Teaching children about talking snakes and pregnant virgins has no place in the modern school curriculum.
There should no provision for prayer in schools
Just as there should be no provision for thinking in churces.

Rob,

Christianity (as opposed the Christ's own example) has, and continues, to walk hand in hand with consumerism - they're partners in the Western world.

You talk of telling a few Bible stories and instilling a few values....but the whole schooling paradigm is one of collective indoctrination into consumer society. It's covert role (aside from the tree R's) is to train up children to unthinkingly obey the dictates of a society obsessed with material gain.

Ever since the Protestant work ethic took hold, we've been rolling ever forward in our quest away from cooperative enterprise toward a competitive, individualistic and centralised paradigm - but this is aided and abetted by all pertinent institutions in our society including the church - it's a partnership which keeps the cash registers ringing.

The Golden Rule is a universal tenet - as you should know, Christianity is not the sole font of wisdom in this world - and it might also be construed as a call to respect "human rights" - something I believe Christ would have supported wholeheartedly.

It's interesting that you preceded every mention of atheist or secular with the word "militant".

One thing you can guarantee is that any member of the Christian lobby will reflexively link "militant" with any criticism, whether secularist, humanist, atheist, or other religionist.

The alternative to SRE/SRI being offered through such programs as the NSW Ethics seminars are attacked, as are alternative SRE provisions. As a retired teacher and school principal, I remember the fuss when the Jehovah's Witnesses wanted to minister to their particular flock. Resistance to any alteration to the special privilege that mainstream Christian denominations have had regarding access to public school students - it is a form of marketing after all, has always been common.

The resistance to the AOGs coming into the schools was another example I had direct experience of back in the 1980s.

However, it must be said, my deepest criticism of Ward's position is reserved for demanding that the only alternative should be "self-directed learning, under the watchful eye of a school teacher." I'd rather see a productive seminar on Ethics thanks.

There there Mr Ward; neither of us believe in Zeus or Odin, it's just that some people believe in one less god than you. Morality predates religion - not the other way around.

" ... the truth that one cannot understand Western literature without understanding the Bible."

That is a lie for several reasons:
1. It is possible to understand western literature without reference to the bible,
2. understanding the Bible is extremely difficult even for Christian theologians - they frequently admit they take decades to try to do so,
3. the Bible stories are unverified by contemporary writings,
4. the Bible stories are often contradictory e.g the 2 versions of creation, the contradictions about resurrection witnesses, etc.
.........................

"Only the most churlish deny that Jesus was a good man whose teachings offer us much. No credible historian doubts his historicity."

No credible historian has produced extra-Biblical literary evidence or archaeological evidence to verify his historicity.

As for being a universally "good man" - he was charged, convicted and punished for sedition. Much of his writing are about favouring him or his teachings, and denigrating those who do not follow them.
.................................

"It is a simple fact that culture derives from who or what a society values most."

Culture and Society are not universals in any country. Their variability, diversity and intermittent cross-over means there is not a single "who" or even an oligarchy of them.

In NSW the primary school curriculum includes "comparative religion" (though I'm not sure about the curriculum in Victoria). In NSW, this gives children in Years 5 and 6 exposure to religions and their texts including the bible, without having the beliefs pushed onto them. Why should children be proselytized at a public school during school hours, especially if their parents don't want this to happen? Why are religions so afraid of alternatives to SRI for children? Is it because they feel that if people are only proselytized as adults that many more of them won't choose religion?
As for Gillard, she has just been pandering to right-wing Christians from Qld in search of their votes (hence her election promise to increase funding for school chaplains). She shouldn't bother: they didn't vote for her anyway. If the High Court case to be heard this month rules that Federal funding for school chaplains is unconstitutional, she should thank the proponents of the case for saving the Govt a lot of money which was promised in search of votes the ALP didn't get.

"Just three parents and a few militant secularists " - a lobby group, Rob?

"the Golden Rule" is universal, and pre-dated Christianity, Rob.

The reference to *intolerance* is so hypocritical ...

Exposing kids to values which post-date Christianity and its tribe-obsessed idolatry of a persecuted figure can’t be all bad
.

For someone who is opposed to toxic rhetoric this article was full of it.

Militant atheists are not people who seek a secular approach to schooling. Young children need to make up their own minds about their spirituality and should not have it foisted apon them by taxpayers who won't all be Christians.

A militant atheist might be defined as one who wishes to ban religion altogether. The parents mentioned in the article only seek for children to be protected against proselytising agendas. They are not as I see it arguing that children from Christian families be denied access to Christian teachings in their private lives. There is more than enough out-of-school programs such as Church, Sunday School, Bible classes and youth groups administered by the Christian Churches.

I found this article to be quite hostile in its attack on atheists and secularism. Try living in places like Iran where Christians are persecuted and you might in your ivory tower understand why secularism is the only civilised way to go.

There are at least 8 hours in every primary student's day when parents could impart religious beliefs and teaching, if it matters to them. The SRI time could more usefully be spent teaching comparative religion and belief systems, such as atheism and ethics, or better still, just teaching the crowded curriculum.

Rob we 'militant atheists' are not, in fact, asking for religion to be expunged from schools. Almost all of those opposing the current delivery of SRE agree that a knowledge of religion's role in history, art, literature, etc. is an essential part of a liberal education. To that end, we absolutely support a course in comparative religion taught by trained, secular teachers without a religious agenda to evangelise and indoctrinate. (See, for instancehttp://www.reena.net.au/ )

Children should receive religious education - but not the religious instruction which is the current method of delivery. And, if you don't understand the difference, consider whether you would prefer your teenager to receive sex education or sex instruction at school.

What we don't want is children exposed to your particular hateful brand of Christian indoctrination. You know, the kind that makes the leader of your organisation tweet on ANZAC Day that our diggers didn't fight for gay marriage and Muslims - and then try to get himself out of trouble by placing the blame on others, and saying he'd only been on Twitter for a week - when, in fact, he'd been on Twitter for 14 months. These are not the 'values' most decent Australians want passed on to their children. Further, I would respectfully suggest that the name of the ACL is now so compromised that you're hindering rather than helping the cause of SRE by supporting it. You only highlight SRE's association with your organisations extremist, fundamentalist views. (I note that one of the few Christian organisations that stepped up to defend the ACL over the ANZAC affair was Catch the Fire Ministries - fine bedfellows indeed!)

(continued ....)

... Of course, ACCESS also does a great job at exposing its fundamentalism. According to ACCESS it's no use kids going to their teachers about bullying - teachers are lazy, rude to the children, and not in the least concerned about bullying. The only thing that will get a teacher to respond to a child's complaints, apparently, is the intervention of God through prayer. http://mike-stuchbery.com/2011/05/03/831/

And then, of course, there's the Illawarra SRE teacher who entertains 14 year olds with a graphic account of 'an atheist's experience in hell' - all wailing and gnashing of teeth. Or the non-Scripture kid who is made to sit in a broom closet while the other kids 'enjoy' Scripture.

No, Rob, SRE must go. You and your ilk have taken advantage of the privilege offered to you and your great leader has shown clearly in the last week why fundamentalist, religious extremists with divisive beliefs which are offensive to the majority of rational, reasonable Australians shouldn't be let anywhere near impressionable children.

It's so simple to fix this situation. Just make the SRI "opt in", not "opt out", then parents who actually want their children exposed to this stuff can make a conscious decision to have their kids so exposed. "Opt out" is problematic as it exposes parents to the problem of having their kids singled out from their peers even though many of their peer's parents probably also see no point in having their kids exposed - they just don't want their kid ostracised from their peers.

If the religious see a problem with "opt in" perhaps they should stick to exposing their kids to this stuff in their own time - like Sundays?

If the religious are so confident in their product they should embrace "opt in" and get selling!!

The option of opt in and opt out is out of the question.
All educations systems are not providing the standards required by industry and commerce.
There are far better things that should be taught to chilren than SRI.
If Parents want to opt in their children then send them to sunday school and bible study.
I object to my tax money that is being grudgingly given to education in pitiful amounts wasted on SRI.

Chrys Stevenson suggests considering “whether you would prefer your teenager to receive sex education or sex instruction at school”.

Neither thanks; the “sex education” so many children, and not just teenagers, receive, is, IMO, far more of a concern than any SRE or SRI.

