in Tassy when the Catholics rocked up with chunks of 2x4 to beat the sh** out of the protestants who were having an "Ex Catholic becomes Protestant" celebration meeting in a publically funded hall.

Here is an example of one 'faith community' seeking to use the law against that same heritage in America. (based on a flawed premise that there is separation of Church and State in the USA ..there isn't -based on the constitution)
http://www.jdl.org/index.php/blog/jdl-sues-city-of-lancaster-over-sectarian-prayer/ Sheesh and they wonder why there is anti semitism ? This sure does not help their cause.

You know..rub people the wrong way for long enough and they might react.

Glad you recognize the 'pleasant Christian stuff' ...indeed knowing Christ is very pleasant.

Just a minor geopolitical point. IRELAND The government there tried to implement with the force of law.. "Blashpemy" to be extended to cover all religions (code for "Islam") which is a direct outcome of the call from the OIC in the UN for nations to ratify and enforce their quaint "Defamation of Religions" resolution.. which would see myself and proxy and others sent off to prison quick smart.

If these things were not actually happening..(and predictable) I would not say as much as I do.
Remember RMIT? aaah.. same deal... same people.. same problem.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 6:12:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BANJO P

//Proselytisme in every shape and form should be banished from public schools. //

hmmm..and denial of access to information about faith is not, by default, secular 'proselytizing' ? :)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 6:15:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mikk,
The Bible is very clear about one thing, what is impossible for man is possible with God. All the talk about religion, ethics, morals, cults, without God is only hot air. Jesus the son of God came to seek and save a lost world, mankind, for all have missed the mark. The word sin is an archery term meaning to miss the mark or the target. All have sinned and fallen short of Gods best (glory). Jesus is the word of God. The root of the word wicked is wick or twisted. Until you get the revelation that God is good and that he loves you, you will never repent(to turn around) and go to God and allow his word to untwist or wash your mind (the washing of the word0. So any target other than Gods only begotten son is to miss the mark. If you have a problem with Gods word sort it out with him not me. Jesus is also the truth, the way, and the light that allows man to see from a different perspective. As Hank Williams sang until the light goes on you will always miss the mark. God loves you and all your miss guided mates but it is your choice, for it is appointed unto man to die once then the judgment.
the book of eccelesiastes chapter 12 says these wise word
Remember your Creator in the day of your youth, before the days of trouble come and the years approach when you will say, "I find no pleasure in them"-- before the sun and the light and the moon and the stars grow dark, cont
Posted by Richie 10, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 6:27:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont
and the clouds return after the rain;
when the keepers of the house tremble,
and the strong men stoop,
when the grinders cease because they are few, and those looking through the window grow dim;
when the doors to the streat are closed
and the sound of grinding fades;
when men rise up at the sound of birds,
but all their songs grow faint;
when men are afraid of heights
and of dangers in the streets;
when the almond tree blossoms
and the grasshopper drags himself along
and desire is no longer stirred;
Then man goes to his eternal home
and mourners go about the streets.
Remember him -- before the silver cord is severed,
and the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
or the weel broken at the well,
and the dust returned to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

here is the conclusion of the matter;
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.
For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.
regards Richie 10
Posted by Richie 10, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 6:28:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These ethics classes are only a little less of a joke than the scripture classes.

Christian brainwashing of the young must stop.

The legislation that prevents alternative studies is a perversion.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 7:59:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

@ ALGOREisRICH

NEITHER INFORMATION NOR INDICATION

.

It is not the role of publcs schools to persuade students to believe in the supernatural, nor to provide information regarding any such hypothetical entity. That, of course, includes any gods, devils, angels, archangels, spirits, ghosts, elfs, fairies, saints, miracles and so forth.

Public schools are expected to dispense objective knowledge, not subjective knowledge.

They are not even competent to indicate where any such information may be sought, let alone obtained.

There are as many sources in the world as there are beliefs. That is to say, many thousands, if not, tens of thousands. All different and none unbiased.

In the absence of any unbiased source of information on such matters, it is a question for the families to decide, not the public schools.

Some private schools, of course, clearly indicate their bias and many families are happy to have their children educated in those schools. They are perfectly free to do so.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 8:16:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Compare the posts by AJ Phillips and Richie 10.

Truly revealing what R10 writes after AJ, either R10 is so completely religiously lobotomised that he cannot even consider a different perspective on the Christian god. Or. He lacks the intellectual acuity. Either, everything R10 wrote was completely deconstructed by AJ PRIOR to R10 posting.

Either AJ is omnipotent or R10 is an frightening example of childhood brainwashing - one RE class too many methinks.

All the more reason to rid secular schools of any form of religious instruction (comparative religious study is acceptable and necessary) and implement Critical Thinking as a matter of urgency to save the minds of our children.

May the mindless, unreasoning faith of Richie 10 serve as a warning to all.
Posted by Severin, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 8:22:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very long bow indeed, Boaz.

>>hmmm..and denial of access to information about faith is not, by default, secular 'proselytizing'<<

No-one has suggested that "access to information about faith" should be denied.

Only that dedicating part of the curriculum to proselytising "faith" - or, religion, as the rest of us call it - is anachronistic, and completely alien to the purpose of educating our children.

If the proposal were to replace RI based on Christianity with (exclusively) that of another religion, you may have cause for concern. After all, that would simply be replacing one misleading exercise with another, but without the vague "justification" that it is part of our history.

But to replace it with nothing cannot possibly be described as "secular proselytising". If you doubt this, try checking the dictionary.

The study of religions in general has a place, as a topic within a wider study. But could not possibly warrant being a stand-alone subject.

Incidentally, I shouldn't fret too much about Ireland's blasphemy laws, if I were you.

>>IRELAND The government there tried to implement with the force of law.. "Blashpemy" to be extended to cover all religions (code for "Islam") which is a direct outcome of the call from the OIC in the UN for nations to ratify and enforce their quaint "Defamation of Religions" resolution.. which would see myself and proxy and others sent off to prison quick smart.<<

Ignoring for a moment your obligatory whack-a-mozzie, knee-jerk snide reference to the United Nations, you have nothing to worry about...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/02/AR2010010201846.html

We atheists will sort it out for you.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 8:38:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the link Pericles.

>>> Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and cares about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.” <<<
Posted by Severin, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 8:53:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems reasonable to have students learn about ethics in school. It would make teaching them professional ethics at university much easier. Professions require universities to teach ethics as part of accredited courses. I teach ethics to students of computing and web design at the Australian National University: <http://www.tomw.net.au/2009/wd/social.shtml>.
Posted by tomw, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 9:53:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""denial of access to information about faith is not, by default, secular 'proselytizing' ? :)" ... Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 6:15:35 AM

Where is there denial of access?
.................................................

""there is good cause for traditional "Christians" of a nominal nature to be concerened about the erosion and attacks on their cultural well being..."

Rubbish. It is more a perception, especially a discomfort about not being able to proselytise without constaint.

Issues should be discussed on their merit, and not referenced to parables or fable stories
....................................................

""SECULAR TEACHER in ETHICS CLASS "Now Children.. we must respect others rights to study in peace"
"STUDENT "why?"
"SECULAR TEACHER "Errr... ummmm.. errr *because*" ""

Absured sneering - unnecessary and childish
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 10:04:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posters should know that the policy in NSW that does not allow anyting to be taught during the SRE classes is just that, policy.

It is not legislated, it is not in the NSW Ed Act.

Like prayers in Parliaments, the policy can be changed tomorrow with no resort to 'legislation' required.

As for 'ethics' as an alternative being so hotly debated... one has only to see the dirge put out by the Christian groups that support SRE to see they need it to recruit for their declining pew numbers, and that is its sole purpose.

It has no soul purpose at all, being a market driven mechanism to snare bums-on-seats, and more, tax free monies from the ATO, along with unwarranted status within our uncritical communities.

It is unfortunate that Simon Longstaff has embarked upon a mere stopgap mission, and refuses to go the whole way with demands for an end to SRE.

The GRE element, while also 'rather silly' as I think Pericles points out somewhere, being a range of arguments about fairy tales,would be harder to banish from schools, and maybe we shouldn't do that?

Maybe, with the full range of myths, fibs, confabulations and 'metaphors' on sale together, the market will determine which one is the best bet?

Are posters aware that at least some schools in NSW have students singing the praises of God on their assembly?

Particularly so in Central NSW, so it seems.

Is this part of the NSW deal for 'secular' education, or just a bunch of fundie principals who have imposed their personal faith views onto all students in their charge?
Posted by The Blue Cross, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 10:24:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow Richie has it bad doesnt he.

Gotta love the total lack of reasoning from all the godbotherers here. Its all just repeat the same dogma and presume people will see it just like they do. Dont they realise no amount of scriptures and platitudes will convince us. We have heard it all before and it didnt change our minds the first hundred times. You'd think they might try a new tack occasionally.

You godbotherers are scared to death because you know kids will flock to ethics classes and enjoy every minute of it. Unlike the scared, bullied little kids whos parents force them into scripture classes. You are scared that if kids learn to think for themselves they might not listen to your priests and might ask questions that you godbotherers have no answers to. LONG LIVE ETHICS CLASSES.

Obedience that is based on fear of punishment, this-worldly or otherworldly, is not really goodness, it is merely cowardice.
Posted by mikk, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 11:29:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner
Still waiting for your answer: why is what people do in private that hurts nobody your business? I'm not saying that it isn't your business — just curious about why you think that it is.

If you have to worry about all the things that people do in private that hurt nobody, most of which you'll never know about, you must live under the most appalling and oppressive weight. How do you manage to get on with your other responsibilities: like working out for yourself the fairest way to behave in difficult situations not covered in detail by the ten commandments?
Posted by GlenC, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 11:39:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Being a lousy typist, I find it smart to draft my comments in Word or similar and give them a spelling/grammar check before pasting the cleaned up version into a post. It doesn't take long and it often saves me from looking even dumber than I am. I recommend it.
Posted by GlenC, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 12:22:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ The Blue Cross (Wed 16 June 10:24:24 AM)

GRE seems to be a good balance presentation (in Yr 3) of all the major belief systems, including visits to churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples.

Simon Wagstaff was just seeking to provide some uniform structured teaching for kids who opted out od SRE or are opted out by their parents. Interestingly, he admits he is a Christian himself (ABC National Sydney 702, this morning).
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 2:21:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal

Maybe, but there is more to life than a bunch of religious tales, and unless GRE covers philosophies and faiths, it is still giving religion a free kick.

Simon Longstaff has never hidden his faith, he has always been quite open and honest about his beliefs, a reflection of his desire for ethical behaviour no doubt...and somewhat more honest than the NSW SRE crew.