I have seen the argument repeatedly that Christians are, or training children to be, "unthinking". Now I certainly recognise that some Christians are not of a high IQ, but let us just pause for a second and recognise the range of undeniably intelligent Christians in our country:

Glenn Stevens - Governor of the reserve bank
Kevin Rudd - Foreign Minister
Simon McKeon - Australian of the Year
Tim Costello - World Vision CEO

Let us have this debate for sure, but to deny all Christians as unthinking and therefore teaching Scripture as something that will make children unthinking is simply not helpful. I must say that I think some of the aggression on this forum is certainly proving some of Rob's concerns. Militant may be a bit strong, but there is clearly a very hostile reaction.

Some athiest parents fear that their own godless lives will be exposed if children are taught the truth. They are happy for the fairytale evolution story to be told along with gw hysteria but are panicked by the thought that their children might learn some values that they themselves have rejected. Thankfully the Christian schools continue to fill up as the fruits of godless education and immorality is rejected by many.

Nick
You don't see any aggression on the part of anti-secularists?

What is militant about banning religious instruction in public schools? It is a militant stance that insists on RI in schools.

I would bet most Christians be concerned should an Imam offer to provide Chaplaincy services or RI in their school.

It is not about denying choice just don't use the school system as a marketing tool. I don't think that POV is a militant one but a very fair and reasonable one.

Ponde: You said, “Teaching children about talking snakes and pregnant virgins has no place in the modern school curriculum.”

I don’t attend church but your ignorance and arrogance is laughable. Even the atheist Christopher Hitchens acknowledges the beauty of the Bible and reminds illiterates that they can’t read Shakespeare without it.

So does the atheist intellectual Camille Paglia.

In truth, the Bible is full of literal and poetic references. There are genealogies and parables (life lessons). But like it or not they have inspired generations of scientists and artists (information you’d love to censor, my guess).

Dear Pelican,

I do certainly see some agression on the part of "anti-secularists", but that does not make it right either way.

I specifically avoided the term "militant", but no I don't believe it is militant to offer voluntary courses in schools.

I myself do have a Christian faith, and would have no problem if a school decided an Imam was chaplain or offering classes on the Quran. In fact I would prefer it to a school that avoids value and worldview discussions altogether.

In terms of this as "marketing" I might agree if they were putting billboards around the school, but presenting a viewpoint in a discussion setting I think is quite different from "marketing".

Thank you for responding though, and I do think your arguments are fair and reasonable, and worth discussing.

Pelican: “I found this article to be quite hostile in its attack on atheists and secularism.”

I’m sure you’ll recover. By the way how did Red Russia turn out? Just curious.

The Victorian director is conflating "awareness of" with "indoctrination in", and using that as his lever to impose 'militant Christianity' on everybody else. So sad.

Nick: You said, “I must say that I think some of the aggression on this forum is certainly proving some of Rob's concerns. Militant may be a bit strong, but there is clearly a very hostile reaction.”

Yes, it’s funny how some atheist seems to manifest when Christians make a strong case. Trust me I live in the real world and they are a very loud leftwing minority (most Australians are not Christophobes).

“Some atheist parents fear that their own godless lives will be exposed if children are taught the truth.”

You have a point runner. If the schools taught that militant atheist regimes have killed more of their citizens than all religions combined last century they’d manifest for sure. They want this part of their “rational faith” tradition hidden.

And let’s face it, as the failed socialist experiment testifies, radical atheism in schools just leads to cultic state worship.

"Opting out" is central to the successful implementation of SRI in schools.

Schools are designed to instill in children a collective psychological perspective.
They wear uniforms, they are uniformly seated. They all arrive at the same time and study the same curriculum which is poured into them curbing their penchant for independent investigation. They are arranged into age peer groups...the whole construct is for them to get the gist that when they enter the institution they immediately lose their individuality and become clones of each other.

Under these circumstances, why would a child prefer to "opt out"- to be separated from the mass?
No....a child would not choose to be isolated or to be seen as "different"....particularly in an institutional setting where individuality is not encouraged.

The choice (if any) should be one of opting "in"...but, of course, this would not serve ACL's cause at all.

BPT,
I suggest you read your precious bible.
This time do not gloss over the countless attrocities.
There is no moral lesson in the bible that a normal intelligent person would not know through a caring upbringing.
Yes there are nice stories in the bible but there are also nice stories in Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings but making moral judgements based in either of these books as well the bible makes for a very sick person.
I did a bit of Shakespeare in high school and did not need an understanding of the bible to understand the beauty.

Someone can be naively religious when young, and then, quite rightly, as part of the process of growing up, the naive basis for their religiosity, will be ripped away if they are at all intelligent, or have not had their inherent curiosity, and latent intelligence, crushed by their "education" whether so called religious, or secular.

Because it was all based on the essentially childish mythological assumptions of those "adults" who taught the young person the religious ideas and stories.

These myths are kinds of nursery-room stories, given by adults to children who were incapable of inspecting the veracity of these naive myths. Children are of course incapable of profoundly considering anything.

These childish stories are like the stories about Santa Claus, the Easter Rabbit and the Tooth Fairy. Like the nursery rhymes and mind-cartoons that are told to children, or to immature minds, and that are unconsciously absorbed as part of the the unconscious process of one lives and grows (as a child).

Perhaps it makes some kind of sense in childhood, but when the child becomes an adult, he or she must put these childish things away and discover what is REALLY happening here. A truly mature adult cannot depend of these myths. They provide no real basis for a truly mature adult life.

At some point, a mature adult person MUST accept that there is no Santa Claus, or Jesus, or the parental mommy-daddy "Creator"-God.

The "God" of childhood is not real. To discover the Truth about God and Reality altogether requires much much more than what the ding-bat proponents of this ding-bat SRI program advocate.

What a funny article;

Atheists are "forcing" Christianity out of schools by stop the practice of FORCING students to actually attend it, and giving them a choice (which no less, requires parents to actually endorse this choice, suggesting that the parents are not Christian either).

As for "our heritage", lets see;
English language, British tradition, most of the inventions we use, tea, Athenian democracy, Roman Senates, most of our legal and cultural practices, Yuletide, Plato, Julius Caesar, Archimedes, most of our architectural forms, fashion styles, hierarchical arrangements, most of our stories and legends, etc
ALL derive from NON-CHRISTIAN- mostly PAGAN cultures (Norse, Roman, Greek and Celtic cultures within Europe, and outside cultures from India and China, and a small extent, Egypt).
In fact, many of these cultural norms were invented before the world allegedly began according to the Bible- and virtually all of them DID exist long before Christianity did.

And that only applies to people of British descent;
French, German, Slavic, Italian, Scandinavian, Russian are similar stories of their own- and that's not even including people from presently non-Christian societies.

Nick the view the absence of a a relgious chaplain (Christian or Muslim) would lead to "a school that avoids value and worldview discussions altogether" is the fallacy of excluded middle - a type of false dichotomy.

Values are not specific to religions and, considering the denial of many truths and avoidance of inclusive values by many proponents of religion, are more likely outside them.

Your first post sets up a strawman red herring in talking about "denying all Chrisitans as unthinking". that is not the point - the point of the main article and argument is Access Ministries approach to SRI, criticism of it, SRI, and spurious claims about western literature.

Complaining about the tone of arguemtn or criticism is also a red herring.

Nobody has dened teaching general religious education in the curriculum.

runner - you keep conflating evolution with gw. I presume "the fruits of godless education and immorality" exclude apples.

BPT, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:13:11 AM -
whether atheist regimes existed, or killed more of their citizens than all the religions combined, is a moot point as the world has moved on considerably in the last 60 years. We are unlikely to see the likes of those experiments again and, if the revolutions continue in the Middle East and North Africa, we are unlikely to see theocracies again, either.

If religious civil entities can allow true inclusive secularity for all beliefs, as the Queen pointed out to the Anglican Synod last year*, then we will see the militancy on All sides diminish.

* "It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals and groups of all faiths and none."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/23/queen-synod-virtue?INTCMP=SRCH
.

Once again of course in my usual pedantic fashion: the truth about applied christian-ISM 101 via:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/cruelty.html

Christian-ISM because it is set of ideas about Reality created by people who were mostly quite mediocre. The purposes of whom were invariably about consolidating and justify THEIR worldly power.

And like all ideas or isms the ideas of Christian-ISM are about power and control - not love.

The contents of the above website provide irrefutable evidence of this power and control motive or drive. Which of course is still happening. General Boykin and his: my "god" (penis) is bigger than your "god" (penis).

Plus why not check out the work of Tony Bushby, especially his most recent book re the origins of Christian doctrine and dogma: The Crucifixion of Truth

We need more discussions on the big questions on life if we are to culturally grow. Free will implies at least reviewing the issues rather than intolerantly ignoring issues such as the following:

Why are we here?

What is our purpose in life?

Why is there male and female?

Why do we wear clothes?

Why do people like the Salvation Army set up benevolent assistance to their fellow humans while others only talk about it?

Why are children sometimes a 'miracle' and sometimes 'naughty'.

Culture is more than enjoying the benefits and freedoms inherited from the past.

It is understanding and thinking not just criticising our cultural origins. Anyone can attempt to ignore the benefits of our Judeo Christian heritage but to deny it allows us to repeats some of the world's cultural mistakes of the past.

Comparatively there is a reasons we do not have a good life in Australia eg a caste system and human life is so protected by our laws and the health system. My many travels have exposed me to the alternatives so I am appreciative of our heritage and do not wish the young to be ignorant of it.

SRI helps develop theological awareness so bring it on. We should educate our children not deny them a broadened education. Let them make informed choices.

Muse2,
"SRI helps develop theological awareness so bring it on. We should educate our children not deny them a broadened education. Let them make informed choices."
Educating children in SRI tends to narrow a child's education.
They are too young to make an informed decision at this age SRI is nothing but brain washing.
If parents want their children brainwashed they can send them to sunday school.
SRI in school tends to assist Headmasters in their own agenda. Children opting out of SRI are usually ostracised.
Ethics classes can teach your broader education without reference to stone age myths and books.

Dear McReal,

I apologise for exclusion of the red herrings made of straw lying in the middle of the fallacious dichotomy. I will try not to do it again.

I take your point though about side issues, even though relevant, are not what the article is focusing on. I was just going with the flow really. I choose...spurious claims about Western literature.

A history lesson: As the UK was being bombed by the Germans there was a telegraph sent from the front line with 3 words "But if not". Everyone knew what it meant. If no one can tell me what they were referring to (it'll even be a challenge with Lord Google) then I feel my case connecting the importance of the Bible and western history will have been proved, as well as the need for more Scripture classes available through online opinion.

This discussion is falling into the trap of arguing against what opponents of SRE have specifically *not* said.

Let me reiterate so that any future posts which misrepresent the opponents' position can be seen for what they are - rank dishonesty of the type we have seen too often from people and organisations which purport to be the last bastion of Australian 'values'.

Opponents of SRE do not advocate that schools should be religion free zones. We do not advocate that children should never be exposed to religious beliefs, or to the role of religion (both good and bad) in world history, art, literature, politics, culture etc. No one is trying to deny our children their 'cultural heritage'.

But, to suggest that what is being taught in SRE classes by volunteer teachers amounts to 'theology' or 'cultural history' is just laughable. Reading scripture to kids, getting them to colour in pictures of Jesus on the cross, or telling them that they will go to hell if they don't accept Jesus as their personal saviour is not teaching cultural history - it's proselytising, fear-mongering and taking advantage of impressionable young people behind their parents' backs. We know what is going on in SRE classes because teachers, students and their parents are speaking out - and they're not happy.

By all means, let's teach kids about religions - all religions. Let's also teach them about the pagan cultures from which so much of our culture derives. And let their education include an appreciation of humanism, atheism, agnosticism, rationalism and secularism - not to indoctrinate them but to let them understand that there is a broad range of ways in which Australians make sense of their world and work to make it a better place.

I repeat. We are not suggesting censorship on religion in Australian schools. We are just trying to keep fundamentalist extremists away from vulnerable kids. If that makes us 'militant' then so be it.

A good article, Rob. The voice of a vocal few should not drown out the good that teaching about Jesus in classrooms has had over the years, and continues to have, for our society.

Much more often these days, people want society to be like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" story - they want the freedoms that come from living in a society based on Christian values, but apparently don't want those Christian values to be taught. This, I believe, is a slippery road to moral decay within our society and a path for which I believe future generations will regret.

SRI opponents denying kids their cultural heritage?
What cultural heritage exactly are we denying our kids ?
The one that show disrespect to teachers and authority ?
The one that feels it is OK to improve our standing by putting others down ?

This is a cartoon/ comic from Access Ministries it is part of the teaching kit that they give out to students in our schools.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5249/5685211631_1bfa4f384f_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5021/5685210551_93eee38797_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5022/5685778014_101e37260f_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5022/5685212685_09d33a2d92_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5266/5685208521_93ea1877fa_z.jpg

It is had to imagine that it is complimentary to teachers or that it shows due respect for the difficult job they do.

It does not even teach children the proper channels to use if they are being bullied at school or the proper way for teachers to be dealing with bullies.

This is the kind of fundamentalist rubbish that SRI teachers are pushing on our kids and it is not good enough.

Christianity is a part of our cultural heritage, but then so is Roman and Greek history, and yet I don't see anyone calling for this being called into the SRI curriculum. Secondly, "Christian Values" are not in any way exclusive to the Christian faith, and are echoed in almost every other faith, and non faith based communities.

The opponents of SRI don't object children of faith getting their education, but that it is compulsory, with the only alternative being a non educational baby sitting time waster.

If SRI were an extra curriculum activity, the objections would fall away.

These articles are repetitive and remind me of little more than a child whining about not being allowed to have any candy. They always beg the question -

If religious education/indoctrination is that crucial to your child, why aren't they getting it at home?

If anything, it is an admission of parents too lazy to do any parenting. They're *your* children, not *ours*. Do whatever you please in your own home or church, but leave *our* kids in peace.

The Comic "The Punishment" Again not really showing teachers as profesionals.

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150235826907323.366532.701512322

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5029/5685510619_71b870fcde_z.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5149/5685510987_ceef2ed847_z.jpg

Are we seeing a theme here ?

The monumental arrogance of Christians never ceases to amaze me. To accuse secularists of being "militant atheists" is the height of hypocrisy. Since the birth of Chistianity its followers have believed that they have a god-given right and duty to convert every other human on the planet to their own religion, and they have been, and still are, prepared to use any means to achieve that goal. That's what I call militancy. Secularists don't care what other people believe or what they teach their own children. All we want is the right to choose what we believe, and what should be taught to our children. That does not seem like an unreasonable request to me.

"Onward Christian Soldiers"
"The Salvation Army"
"Soldiers of the Cross"
"Defender of the Faith "

II Timothy - 2:3-4
"You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier."

And they complain atheists are militant ??

Dear, dear the omniscient atheists, humanists, nihilists, freethinkers?, black hole philosophers...whatever, are up in arms again. Unfortunately the sad fact is that if you want to ban religious thought from public schools you will have to do it indiscriminately. Considering that certain other religions (one in particular will remain nameless) aren't the soft target that Christianity is, you haven’t got a hope in Hell of succeeding lest you run the risk of offending a potential suicide bomber. So put up or shut up. And on the issue of imposing a world view on others, your hypocrisy reeks. Most Christians don’t accept evolution but do you see them trying to impose a ban on it being taught? No. As usual the Left is showing itself the enemy of freedom of thought and personal belief.

Hahaha I misread that SRI.

I always thought it was SRE, as in Special Religious Education. When I saw SRI, I read Special Religious Indoctrination.

So honest! I thought.

Easy solution. Open churches on Sunday so those that are so inclined can get their children some of that there indoctrination.

Cant believe nobody thought of that before.

BTW: I don't see that the children who sit out of SRE are wasting their time. Time is never wasted. That argument rubbish. Most of the school day kids sit there doing very little and supervised by a disinterested adult. They can get a head start on the current trend of 4 hours homework.

But, in saying that, in a secular system, if there is any religious education being taught, it should be about all religions (Including Pastafarianism). Anything else is just an unfair monopoly.

I'd like to echo some other comments here - this article is either deliberately or ignorantly disingenuous. There are no official, front-line opponents of SRE that want to see the history and cultural significance Christianity or any other religion surgically removed from the lives of students. Opponents seek education ABOUT religion, not instruction on how to adhere to any given religion. These classes should be available to all students regardless of the religious beliefs of their parents (or lack thereof). The child of Catholic Parents sitting in the same room as the child of Muslim parents and the child of Atheist parents all learning about each other fairly. Surely THAT is the way to understanding, not to give one religion preferential status and excluding all the other kids from the lesson.