Do read this story of evangelising and proselytising through SRE on school camps:
http://www.youthworks.net/good-stuff-ministry-articles.php?c=24&w=7002&r=Y

Read the 'why SRE teachers must go on school camps' and also the radio snippet on The Importance of Schools Ministry

Both are clear indications of why the Anglicans, whose web page it is, want access to very young and impressionable children.

Intelligent adults would tell them to F !@# off.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 2:33:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I disagree with the concept of ethics teaching in classrooms I recognise as McReal outlines, the good intent of the NSW ethics program to provide options.

When in primary school, we opted out of religious teaching for our youngest child, only to find later that the alternative was her sitting outside the RE classroom at a desk on her own, and given some crayons and pens to draw with. There was no alternative and much of the lesson could be heard from her position outside. Most of it was scripture teachings nothing at all about promoting respect or good behaviours.

In the small scenario shown on SBS Insight on this issue, a class of quite young people were discussing the act of lying. When is a lie acceptable and why eg. white lie to say to Grandma, yes we liked your knitted sweater as opposed to other sorts of lies. The teacher got the children to think about lying and what the implications of lying might be.

Personally, for me this is a job for parents whether coming at it from the religious or not. However, I was disappointed to hear religious leaders criticise the program only on the basis of the idea that ethics cannot be taught without a religious flavour. The persistence of the notion that the act of lying cannot be understood except from a sin and punishment perspective, rather than an idea of the collective good.

It is cruel IMO to teach children that humans are nothing more than sinners without any redeeming features unless we seek forgiveness from a supernatural being of which no-one has yet provided any evidence. It is no wonder that many religious leaders fear lack of access to the very young is being threatened by secular thinking and freedom of expression.

It beggars belief that we still have RE in secular public schools in a society where, if individual freedom is really respected and valued, we cannot leave these matters for personal choice and the home.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 2:53:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks TBC - that website's a bit insidious, isn't it? If they can't get 'em at school, then clearly the strategy is to get 'em while they're on school camp.

It is the Anglicans who are busily stacking P&C committees in order to try and veto trials of the ethics subject, isn't it?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 2:56:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Glen C

I had exhausted my 4 posts quickly yesterday hence was not able to get back to you. The question you are pushing is
'why is what people do in private that hurts nobody your business?'

It is not anyone's business if it does not hurt anyone else. However the promoting and condoning of bestiality should be everyone's business. When filth is poured into our children's minds whether by the moral bereft ABC or one of its high priests 'ethicist' in Singer it should become every decent parents business.

Adults have the right pretend that God does not exist and to indulge in every perverted act they wish but they have no right to shove it in society's face.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 4:02:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJM...Yes, the Anglicans are busy beavers, as Dr. John Kaye (NSW Greens, Upper House) says, clearly taking a lesson from Sussex Street ALP factional goons, or maybe Turnbull in his Wentworth seat?

But the Australian Christian Lobby have also endorsed this action previously.

As Di Giblin says (NSW P&C Assoc) there is nothing wrong with encouraging parents to take up their responsibilities within their P&C, but it would be as wrong for one 'side' as the other to stack meetings as the Anglicans clearly intended.... that just leads to bad blood, not an increase in democracy.

I do hope you have the time to listen to the audio of the 'vicar' who gloats about targeting certain groups within schools and the community, it's on the same page.

It would be interesting to hear from Runner on the article and audio.

The actions of 'real Christians' or desperate bandits?
Posted by The Blue Cross, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 4:12:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Adults have the right pretend that God does not exist and to indulge in every perverted act they wish but they have no right to shove it in society's face."

This is the sort of comment I referred to in another thread that might be seen as arrogant and self righteous in relation to fundamentalism.

Astonishing that it is the adults who believe in a supernatural being that are not 'pretending' despite it being a faith based perspective. Those that simply seek some logical and rational thinking or evidence are the pretenders.

This statement also makes an assumption that those who don't believe in God must by nature be perverse and those that do won't be despite all evidence to the contrary about criminal activity within some faiths.

Bestiality is wrong if one belives in the notion of mutual consent as clearly an animal cannot give consent. Clearly harm and abuse is being perpetrated in this situation.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 4:20:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Blue Cross

'It would be interesting to hear from Runner on the article and audio.'

Put it this way TBC I guarantee that representatives of Scripture in School would have a far healthier message than the likes of secular ethicist like Singer who in the past has condoned pedophile and bestiality. You take your pick!
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 4:35:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mikk,
If they would only teach mathematics and literature in the light of the truth instead of duming down children with negative nonsence which does nothing to develop an inquiring mind. Any person half way intelligent can disprove the 1,000,000,000 year theory by asking where are all the people for if you take 2 people and double it every generation it only takes 32.35 generations to reach the present population of the world which anybody with a mind not set in concrete could see. I see you as the gullible one for I have an inquiring mind thanks to my aunt who encouraged us to read. The bible is the most historicaly accurate book in exsitance today and braver men then you have tried to disprove it so don't waste my time and yours.
Posted by Richie 10, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 5:04:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear runner,

You have to know where to look. The Bible isn’t as uptight about sex as some of the Bible bashers:

The Bible advocates French kissing.

Song of Solomon 7:9 And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.

The Bible advocates foreplay.

Isaiah 5:1 Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:

The Bible advocates foreplay with clitoral stimulation.