None of us want it gone - we want it to be fair and valuable, equally so for every child. How is it that this is viewed as a bad thing?

And a quick word for Anthm1 - Opponents DO want all religious instruction gone indiscriminately, Islamic religious instruction included. No matter how ubiquitous its majority, Christianity has never really gotten over it's persecution complex, has it?

Anthm1

Exaggeration of atheism? Much.

And complete generalisation and fabrication of claims regarding "most Christians" and "the Left".

>> Most Christians don’t accept evolution but do you see them trying to impose a ban on it being taught? No. As usual the Left is showing itself the enemy of freedom of thought and personal belief. <<

Ever heard of turning the other cheek? Guess you must be constipated.

>> In the beginning, creationists tried to ban the teaching of evolution altogether. Most famously, 80 years ago, John Scopes was tried for breaking a Tennessee law outlawing such instruction. He was found guilty, and evolution effectively disappeared from the high school curriculum shortly thereafter, though it continued to be taught in universities.

But when university scientists began writing high school biology textbooks in the late 1950s and early '60s, evolution returned to the curriculum, provoking a second outbreak of anti-evolutionism during the '70s and '80s.

Creationism was repackaged as "creation science" in the hope that it would be taught along with evolution.

In the '70s and '80s, at least 26 states tried to legislate equal time for creation science with evolution, bringing the courts back in. The 1982 U.S. district court decision in McLean v. Arkansas— Scopes II — showed that such laws violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by promoting a sectarian religious idea inappropriate for the public school science classrooms. In 1987, the Supreme Court reached the same decision in Edwards v. Aguillard.

Such decisions doomed creation science in the public schools, but they opened a niche for a repackaging of creationism: "intelligent design" <<

From:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-14-evolution-teach_x.htm

Anthm1, there have been enough misleading apologist tapeloops for one day. You are letting your persecution complex show (again). This really is an unhealthy fetish and only shows how much you have in common with islam - this martyr fixation that underscores you are both just another death cult.

No one wants to ban religion. *Comparitive* religious studies are a damn fine idea - show absurdity without any sophist dirty tricks, threats of hell or promises of heavenly glory. It's *indoctrinational" religious studies we object to. No, I don't have any hope you will ever understand why it is an issue.

Leave our kids alone you bloodsuckers.

BPT
"I’m sure you’ll recover. By the way how did Red Russia turn out? Just curious."

Is that sort of emotive and irrational response the best you can do?

Religion was banned in Russia. We are talking about RI in public secular schools not the banning of Christianity. Are you reading the same article or have decided to throw up an irrelevancy in the hope that it might stick?

But speaking of Russia, it does provide a mindful example of how a government can decide the religion or non-religion of anybody and push that line in schools to children.

Children who will eventually forge their own spiritual path on their own with the influence of their family, their experiences and their Church if that is applicable.

Please explain why you think Imams, priests, pastors and the like should be able to access the school system to preach their religion. School is not the place in my humble opinion other than in a holistic sense and RI is freely available within the Church community. By all means have Rabbis, Imans, priests etal come and give a talk as part of a history or social science curriculum but schools are not appropriate as recruitment centres.

Nick
Thanks for you reasoned thoughts. These discussions are best had without terms like 'militant' being tossed around - you are quite right. Exposing kids to a variety of worldviews is worthy and valuable but not as a regular 'preaching' tool is my only argument. For me anyway, that is for the home other than in the context in attempting to reason with BPT above.

Good article. Congratulations.

Offering voluntary lessons in schools in the difference between good and evil can only be beneficial, given that some of the "lessons" provided in the home environment may not always be conducive to good behaviour and respect for others (persons or belongings).

Using bible stories to convey mores and norms of acceptable behaviour is not really so different to kids getting lessons from reading Harry Potter, Beatrix Potter or nursery rhymes, but places these lessons more effectively within the context of the real world.

Given the range of religious practice within our multicultural society, some introduction in schools to a range of belief and practice should help to engender understanding, reduce intolerance, misunderstanding and bigotry, and provide a better world view.

Education is meant to be well rounded. It can not achieve this without some introduction to religious teachings and the role that such teachings can play in maintaining harmony and respect within cultures and society in general.

Saltpetre

>> Using bible stories to convey mores and norms of acceptable behaviour is not really so different to kids getting lessons from reading Harry Potter, Beatrix Potter or nursery rhymes, but places these lessons more effectively within the context of the real world. <<

Nor is using the philosophical musings of Socrates, Buddha, Ghandi, A C Grayling - the text does NOT have to be from the Christian bible.

Capiche?

so full of hate is that what they teach in SRI? seems to be the Author has demostraighted all the things that us moderates say is happening.

Rob, IMHO the teaching of values to children is a parental domain, not religion. As such it should be a decision by parents to opt in or out. There are currently over 34,000 registered religions on this planet, many exhibit growing militancy and many thousands of these are of christianic origins.

If what you are saying is correct and even atheists are becoming militant, it is time that all children were removed from exposure to such conflict. If christianic religions cannot agree and have diversified so much, it’s all over rover. It’s time to remove religion from the curriculum unless opted in by parental decision.

Agreed, Ammonite. The broader the better. Someone also mentioned ethics. Great! Go get it!

I'm just sorry some would throw out the baby with the bath water.

This page is a clear and unequivocal statement of the evangelical agenda of Evonne Paddison and ACCESS Ministries:
http://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/mission/theologicaleducation/network128/Pages/Chaplaincy-testimonials.aspx

People cannot be both "anti religion" and "secularist" since secularists are at the least religion neutral and most often are concerned with freedom of religion.

Unfortunately Rob, and others who have commented, think that freedom of religion is about the freedom to push their religion forcefully or deceptively onto everyone else. That is the opposite of freedom of religion, that is religious oppression.

The SRI taught in schools is indoctrination, and one eyed about christianity. The opt-out instead of opt-in is just a shifty old hard sell technique. If the proponents of opt-out really thought it didn't make a difference they wouldn't be so against opt-in. As it is, here in Queensland it is legally opt-in but hardly any state schools follow the law on this, and some administrations tell outright lies to parents about it. Here are the actual Qld rules for RI and chaplains: http://australiansecularlobby.com/PDFs/Education_Queensland_Religious_Instruction.pdf

Schools should teach cultural history, which would include the history of religions and a brief overview of what each major religious tradition embodies. They should also teach children to think about values and how to consider what is necessary to lead a virtuous life. This would mean teaching two fields known as ethics and philosophy respectively, not indoctrinating them in a particular religion. That is the secular way forward.

Let's see what has happened to this thread:
-A vast majority supporting religion not being part of the compulsory curriculum
-A couple of loonies who feel that forcing a religious scripture educator to get a parent's permission before being allowed to indoctrinate their kids while they are at work is jackbooted fascism
-Saltpetre actually making an interesting point, though it raises some interesting questions and problems;

In a country like Australia, how DO you define a religious representative, and what context would you put it under? The majority of each religious demographic in Australia are non-practicing- and in some cases (Catholic and Islamic) are specifically alienated by their orthodox counterparts (who are often rather extreme and outspoken).

Getting a religious representative of the first category would probably make a good integrative anti-prejudice effort- though would make an incredibly off-topic lesson with not much religious instruction at all- especially if you are aiming for a global context where large portions in some countries of the practitioners are illiterate, superstitious and rather extreme and insular in their outlook of the world- then there are the interrelations between different sects (Sufi Islam persecution) by Sunni governments).

There is also a matter of the roughly 200-400 Aboriginal religions, minority religions, pre-Christian pagan religions (and contemporary equivalents), to consider.

Then cults like Scientology, and whether you should mention the scandals around it, or for that matter, the religion's origins.

To get a religious teacher/instructor would require a person that is respectful to all religions, but very mindful of various social and political problems and is not afraid (or prevented by the school) to say them.
Anything less (more a glossy promotional class) would not be educational and I think, socially counter-productive to actually understanding different demographics.

Hilarious!

Mr Ward is in love with the word "militant" but it's obvious he doesn't know what it means!

At the very least, Mr Ward, please buy yourself a thesaurus so that you might expand your arsenal of emotive insults and slurs. Or, ask your programmers at the ACL to give you a list; "militant atheist" is so overused these days by religious activists that you give yourself away too easily, and where's the fun in that?