Song of Solomon 2:6 His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me.

Song of Solomon 5:4 My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

The Bible even eulogises homosexual love:

Samuel 2 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

You have skipped the good parts.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 5:17:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ The Blue Cross, (re Wednesday, 16 June 2010 2:33:04 PM)

The predatory attitude in that article is ... interesting(?).

@ pelican - I agree - ""It is cruel IMO to teach children that humans are nothing more than sinners without any redeeming features unless we seek forgiveness from a supernatural being of which no-one has yet provided any evidence".

runner, as I said Tuesday, 15 June 2010 9:16:24 PM - ""Peter Singer is a philosopher and so contemplates, publicly ...

e.g. ... http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm

"A discussion does not equal condoning, or deserve stoning, either.""

Your persistent references to bestiality are perverted. As are the incestuous relations between Lot and his daughters, described in Genesis 19.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 5:32:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aha... Runner is too scared to offer a comment.

If he agrees that school camps are ripe for proselytising he admits that is what SRE-chaplains are all about.

If he denies it, he knows His Lord will know that he is fibbing and he will go straight to Hell, without $200, and no get out of Hell free card either.

Instead, he pretends that Singer is about to enter schools and displace Longstaff and his very mild ethics trial.

The dishonesty of these SRE people and their supporters is just amazing, staggering in fact, considering they are demanding a 'right' to go in and meddle with our children.

One of the roles, so I imagine anyway, that Singer has adopted is to pose questions for debate.

How dangerous is that?

I have never heard him advocating people do have sex with animals, only asking questions about it.

(BTW, we had a local dairy farmer some years back arrested for having sex with his cow... a good believer he was too).

The Runners of the world never want to debate anything, only impose, coerce and bully.

Like the SRE fellow who sees a chance to impose on unwary students.

How utterly contemptible!
Posted by The Blue Cross, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 5:35:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TBC

'Aha... Runner is too scared to offer a comment.' You are totally wrong again.

The champion of free speech as long as its not truth telling.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 6:03:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear mikk,

Animals can consent. Consent does not have to be verbal even in humans. Animals can let you know whether or not they want to do something.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 9:14:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Are you really suggesting that animals may consent to intercourse or other 'interactions' with humans?

I suppose it is possible, though I can't imagine it. When I was a kid, I once saw a rabbit giving a guinea pig a good go. The guinea pig's behaviour didn't really indicate consent. I will accept your point and certainly agree that it is a possibility, but in practice I think it is unlikely to happen all too often.
Posted by Otokonoko, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 9:32:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Otokonoko,

We feed possums that come in our back yard at night. A couple of nights one of the creatures put its head forward and rubbed noses with my wife. That was definitely a gesture of affection.

I have engaged in sexual relations during my life. I have never forced anyone and have never had to have verbal consent. You know if another human wants it without getting verbal consent.

I imagine it's the same thing with a member of another species although I have not had the experience.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 10:22:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richie you nailed it with your "mind set in concrete" comment.

Humans were not around 1,000,000,000 years ago.
Your maths and logic are awful. You dont even allow that people die ffs. The bible has long been proven to be extremely inconsistent and inaccurate. Even the churches admit it. Why dont you?
I suggest you inquire a bit more and stop embarrassing yourself.

davidf
I disagree. The only way an animal could be seen as consenting is if they didnt bite the person shagging them. They can hardly give "informed" consent can they. Even if they did willingly accept it (as dogs on heat would) they could only be seen as enslaved to their hormones and instinct not consenting. Is that really where we want to go? I still see it as exploiting an animal for your own sexual gratification and cant accept that in a sexual situation an animal could give consent. Arent we better than animals? We dont allow or base instincts and hormones to control us. At least we shouldnt. i see no possible need or justification for bestiality except cheap thrills, mental illness or just uncaring deviance. People who do such things would worry me greatly. How far will they go to pleasure themselves and in their uncaring and selfish attitude they are likely to do anything to satisfy their perversions.
Posted by mikk, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 10:55:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear mikk,

I won't argue but will cite a couple of instances from mythology. Zeus in the form of a bull got it on with Europa. She gave birth to Minos and Rhadamanthus. In the form of a swan he also got it on with Leda who gave birth to Castor and Pollux. In Christian mythology the Holy Ghost got it on with Mary who gave birth to Jesus. As far as I know, unlike a bull and a swan, the Holy Ghost wasn't even a vertebrate. That was farther out than bestiality. Real perving.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 11:08:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come on David, you're baiting now. Zeus assumed the forms of various animals and had sex with women. If the Holy Spirit had had sex with Mary, she wouldn't have been a virgin.
Posted by Otokonoko, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 11:26:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Severin,

Thanks for the re-affirming post!

It’s always helpful - not to mention greatly appreciated - when others here on OLO legitimise the points of others that deserve more of a mention.

Unfortunately, I’m not omnipotent - I just know the Christian belief system inside-out and back-to-front having once been a Christian - but it was kind of strange how prophetic my post appeared in contrast to Richie 10’s post.

:P

Amazing too that other Christians continue to post, as though nothing had happened considering I had just - without realising at the time just how much I had - totally de-constructed, destroyed and discredited the entire Christian belief system.

Game, Set, Match guys...
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 11:36:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Obviously, the thread has wandered way off topic, albeit quite hilariously.

As ever, david f makes a very interesting point. The disgust that most of us feel about bestiality and incest (and indeed some still do about homosexuality) is because we've learned it as a social taboo. There's nothing innate about it.