--

Mr Ward says "militant atheists seem hell-bent on ensuring everyone else’s kids are blocked from exposure to Christianity"

Oh dear... Lying for Jeebus, Mr Ward??

Is the atheist militia...
- blockading the entrances to Sunday Schools with their tanks?
- bursting through the doors of Christians' homes, threatening at gunpoint parents who want to say grace before tea time?
- assassinating your preachers and burning your bibles?

Of course not! Mr Ward is merely invoking his hysterical hyperbole in lieu of a cogent and reasoned argument.

If you want to force your kids to be Christian, then take 'em to Sunday School. Nobody at all is preventing you!

--

Finally, the suggestion that indoctrination at primary school is necessary to understand western culture/literature is purely a smokescreen.

The REAL reason the Mr Wards of this country want SRI is simply because they are insular, pathetic, narrow-minded, nasty little pieces or work, and can't stand the thought of anyone that doesn't think exactly like they do.

That they drape themselves in a cloak of self-righteousness is merely hypocrisy of the highest order, and it's a disguise that doesn't fool anyone with half a brain.

Mr Ward, if you _really_ want Australia to be a theocracy, then go pray to your God for it to happen. In the meantime, please stop wasting everyone's education on your antediluvian fairy-tales!

Jimmy Jones I have no idea who you are but I'm giving you a standing ovation. Brilliant comment. Thank you.

And people wonder why the author uses the term "militant".

Within seconds of the article being published there's dozens of bitchy, rude, arrogant, mean, flippant knee-jerk broken record comments from the usual trolls.

How can any subject that's *voluntary* be oppressive or abusive?
If parents are allowing their children into these classes, they probably get the same thing at home.

"But why *in* school?", demand the trolls.
Why not?
Religion is a part of life.

The militants don't ask why sport or sex information or cooking classes or music are taught in schools.

Surely these are life skills or pastimes that could also just as easily be taught at home (and often are).

Is teaching Roman or Greek history "proselytizing"?
Is this any less practical in real life?
We learn about them because, like Christianity, our civilisation's history would be utterly indecipherable without that knowledge.

My parents opted out because they were Jehovah's Witnesses.
I got more than my share of home instruction in their doctrines.
I wish I'd actually been allowed to attend, as I may have seen Christianity from another perspective.

And my class time wasn't "wasted".
I caught up on homework.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Dr Cannold's assault on chaplaincy and his call to "kick religious education volunteers and chaplains out of public schools" (The Age)is nothing but cheap opportunism born out of his moment in the spotlight – Australian Humanist for 2011.

He wants religious volunteers and chaplains, who bring hope and purpose to the challenges that many students face, to be silenced while those whose faith is in the secular - the material world - remain free to pedal their faith in 'the human spirit', reason, chance and social contracts.

The high priests of 'secularism' in schools, academia, entertainment, media and politics preach and advocate a 'religion' - a hybrid of humanism, naturalism, rationalism, pluralism, etc. Whether by intention or blindness to their own incoherence, they are the 'chaplains' and 'volunteers' of a worldview that stands in the place of other religions.

As the 'evangelist' of this religion, the (Ir)Rev Cannold, would have us believe that his faith, that offers only chance and reason as bases for hope, is somehow reassuring for children in the face of contemporary challenges.

Leslie would do well to apply his reason to an overwhelming statistic - 98% of principals in public schools declare chaplaincy worth retaining.

Bojanco

God Almighty ! Ten pages on the subject on the first day ? That borders on insane ! It clearly shows that superstition is far more prevalent than we'd like to believe.

@Shockadelic "And people wonder why the author uses the term "militant". Within seconds of the article being published there's dozens of bitchy, rude, arrogant, mean, flippant knee-jerk broken record comments from the usual trolls."

Are you so naive to believe that Mr Ward's original article (not least his continued and inappropriate use of the word "militant") is anything but bitchy, rude, arrogant, mean, and flippant and troll-like? Or do you have such blinkered vision and bias that you genuinely can't even see that?

I even gave an example in my previous post of the outright LIES that the author of this article espouses, regarding his "militant atheists" who are "hell-bent" on controlling others children. Do you not see this disingenuity in the article, or are you just pretending not to notice??

Sure the responses have been sharp, but completely warranted given the egregious attacks leveled by the author of his pile of invective and spittle.

--

@Shockadelic "How can any subject that's *voluntary* be oppressive or abusive?
If parents are allowing their children into these classes, they probably get the same thing at home."

If they're getting the same thing at home, then why waste school time with it?

Anyway, you will find plenty of reasons why "opt-out" religious indoctrination is oppressive, ESPECIALLY for impressionable children. For example...
1. Students who don't participate are made to feel like pariahs, and there is a fair amount of coercion going on to "fit in", no matter what.
2. Despite Mr Wards lies about children who opt out being given directed learning, this is NOT THE CASE. Children of parents who don't want their children taught fairy tales as though they are true are forced to DO NOTHING.
3. The ACL and other religious activist groups have even gone out of their way to ensure that substitute classes in ethics are not available to children who don't receive religious instruction during valuable school time.
4. Ask me if you want more examples

--

@Shockadelic "But why *in* school?", demand the trolls."

The "Trolls"? Tsk tsk. Who's doing the trolling now, troll?

Shockadelic: More sophist tape-loopery. This is really scraping the bottom of the barrel, not only repeating the same trite, ad nauseam nonsense arguments, but adding "troll" to the accusation of militancy.

One thing that is apparent is that your voice and the voices of those in your camp are unlikely to actually require their children to be taught "christian values" officially in school hours. Your children almost certainly are already being tortured and deprived of their childhoods by being subjected to church and sunday school.

There isn't a single honest drop of blood in any of you. The real reason you are so desperate to push this indoctrination agenda is because it is one of the few remaining windows left for you to poison young and vulnerable minds that are otherwise beyond your reach. This is as disgusting as it is evil.

Stop manipulating our children for the sake of your own grubby, selfish, political interests.

Shockadelic, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 6:34:30 PM

SRI/E is not entirely voluntary, though. There are many situations where kids disadvantaged or are made to feel bad for 'opting out' or 'being opted out'.

Yes, many "parents allowing their children into these classes .. probably [give] the same thing at home."

There are probably many non-religious parents "allowing their children into these classes" because
* they see them as potentially innocuous expeditions in "values"
* they don't want their kids be seen to be different
* they don't get round to opting out

"We learn about [Roman & Greek history] because, like Christianity, our civilisation's history would be utterly indecipherable without that knowledge."

"utterly indecipherable"?? You protest too much.
.................

"Using bible stories to convey mores and norms of acceptable behaviour ... places these lessons more effectively within the context of the real world."
@ Saltpetre

You reckon?

"Offering voluntary lessons in schools in the difference between good and evil can only be beneficial" = a false dichotomy; a black & white mis-representation of the often greyness of situations. Christian focus on evil is over-the-top. The crucifix is evil.
....................
"But if not" ... connecting the importance of the Bible and western history will have been proved.
@ Nick_, Wednesday, 4 May 2011 11:12:56 AM

Nope. Not a satisfactory argument.
.....................

Doctor Scott, Wed 4 May 11:29:40 AM - Tradition is not a good reason for teaching ill-defined so-called "Christian values". Just teach the values: honesty, integrity, lawfulness (something Jesus didn't always do), logic, science, truth & its nuances (such as why the Bible might not be)
.

cont'd...

@shockadelic "Why not? Religion is a part of life."

1. I think you'll actually find that most secularists DO want religion to be taught in school... COMPARATIVE religion, not the indoctrination in one sect or another that the zealots such as ACCESS, ACL, et al are pursuing.

2. There is more than one religion that is part of "life" (in general). I doubt you're in favour of any religion other than your own being taught. Am I wrong?? Or do you in fact want diferent groups of children to be taught to actually believe in CONTRADICTORY mythologies at school? How divisive and confusing is that!

3. We shouldn't be feeding young children's minds with ables at school, and telling them they're true. Seriously. Prayers and miracles and resurrection and talking shrubberies and magical fish and creating Eve from a rib!? Oh just grow up you people!!

--

@shockadelic "The militants don't ask why sport or sex information or cooking classes or music are taught in schools. Surely these are life skills or pastimes that could also just as easily be taught at home (and often are)."

I don't know any militants. Perhaps you could point one out to me and we'll ask them, eh?

--

@shockadelic "Is teaching Roman or Greek history "proselytizing"?
No. Teaching children that the Christian god is real and they will go to Hell unless they follow him is proselytizing, though. And that is what is occurring in SRI classes in this country.

--

@shockadelic "We learn about them because, like Christianity, our civilisation's history would be utterly indecipherable without that knowledge."

"Utterly indecipherable"?? Oh please! Give me a break hahhaa.

What a complete bunch of crap! For example, I was not indoctrinated into any religious cult, but somehow I seem to be doing just fine understanding my culture and its history, thanks very much. Probably better than you, in fact, since I wasn't taught to _really believe_ one particular fairy tale over another.

I think you'll actually find that most secularists DO want religion to be taught in school... COMPARATIVE religion, not the indoctrination in one sect or another that the zealots such as ACCESS, ACL, et al are pursuing.

I am an atheist and I firmly believe religion should be a compulsory core subject in ALL schools state and private.

Every school and every school child should be taught the basic beliefs and practices of both major religions and belief systems.

they should be given access to leaders and teachers from each and every group so they can openly question and discuss comparative religions, their benefits and their problems.

There should be exams set so we as parents are sure every school and every teacher is teaching this subject openly and honestly.

I would be delighted to see such a religious education introduced into schools and would happily support it being federally funded.

I do not want to support a narrow biased religious point of view being preached at kids as some kind of ultimate truth of the universe.

If people feel so strong about superstition then well, bring up the subject in school. But, to accept a particular faith a person should be 21 or grown up to make that decision. Don't try & brainwash some poor kids who have no concept of it.

Bojanco, your knowledge of what Dr. Cannold wants and believes is suspect because you don't even know she is not male.

I can only add my voice to those above. I don't know any "militant" atheists, or any atheists who object to studying religion objectively. State Schools are no place for religious instruction, but should be a sanctuary from their often rabid parents. It is scandalous that the people's government is sectarian. As for Christianity per se; Jesus was a radical. Christianity today is a commodity, the paunch of politics. Jesus would disavow any association.

What an appropriate day for the publication of this rubbish article.

May the 4th be with you.

@Bojanco re. "The high priests of 'secularism' in schools, academia, entertainment, media and politics preach and advocate a 'religion'" etc. etc.

It's a funny old argument that Bojanco uses here; attempting to tar secularism by imbuing it with the trappings of... religion! Priests are bad now are they? Bit of an own goal there, I'd say.

Fine. So if you want religion taught at school, and you think the religion of secularism is being taught there, then what's your problem? Go away. You've got nothing to contribute here then.

Oh, but I see you've put 'secularism' and 'religion' in those little quotation marks, haven't you? So you really think there's no such thing as secularism, and if there were it wouldn't REALLY a religion anyway? But it's expedient for you to call it a religion just while you put up your little 'argument' here (such as it is). I see what you've done there.

Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too!

What a counter-productive article. Its just a stream of name-calling, straw men and mis-representation. It makes no attempt to persuade or engage with other points of view. What is the point of it? People who already agree with the sentiments expressed might get a brief thrill, like a Gold Coast supporter when Ablett lays a good tackle. But everyone else will just think Rob is loopy.

"It is a simple fact that culture derives from who or what a society values most." Indeed. That would be freedom. And the attendant responsibility of freedom is tolerance.

This is a really simple issue. Making an opt-out student sit at the back of the classroom during SRI is plainly a violation of their parent's wishes. If humanists want to provide an SRI class for their kids who are currently made to twiddle their thumbs, then let them! Our taxes are being spent to prevent kids learning in schools. Totally daft!

Notice a theist needs to fly a plane into a building or blow

themselves up to be regarded as “militant” and yet all an

atheist need to do is speak their mind.

I’m sorry, but until the author - or anyone here who has posted

a comment sympathetic to the article - can demonstrate, in any

way, the truth of ANY religious claim, your arguments are all

irrelevant.

Yep, null and void - every one of them.

That you can’t understand this simple fact speaks volumes about

your rational thought processes, or lack thereof.

It all comes back to reason and evidence, people.

So until any of the theists here can do us the courtesy of

presenting enough evidence and reasoned argument to justify

their slagging-off at people with legitimate concerns about

people and establishments who haven’t yet presented any evidence

or reasoned argument, I’ll look forward to some more asinine

irrelevancies and total inability to differentiate between

political beliefs and religious beliefs like this:

“By the way how did Red Russia turn out? Just curious.”

(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11980#2056

88)

Now that is some A-class stupidity!

I have just been reading this thread and it is one of the nastiest and most abusive that I have seen for a while. I will start deleting comments if you can't express yourselves more civilly.

Graham Moderator

The author of the article set the tone.

despite some notable blemishes!
- nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

Agreed Squeers. Along with some short and sharp rapid-fire responses on this thread that only seem to have been posted for the sake of getting up others' noses or provoking an emotional response.

And how did all those line breaks get into my post when it was perfectly fine last night.?!

As a former christain and former Scripture Union supporter I'm absolutely certain that RE and chaplaincy in schools is considered an evangelistic program by most involved. The spin that it's about understanding the Bibles place in western values is spin, not what really motivates. Maybe just enough truth in it to let some christains feel that they are not lying but it's the sort of truth that resembles a politicians non-core promise.

"With Christianity all but written out of the new national curriculum, what’s wrong with accredited volunteers teaching kids a few Bible stories and telling them about Jesus?"

"With Islam all but written out of the new national curriculum, what’s wrong with accredited volunteers teaching kids a few Koran stories and telling them about Mohammed?"

"Despite some notable blemishes, Christianity has been an overwhelming force for good." there has been some good stuff but the blemishes may seem a lot smaller from inside than out. Christain guilt and shame based teaching about sexuality continues to do massive harm to peoples lives. Christains are the leading lights in the fight for intollerance of homosexuals. Teaching on sin and man's nature as sinfull and fallen does a fundamental harm that I don't think we have begun to understand yet let alone unwind from our society.

I chose to have my son attend RE when he was in primary school because the way it was structured would have had him singled out if he'd not attended.

I didn't choose the lunch time programs run by christains at the school which were offering lollies and other treats to entice primary age kid's into their club. Nor was I informed that they were operating until my son had already been taking part - nothing like a few treats to get a kid's attention.

R0bert

I am not going to buy into this one. It seems most posts are of the opinion type rather than actually looking for discussion (not a judgement, just an observation).

Another observation, and one which intrigues me, is the amount of responses this post has received. If you check back over months of this forum, you will find that the topics with the most responses (by a long shot) are almost always religion based ones.

What's that about?

Oh, and I can't let Houellebecq's comment pass without thanking him for his generous words about the entire teaching profession (of which I am a member).

"BTW: I don't see that the children who sit out of SRE are wasting their time. Time is never wasted. That argument rubbish. Most of the school day kids sit there doing very little and supervised by a disinterested adult. They can get a head start on the current trend of 4 hours homework."

Perhaps shockadelic and Mr Ward can explain why RI has to take place in schools and not as part of the religious community to which people are involved.

We opted out for my daughter in Primary School and instead of giving the non-attendees meaningful work they were sat outside on a desk and given some crayons and pictures to colour in. Now it was a nice quiet time for my child but she could hear every word being said through the open door to the classroom.

Religion is only 'part of life' to those who choose it, religion should not be foisted on others other than in comparative education.

In communist countries and under Hitler, children were indoctrinated and forced into adopting certain political dogmas. Political and religious dogma are the domain of the home. In formal institutions like schooks, where there is no room for discussion and debate this is nothing more than fascism and history reveals it to be so.

While I don't liken voluntary RI in schools to fascism introducing any type of dogma as part of the school curriculum is a slippery slope.

Thank-you Rob for defending the teaching of Christian values in schools. Every Australian child must understand the teachings of Christianity, which underpin our history, culture, and democratic freedoms.

"Thank-you Rob for defending the teaching of Christian values in schools. Every Australian child must understand the teachings of Christianity, which underpin our history, culture, and democratic freedoms." Tempe Harvey
=+ =+= =+=

Except Tempe that it is not JUST Christian Values and History that is being taught in schools. It is the religion and religious beliefs of a very narrow brand of religion that is being taught to students.

Every child should understand christianity, they should also understand and have a working knowledge of Islam Judaism Hindu Buddhist and atheism.

Or do you think they should ONLY be taught the religion you happen to believe in and all other beliefs should be ignored ?