Indeed, if species didn't get it on with other species a major evolutionary mechanism wouldn't have got us to where we are now ;)

Having said that, I'd think that such ethical dilemmas would be beyond the scope of any proposed school subject.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 11:36:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Runner,

.

Re: your post, page 10:

"Adults have the right pretend that God does not exist and to indulge in every perverted act they wish but they have no right to shove it in society's face".

I am wondering why you consider that "the right to pretend that God does not exist" is limited to adults only.

Inversly, what makes you think that children and adolescents "pretend that God exists"?

Doesn't everybody, including children, adolescents and adults alike, have the right to pretend that God exists or does not exist?

You also indicate that the right to "indulge in every perverted act they wish" is limited to adults only. It seems that children and adolescents do not enjoy the same right.

And what about those who "pretend that god exists"?

Supposing, for the sake of argument, that they do not have the same right as the others, is it not possible that the prospect of transgression may add fuel to the fire of whatever shameful desires are already torturing their souls?

Transgression is a powerful drug that stimulates and excites the central nervous system of those of us who "pretend that God exists". It has all the ingrediants necessary to enslave us to the point that life becomes unbearable without our daily dose of infernal conflict between sin and devotion.

Who can honsestly imagine that all the "perversion" in this world is perpetrated exclusively by those of us who "pretend that God does not exist"?

Are we so blind as not to see that several thousand Catholic priests around the world, who "pretend that God exists", repeatedly sexually abused young children and adolescents who you, dear Runner, tell us "did not have the right to pretend that God does not exost"?

"Adults", you protest, "have no right to shove it in society's face".

Do you mean to imply that transgressional behaviour should be kept secret? That, for example, the paedophilia activity of those Catholic priests "should not be shoved in society's face"?

Is that the rule of ethics of one who "pretends that God exists"?

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 11:39:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ, your discrediting of a belief system you know "inside-out" does little more than discredit your claim to know it inside out. For example, you show that you do not understand the difference between prescience and predestination. Just because God knows in advance what decisions you will make doesn't mean that you have no free will in making those decisions.

If, as Christians believe, God is omniscient, it doesn't mean that he makes our decisions for us. It just means that he knows what we are going to do before we do it. This may or may not be a ridiculous idea, but it is a fundamental belief of most Christian denominations and, as such, something you (an expert) should know.
Posted by Otokonoko, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 11:46:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Otokonoko: << It just means that he knows what we are going to do before we do it. This may or may not be a ridiculous idea, but it is a fundamental belief of most Christian denominations. >>

With the greatest respect, I think that's exactly the sort of idea that shouldn't be taught to kids at secular public schools, at least as if it's actually true.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 11:55:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree wholeheartedly, CJ. I don't think there's any place for compulsory religious education in public schools, or non-compulsory religious education along the lines of the NSW model. In fact, I'd say that state schools should be entirely secular.

Until recently, I worked at a public school with a chaplain. I'm not sure what denomination he was - one of the 'new' churches, I think. Even as a practising Catholic, I was a little alarmed at the evangelisation I saw. I see no point in having prayers on assemblies, when children are instructed to bow their heads and pray to a god they don't believe in and never will. Their parents have a right to send them to a school that supports their own belief system. If they are atheist, they don't deserve to have Christianity shoved down their throats. At the same time, if they are Muslims, or Buddhists, or Catholics or Protestants, they don't deserve to have an alien system of prayer and worship forced upon them.

I now work at a Catholic school. This works well for me, because it sits well with my own beliefs. I also have the peace of mind of knowing that the parents who have sent their kids to my school are aware of the belief system being offered, and have actively chosen to endorse it. Perhaps, rather than forcing themselves into public schools, other denominations should put more time, effort and money into luring like-minded people into their own denominational schools.
Posted by Otokonoko, Thursday, 17 June 2010 12:11:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Otokonoko,

<<AJ, your discrediting of a belief system you know "inside-out" does little more than discredit your claim to know it inside out.>>

I object to any suggestion that I don’t understand Christianity “inside-out”. It’s similar to the idiotic claim that those who lose their faith didn’t really believe - or know Jesus - to begin with.

I find that totally offensive.

<<For example, you show that you do not understand the difference between prescience and predestination.>>

What about prescience and predestination do I not understand?

You’re being deliberately vague here. Please give specifics.

<<Just because God knows in advance what decisions you will make doesn't mean that you have no free will in making those decisions.>>

And your reasoning for the above statement is?
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 17 June 2010 12:18:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo Paterson

you ask

'I am wondering why you consider that "the right to pretend that God does not exist" is limited to adults only.

Inversly, what makes you think that children and adolescents "pretend that God exists"?'

Children are much more ready to believe in God despite their Adamic nature as they can see the obvious (we are created). It is usually when people get older and want to justify the seared conscience that they adopt the twisted unscienctific evolution myth.

'Doesn't everybody, including children, adolescents and adults alike, have the right to pretend that God exists or does not exist?'

Usually the conscience of a child isn't seared like that of adults who have rejected Christ.

'You also indicate that the right to "indulge in every perverted act they wish" is limited to adults only. It seems that children and adolescents do not enjoy the same right.'

That is right.

'And what about those who "pretend that god exists"?'

A fool says to himself their is no god.