R0bert:"I didn't choose the lunch time programs run by christains at the school which were offering lollies and other treats to entice primary age kid's into their club. Nor was I informed that they were operating until my son had already been taking part - nothing like a few treats to get a kid's attention."

I swear I replied to this already. Weird... must have posted it somewhere. Is this religous stuff in schools compulsory here?

Dug,
What cultural heritage.
It is about time stone age books and mythical creatures were removed from the school yard. If you wish, the bible could be used in the study of literature along with Shakespeare's As you Like it or Harry Potter.
Do not pray in our schools and do not think in your churches is very true.

"Is this religous stuff in schools compulsory here?"

Not compulsary but life can be made awkward for kid's who's parents opt them out of the formal RE components.

The part of my post you quoted was a lunchtime club being run in the school by christains that used gifts and prizes to entice kid's to take part.

The activities appear to have been a mix of games and christain propaganda (do the best at remembering the bible verse and you get a lolly type of stuff).

R0bert

SRI opponents are not denying kids their cultural heritage, they are simply saying it should not be within the confines of a liberal and secular school system.

That is the simplest way to explain the position of the SRI opponents in combatting some of these extremist comments from SRI proponents.

I find it weird the sudden objections to SRI.

Now, the Christians have had a cosy little free advertising possy in schools for how many years? Now all of a sudden they are very unwelcome. It has to be more than people suddenly realising they want a totally secular education.

What was the tipping point? How did this become an issue. Hitchens must be in there somewhere. Maybe it's the more multicultural landscape but when did these guests in our schools start to smell?

I find many issues that come about are actually trend driven. People really don't care as much as you might think. Like soccer in Australia before a world cup.

Suddenly, Humanism and such has become trendy, and the trend followers are picking on the Christians. It HAS some malice in it! There's no denying it. How else could the situation have been dealt with no fuss for the last 20 years and then suddenly be an uproar. I think private school envy (funding debate) is mixed in there somewhere too.

I can see why the god botherers are up in arms. Imagine making out like a bandit, and getting a free 2 page advertisement in the paper for 40 years, then the paper suddenly decides you cant do it any more or wants to bring out a new free liftout that everyone will want to read instead. Or you have to share the 2 pages with 5 other companies.

Any monopoly fights to the death once conditions change. Look at the Record and Movie Industry and their CDs and DVDs.

I remember the Commonwealth bank used to supply the school bank books and other paraphernalia to grab kids when they were young. It did encourage kids to save:-)

Houellebecq et al,

Many 'secularists' are happy to have general religious education (GRE) given in structured *Humans in Society* courses (or similar) and many even want that.

Many 'secularists' are happy for SRI/SRE to continue as long as they can have alternative program/courses, such as Humanism; Philosophy & its components - principally Ethics & Logic; GRE; Anthroplogy; etc. as electives.

Many 'secularists' are frustrated by these being thwarted. By manipulation and control by religious politicians (eg Martin Dixon), and religious lobbying, by entities like the ACL, and the powerful churches, with their staff & $$$ resources.

Many parents are frustrated by the way their kids are thwarted by opt-out, by seeing kids frequently manipulated by lollies and sweets, by the control that one religion has.

Society is reaching a tipping point with this, in terms of more people losing faith; by the advent of electronic media, like blogs like this, providing a vehicle; and the increasing desire for more democracy in sub-societal entities like educational institutes such as public education departments; and increasing desire for freedom of belief, which ironically encompasses freedom of religion.

A key point is the religious do not realise they are "poisoning the well' for themselves by not giving space - freedom - to people of other belief systems. The situation will move so far past 'the tipping point' that they will, figuratively, eventually have a huge cannon ball running down a ramp at them.

@Houellebecq

Sudden? It's only in the last decade that folks have begun realising they can reject supernatural nonsense without repercussion. They have always been there - but ran real risks of persecution should they dare state the Emperor has no clothes.

The current objections, now that we can speak up without fear, are twofold -

1) the christian lobby is making a last stand and digging itself into trenches to maintain their self-proclaimed god given right to poison the minds of ALL children, not just their own. The Jesuits know the importance of this to protect their racket full well - "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man". Now just imagine the Labor Party doing that with their party manifesto? I see no difference.

2) The vast sum of money being squandered on unqualified lay preachers. It is in the hundreds of millions. And these folks are predominantly from the charismatic churches - those who's fringes still handle snakes and want Old Testament law and punishment restored.

Everyone is blaming this on the secularists - when it is clearly a power grab by the christian lobby. People are trying to halt this coup before its too late. Stop blaming the ordinary mums and dads that don't want their children coming home terrified of imaginary hells.

Houellebecq, four things have changed.

Firstly, Australia continues to become far more secular. Most people, regardless of identifying 'nominally' with a religious organization in the Census, are not religious and don't want their children exposed to doctrines which don't accord with their own secular, modern, liberal values.

Secondly, the people teaching religion in schools are are not the relatively harmless, moderate Christians of our youth. These people come primarily from the fundamentalist, pentecostal, conservative Baptist or conservative Catholic churches. They

Thirdly, the amount of money being poured into the chaplaincy program is astronomical - and tax-payers are sitting up and taking notice. Currently, the ratio of trained counsellors to kids is around 1:1500 at best and far worse in some states and territories. It is clear that one has been sacrificed to supply the other.

Finally, the aggressive political intrusion of fundamentalist groups like the Australian Christian Lobby is becoming more widely known. Australians aren't stupid. They can see that a divisive group which stands for values antithetical to those of most Australians is not only having an undue influence on our government, they are instrumental in foisting those same divisive, intolerant 'values' upon our kids - and finding ways to circumvent parents' efforts to keep them opt their kids out.

We know that kids are being bribed with lollies and presents, and enticed with other activities into having contact with the religious functionaries at their schools. We know they're encouraged to nag their parents into letting them go on camps - at which the restrictions on proselytising do not apply.

We know that kids (and parents) are fooled into trojan-horse Christian programmes like Shine and Strength. We have the evidence these programmes are set up to bring unchurched kids to Jesus. We know that 'opted out' children are put in scripture classes - or made to feel so ostracized that their parents finally relent. We also know that young children are often put in SRE without their parents' knowledge.

We know this because parents, teachers, students and even former RI teachers are speaking out.

That is what has changed.

The hysteria of many surrounding CRE and chaplaincy seems to resemble a prejudice toward religion that is based upon its worst excesses, without regard for the fact that the worst of human nature is found in all walks of life, anyway. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater may mean that, in this disconnected generation so often devoid of mentors, we end up needlessly discarding the good that is done on account of the harm that is feared. Chaplains holding a personal religious persuasion are required to avoid any proselytising, and CRE instructors are similarly accountable for operating within authorised guidelines. Where specific religious instruction is conducted, the delivery is surely no more offensive than the presentation of the subject matter routinely delivered in English classes (often with greater bias and more deliberate values inculcation). When our census reveals that 2/3 of the population still purports to believe in the God of Australia's Christian heritage, it is a little hard to see sufficient justification for rejecting any objective presentation of the foundations of that faith.

Interesting question Houlley.

Further to the response by Chrys Stevenson perhaps it also comes from ever growing demands on the public purse.

Many people watch as essential services are reduced while funds are directed to fluffy projects that don't really offer a broader service.

When school-based Chaplaincy was offered and religious groups continue to enjoy tax benefits even for profit making enterprises the pressure builds.

It is not about restricting choice only asking that one's personal choices are just that, schools are not recruiting grounds.

It is never just one thing.

Marantha, enough with the sophistry. See Chrys's post above. You are reciting the apologist "how to" cheat sheet - what you are saying has no basis in what is actually accuring and is, YET AGAIN, accusing the secular of hysteria. You are regurgitating propaganda from behind a mask of reasonable egalitarianism. Please stop. You sound like a professional shill.

Also stop recycling this - 2/3 *may* have checked xtain on their census forms out of sheer laziness, but more than 9/10 never set foot in church outside of christmas, weddings and funerals. Time for a reality check.

it is a little hard to see sufficient justification for rejecting any objective presentation of the foundations of that faith. Maranatha,

It is just that we are NOT objecting to any " objective presentation of the foundations of that faith"

What we are rejecting and objecting to is federal and state funds being spent on teaching children in state schools a narrow and often very selective version of one particular faith.