'Supposing, for the sake of argument, that they do not have the same right as the others, is it not possible that the prospect of transgression may add fuel to the fire of whatever shameful desires are already torturing their souls?'

Transgression is a powerful drug that stimulates and excites the central nervous system of those of us who "pretend that God exists". It has all the ingrediants necessary to enslave us to the point that life becomes unbearable without our daily dose of infernal conflict between sin and devotion.'

Yes forbidden fruit always looks better. The sinful nature reminds us more of our need for Christ.

'Who can honsestly imagine that all the "perversion" in this world is perpetrated exclusively by those of us who "pretend that God does not exist"?'

Not me. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. We are all born of corruption
Posted by runner, Thursday, 17 June 2010 12:33:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Runner,

.

My question: "Who can honestly imagine that all the "perversion" in this world is perpetrated exclusively by those of us who "pretend that God does not exist"?'

Your response: "Not me. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. We are all born of corruption"

My response: Agreed. Whether one "pretends that God exists or not" does not appear to have much effect on the matter.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 17 June 2010 1:37:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually Otokonoko, don’t worry about my request in regards to prescience and predestination. I was in the middle of putting together some reasons why they don’t explain away the free will problem Christians face, then it hit me...

Considering your post was (presumably) in response to my claim that I “totally de-constructed, destroyed and discredited the entire Christian belief system”, this is beside the point as free will is not central to Christianity - the alleged resurrection is.

It’s been a while since I was a Christian, so could you tell me, do theologians have a study that attempts to explain the fact that the god of Abraham was such a colossal failure, and why his method of saving us from himself was so inept?
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 17 June 2010 8:42:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJP

I hope there were others who picked up on the coincidence as well. It is amazing how people like R10 will continue repeating their dogma as if nothing has happened. Blind faith indeed.

Question for the religious:

Please justify why YOUR particular religion should be taught at secular schools.

Why Catholicism over Anglican, or, more generally, Christianity over Judaism, Buddhism in preference to Scientology?

Not all religions can be right. And I do not want to hear the p*ssweak excuse that Australia is a Christian country - that does not mean that Christianity is god's chosen, let alone that there is a god at all (think Buddhism).

At the risk of suggesting that the entire issue could be easily solved by not teaching any religion in schools apart from a comparative study, as opposed to indoctrination, can not the religious understand how they would feel if the primary religious instruction at all secular schools was, say, hmmmmm, Islam? If that very thought sticks in your craw, then perhaps, you can use the value of compassion and understand how non-religious feel.

Is it such a lot to ask religious people to consider others do not share their beliefs? Where are all those positive religious values that you claim to have?

Walk the talk.
Posted by Severin, Thursday, 17 June 2010 10:04:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Otokonoko: << I don't think there's any place for compulsory religious education in public schools, or non-compulsory religious education along the lines of the NSW model. In fact, I'd say that state schools should be entirely secular. >>

I agree completely, and thanks for offering a reasonable Christian perspective. Your anecdote about the chaplain fits well with the concerns I've had as a parent since they were introduced into Queensland state schools. Quite frankly, I find the whole chaplaincy program creepy.

As I've said before, if parents want their children to receive religious instruction, they should send them to religious schools or Sunday School or whatever. Chaplains should be replaced by qualified counsellors with no religious brief.

I'll leave you to debate theology with AJ (whose contributions I usually appreciate here, as I do with yours).
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 17 June 2010 10:26:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan... quite agree.... but there is a problem here.

The body that represents school councillors is a dormant doormat. Their members work with school chaplains and cannot see a problem, or at least, raise none publicly.

Their web page has a note from 2006 urging 'caution' only.

Since then, in school after school, right across the nation, school chaplains have usurped the role of professional counsellors, with the full support of Rudd, Gillard and each and every state premier and territory leader and education minister.

Our entire society is in denial.

It does not matter how many times chaplains boast of counselling students, no one that should hear, has ears for it.

And do you know what a 'qualification' is to provide this 'service'?

In Victoria at least some form of graduate degree is needed, but as far as DEEWR are concerned, a Cert 2 in youth work is good enough to provide counselling to suicidal students etc etc etc.

Not bad eh?

Part of Gillard's 'education revolution'.

So, why do we insist on graduate/post graduate qualifications for other educators?

I am sure it was Sam Harris, no doubt Dawkins too, who said that people are not prepared to challenge anyone who blurts out a justification that includes the boast, 'it's my faith'.

Well, it is about time we did.

They can have their 'faith', I'd not take that from anyone, but they have no right to impose it within public schools under false pretences... that is fraudulent, dishonest, lies, dangerous and unreasonable, to conjure up but a few bon mots.

There are 'faith' schools here aplenty, sadly, as bad as any Madrassah that we in the West regard as 'dangerous' for the religious content drummed in to kids, so if parents are so fearful that their children will shrivel and die from a lack of 'values' in public schools, let them all fill these Christian madrassahs with their charges and leave our children alone.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Thursday, 17 June 2010 11:49:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Otokonoko wrote:

Come on David, you're baiting now. Zeus assumed the forms of various animals and had sex with women. If the Holy Spirit had had sex with Mary, she wouldn't have been a virgin.

Dear Otokonoko,

I am not baiting nor do I agree that Mary was a virgin. A God getting a mortal pregnant and virgin birth are pagan myths absorbed into Christianity. To make the new religion acceptable to pagans it absorbed pagan myths.

Adonis or Tammuz, Syrian god of vegetation, was born of a Virgin (Nature). Attis was born of a Virgin, Nana. Krishna, the Indian god, was also born of a Virgin (Devaki).

In the original Hebrew the prophesy of Isaiah holds that an almah, a young woman, shall give birth. Young women frequently give birth - nothing unusual about that. However, the translators of Isaiah into Greek translated almah as parthenos, the Greek word for virgin, bringing the pagan legend into scripture.

What entrance did the Holy Spirit use to impregnate Mary?

Part of the definition of virgin is to have hymeneal tissue partially blocking the vaginal canal. If Mary could somehow become pregnant while a virgin she would no longer be a virgin after giving birth. There are subsidiary Christian myths dealing with this. One is that Jesus miraculously appeared outside of Mary's body without going through the naughty bits.

Virgin birth makes sex dirty, as though it's holier to have birth without intercourse.

Runner carries on this filth when he writes, "We are all born of corruption." I was not born of corruption. I was born because my father's sperm united with my mother's egg hopefully while they were united in loving embrace. There was nothing corrupt about it. Apparently runner in his sick religion believes he was born in corruption.

It is obscene to think that a sweet baby is born in corruption. Babies are born with a clean slate. What they do from then on determines what they are.

Although runner may think he is corrupt his brains are clean. They have been well washed.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 17 June 2010 6:08:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is one of the most offensive and shameful traits of the godbotherers. I am not evil. I am not a sinner. I was not born corrupt. Say that sort of crap to my face and you're asking for a punch in the mouth. This hatred of humanity and slander of little children is indicative of how these ideologues really work and it aint no charity begins at home and love thy neighbor these scum are preaching. It is hate yourself, hate everyone around you, you're all evil and tainted and only we can save you. Am I the only one who sees how sick this is?
Posted by mikk, Thursday, 17 June 2010 7:41:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No mikk, you are not alone.

But unfortunately our entire body politic and anyone who wants to 'fit in' refuses to say anything other than 'yes sir, three bags full sir' to these horrible people.

Just listen to that Anglican Bishop in NSW, fibbing his way through Insight as he told us all how they teach 'morals' in SRE.... absolute twaddle.... they bash out Bible stories of fear and expect children to draw from them some mechanism for living!

School chaplains, not allowed to proselytise do nothing but that.

Priets and others rush around doing the complete opposite of what they are supposed to, and get promoted all the time....

We need a little boy with clear vision to tell the Emperor he has no clothes.... the search is on.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Thursday, 17 June 2010 8:10:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear David F

.

As regards the occasional outlandish statements of our camerade-in-writing, Runner, I suspect that the ideas and opinions he expresses on this forum are inspired by Paul of Tarsus, judging from their distinctive fundamentalist resonance.

Whilst we all use models and heros as guides and boosters as we proceed through life, prior to launching our own personalities into the great unknown, a break-down sometimes occurs, resulting in the final stage failing to detach itself and carrying on alone. Instead, it remains permanently hobbled.

I am sure Runner has some interesting things to share with us but unfortunately he does not appear to have managed to disconnect himself from his tutor, who, as I suggested earlier on, I suspect is Paul of Tarsus.

It seems that Runner's detachment mechanism was corrupted and failed to trigger as planned by the intelligent designer and manufacturer.

I think it is fair to say that if we were to put the question to him squarely, Runner would probably be the first to admit that, indeed, a most unfortunate error of conception has occurred in his particular case . To put it in his own words: "We are all born of corruption" (posted by runner, Thursday, 17 June 2010 12:33:17 AM)

Consequently, everything he tries to express becomes terribly distorted. It is up to us to decipher whatever it is he wishes to communicate and transpose that into cartesian form so that it may be deemed worthy of consideration.

Admittedly, deciphering the paulian mode of expresion is no easy task but, you never know, there could well be some valuable nuggets of gold to be found amongst all that rubble. It is certainly worth trying.

All we need is the energy and the patience to sift it through and research it with the same assiduity and intuition that you, David F, have so brilliantly employed in deciphering all those other obscure biblical texts, and produced such remarkable results.

It has to be a team effort. There is no way Runner can hobble on alone and be understood.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 18 June 2010 8:43:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max, take it fro m me that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST it appears you are a bit tunnel minded and not aware of what constitutional arrangements there are in place.
The Framers of the Constitution desired a federation where religious liberty was for all and only limited by criminal prohibitions. As such you can conduct your religious practices as much as you like provided it is not in breach of any criminal provisions. The Commonwealth being prohibited to legislate as to religion where as the States were permitted to do so as well as the Commonwealth in right of s.122 for a territory (a quasi state). As the Framers of the Constitution also made clear (and so embedded in the constitution as a legal principle) the State would have a separation of government and church. While States would retain their powers to legislate as to religion it can however not mix governance and religion. While a parliament may open with a prayer this cannot be enforced upon anyone! The funding of religious school is permitted by the Commonwealth but only for so far it does as with secular schools and the funding is not to be used for religious purposes. Personally I see no issue if a State School were to provide religious classes after normal school classes so that those students who like to attend can do so or those who don’t go home, however I do not accept that any public money (taxpayers money) should be spend on religious education being if on any public school for after hours religious classes or for any religious education at a private school. On 19 July 2006 I defeated the Commonwealth in a 5-year long legal battle that its cannot compel anyone to vote as s.245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was unconstitutional also to provide for religious exclusions and the Court upheld this in both cases.
Freedom of religion should be permitted but without the taxpayer paying for religious practices and education!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 22 June 2010 5:27:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo P :) glad to see you are a kind of peripheral student of Paul.