Why are Christians not out calling for religious education that incorporates all religions and all belief systems ? Why do they insist theirs is the only possible option ?

Australia is and always has been multicultural and multi faith why are these classes not reflecting that ?

It is instructive that the original article here, and many of those supporting it, continue to voice the lie that those who oppose SRE are 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' or want to 'deprive children of their cultural heritage'. How many times do we have to say it?

Opponents of SRE and chaplaincy don't want less religion in schools - we want more! We don't want children to know less about religion. We want them to know more. We don't want children's choices restricted. We want them to have more choices as a result of having more knowledge.

Not one of us is campaigning to 'preach' atheism in schools. We find the idea of indoctrinating children into atheism as offensive as indoctrinating them into any belief system, philosophical position or political allegiance. What we should be giving our kids is information and the skills to process that information critically so that, when they are sufficiently mature, they can make their own decisions.

Only those who are not confident that their particular agenda cannot survive a new generation of informed, well-educated, critical thinkers would object to what we suggest - an academically-oriented course in comparative religions & philosophies.

Can I repete what Chrys has said in capitol letters while yelling YES YES YES at the top of my voice?

WE WAnT RELIGION TAUGHT IN ALL SCHOOLS STATE AND PRIVATE, WE WANT ALL RELIGIONS AND ALL BELIEFS TAUGHT TO ALL CHILDREN. WE WANT THE BIBLE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS WE WANT IT DISCUSSED AND DEBATED OPENLY AND HONESTLY ALONGSIDE ALL OTHER RELIGIOUS BOOKS AND PHILOSOPHIES.

How do we explain this to Christians ?

Is there a bible verse that says "There are none so blind as they who will not see " ?

+=+=+ =+
It is instructive that the original article here, and many of those supporting it, continue to voice the lie that those who oppose SRE are 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' or want to 'deprive children of their cultural heritage'. How many times do we have to say it?

Opponents of SRE and chaplaincy don't want less religion in schools - we want more! We don't want children to know less about religion. We want them to know more. We don't want children's choices restricted. We want them to have more choices as a result of having more knowledge.

Not one of us is campaigning to 'preach' atheism in schools. We find the idea of indoctrinating children into atheism as offensive as indoctrinating them into any belief system, philosophical position or political allegiance. What we should be giving our kids is information and the skills to process that information critically so that, when they are sufficiently mature, they can make their own decisions.

Only those who are not confident that their particular agenda cannot survive a new generation of informed, well-educated, critical thinkers would object to what we suggest - an academically-oriented course in comparative religions & philosophies.

Jimmy Jones "If they're getting the same thing at home, then why waste school time with it?"

You could use that argument about almost *any* subject, as I already pointed out (music, sport, sex education, cooking, foreign languages, carpentry, etc).

"Students who don't participate are made to feel like pariahs,"

So are boys who don't like cricket and like piano.
Deal with it.

"and there is a fair amount of coercion going on to "fit in""

"Children of parents who don't want their children taught fairy tales as though they are true are forced to DO NOTHING."

I used the library or playground to study when I was young. I doubt anything's changed (except some people's attitudes to SRI).

"substitute classes in ethics are not available"

If these are so essential they should be part of the general curriculum.

franc hoggle "Your children [presumption: I have children] almost certainly are already being tortured and deprived of their childhoods by being subjected to church and sunday school [presumption: I am Christian]."

Troll.

"Stop manipulating our children for the sake of your own grubby, selfish, political interests."

Ditto. Leave your progressive utopian agenda, taught compulsorily to *all* students, out of the school curriculum.
*Your* children don't have to attend.

McReal "There are many situations where kids disadvantaged or are made to feel bad for 'opting out' or 'being opted out'."

Deal with it.
Do you want a generation of passive clones that just do what everyone else does and never step out of line?

"There are probably many non-religious parents "allowing their children into these classes""

Obviously not militant atheists.
Parents making poor decisions is their own problem, not a reason to change the system.

"our civilisation's history would be utterly indecipherable without that knowledge."

"utterly indecipherable"?? You protest too much."
Jimmy Jones "Utterly indecipherable"?? Oh please! Give me a break hahhaa."

Okay, please explain our civilisation's history *without* mentioning Christianity.
Explain Joan of Arc.
Explain the Sistine Chapel.
Explain the Teutonic Knights.
Explain Utah.

Jimmy Jones. "I think you'll actually find that most secularists DO want religion to be taught in school... COMPARATIVE religion"

I sincerely doubt that, given what I read here.

individual "to accept a particular faith a person should be 21 or grown up to make that decision. Don't try & brainwash some poor kids who have no concept of it."

I doubt schoolchildren are in a position to question *anything* they are taught. Should we teach them anything at all?

sauropod "Making an opt-out student sit at the back of the classroom during SRI is plainly a violation of their parent's wishes."

And never happens.
They go outside.

pelican "Perhaps shockadelic and Mr Ward can explain why RI has to take place in schools and not as part of the religious community to which people are involved."

See above.

"In communist countries and under Hitler, children were indoctrinated and forced into adopting certain political dogmas."

And now it's your turn.
Recycle. Tolerate. Celebrate Diversity. Or Else.

Dug "Every child should understand christianity, they should also understand and have a working knowledge of Islam Judaism Hindu Buddhist and atheism."

Why? What significant role has Islam (other than as violent invaders) or Eastern religion had on our civilisation?

Squeers "State Schools are no place for religious instruction"
Chrys Stevenson "the amount of money being poured into the chaplaincy program is astronomical - and tax-payers are sitting up and taking notice."

Why should the state *pay* millions for the soccer balls, pianos, maintenance of sports fields, carpentry tools, cooking utensils and ovens, etc?

Why is it the *state's* responsibility to teach a child to speak French, play the tuba, hammer nails, hit a tennis ball or cook pasta?
Shouldn't their parents be doing this?

"They can see that a divisive group which stands for values antithetical to those of most Australians is not only having an undue influence on our government, they are instrumental in foisting those same divisive, intolerant 'values' upon our kids"

Yes, those man-hating, white-blaming, Christophobic fascists-in-liberal-clothing have got to go!

Shockadelic, your posts show how poorly informed you are on this subject. I'm not going to bore everyone by refuting every one of your points. The extent of your ignorance of the subject can be shown with just one point:

"sauropod "Making an opt-out student sit at the back of the classroom during SRI is plainly a violation of their parent's wishes."

Shockadelic: And never happens. They go outside.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/forced-to-listen-to-word-of-god/story-fn6b3v4f-1225998981589

And from the website of the chaplain and SRE teacher at the school:

“Pray for year 8 & 9 classes today, especially for the students who have not attended SRE before and who will be bringing their own work to do in class. Pray that they will be quiet and that they will hear God’s message as Bernie teaches the other students. Pray for Holy Spirit annointing, power and authority on Bernie.”

For the screen shot of this now deleted post, see my blog:

http://thatsmyphilosophy.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/religious-conversion-by-stealth-in-nsw-schools/

And, anticipating the next obfuscation - no, it's not an isolated incident.

Shockadelic,

"Do you want a generation of passive clones that just do what everyone else does and never step out of line?"

Congratulations! That is exactly what Western society wants - you have just given a spectacularly accurate definition of the objectives of educational institutionalisation in consumer society.

What's it got to do with instilling a narrow ideological paradigm in the minds of young children - more of the same?

JJ: "Students who don't participate are made to feel like pariahs,"

Shockadelic: So are boys who don't like cricket and like piano. Deal with it.

But it IS being dealt with, dear Shockadelic... That's precisely why the ACL's got a major case of butthurt over the legal challenge going on at the moment, didn't you know?

---

JJ: "Children of parents who don't want their children taught fairy tales as though they are true are forced to DO NOTHING."

shockadelic: I used the library or playground to study when I was young. I doubt anything's changed (except some people's attitudes to SRI).

Bully for you. Do you want a prize?

Anyway, if you think sitting around in the library or playground is so fantastic, then why are we wasting money on teachers at all? You must surely agree that kids ought to be sitting around twiddling their thumbs for 8 hours a day in the library every day if it's beneficial. Are you really suggesting that?? Oh dear.

"Do you want a generation of passive clones that just do what everyone else does and never step out of line?"
Shockadelic, Thursday, 5 May 2011 7:19:18 PM

Isn't that what religious inculcation does?
....................................

"Parents making poor decisions is their own problem, not a reason to change the