Without question, he came forth with the most profound understanding of man re his Creator that has ever been written.

All our *hard* questions are answered.. though not to our complete satisfaction....

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9&version=NIV

verses 14-21

There you have it.

Runner speaks from the heart... so did Paul.

PS...do you know anything about the Club of Rome ?

http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/meetings/london_2009/presentations/Opening_Remarks_Dr_Eberhard_von_Koerber.pdf

See the intro, but also page 4

Top paragraph ...part beginning with:

"A key purpose of this conference is........"

See you on http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3741

http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

Maybe Runner makes more sense now ? :)

OH wait.. one more.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+13&version=NIV

See especially verses 16-18

Happy picking (ur banjo)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 23 June 2010 7:05:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka... an interesting post.

Unfortunately, all the states and territories do fund religion in public schools, as do the Commonwealth with the NSCP scam.

In Qld the State also supports Christianity above all other religions, giving it special status since 1910 when the word 'secular' was removed from the Education Act specifically to allow Bible lessons and Religious Instruction, not 'education' to be given, in class time, with Bible lessons given by the school teacher, in class time.

There is a challenge to be mounted to the NSCP scam:
http://highcourtchallenge.com/

These ATO funded 'chaplains', mostly with no qualifications at all, are used instead of school counsellors to assist with suicidal students, no doubt part of the reason for Professor Mendoza's resignation in disgust at the Rudd-Roxon failure in mental health.

See the latest 'revelation' from Qld here:
http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/story/2010/06/23/chaplain-shares-lifes-tragedies-triumphs/

In something of a shock had a school teacher admitted this, it seems the ATO funded 'chaplain' even takes students to his home to stay overnight.

Such is the 'care' our ATO monies are paying for, via our open funding of religion.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Wednesday, 23 June 2010 9:49:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy: << http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

Maybe Runner makes more sense now ? :) >>

Oh, I think most of us know exactly where people like you and runner are coming from. That bogus "green agenda" website's a classic, not to mention the apocalyptic "one world government" site to which it links. Talk about looney tunes!

TBC - thanks for the info about the High Court challenge to the insidious NSCP. I'll consider donating.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 23 June 2010 10:04:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the information about the High-Court challenge but to tell you the truth I am concerned that the case may be railroaded. You see, with the WorkChoices 14-1-2006 decision the High-Court of Australia concealed relevant details and took other out of context and it has done so time and again as I have exposed in my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series. The problem is that the High-Court judges are lacking proper training in constitutional matters and one judge even refused to hand down a judgment upon the basis he didn’t know the constitutional issue. We need to have an OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIAN that advises the Government, the People, the Courts and the Parliament what is constitutionally appropriate. All tax-exclusions upon religious grounds is unconstitutional. What a lot of politicians are forgetting that for example if it is good enough for those who call themselves Christians to use taxpayers monies for religious issues then what if Muslims become the majority and have on every corner of a street a religious building at cost of taxpayers? What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. As such people better be careful that today’s abuses are not going to putting in place a system that tomorrow may be regrettable.
Those who desire to practice religion, should be permitted to do so but not at the taxpayers expense.
No tax exclusions on basis of religion as it is in breach of s.116 of the constitution! Constitutionally if the commonwealth allows tax exclusion for religious entities then it must likewise allow tax exemption for non-religious entities and that means everyone would be tax exempted. That was also one of my arguments about voting that if it excluded electors on religious grounds then likewise it should exclude electors on secular grounds. And the Commonwealth didn’t challenge this a bit!
As for Queensland, I wrote an article as http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati being http://www.scribd.com/doc/32123406/100529-Anna-Blight-PM-Peter-Wllington-MP-Queens-Land-Constitution-Etc and you will find that this and http://www.scribd.com/doc/24672872/090309-v2-2007-Address-to-the-Court-Tribunal-g54449-00-Part-2 sets out what is constitutionally applicable in Queensland. Indeed it also sets out that the purported 2001 Queensland constitution is ultra vires.
Just take it from there.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Thursday, 24 June 2010 1:58:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AGIR,

You are fond of making statements of your opinion and broad sweeping generalisations as though they are fact.

e.g. You wrote: Without question, he came forth with the most profound understanding of man re his Creator that has ever been written.

Without knowing all the statments made on the subject and being able to evaluate them the above statement is rubbish.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 24 June 2010 5:13:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is certainly one aspect of it, david f.

>>Without knowing all the statments made on the subject and being able to evaluate them the above statement is rubbish.<<

But what I found fascinating was the excerpt Boaz used as his own personal illustration of the "most profound understanding of man re his Creator" of which he spoke.

I still prefer the KJV, which goes thusly:

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour" Romans 9, 20-21

This explains so much about the mindset of those who take this stuff seriously, as it absolves them from all responsibility for their thoughts and actions.

Clearly, whatever happens, it was God wot dunnit.

And the challenge - how dare you question your God's right to, for example, drown an entire civilization - is also inherent in the abdication of human responsibility.

Paul was very smart guy. He knew the intrinsic frailty of the human psyche, and exploited it to the full. People, generally speaking, hate making decisions, and an exhortation to let someone else make all those hard choices for you, is pretty compelling.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 24 June 2010 8:27:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy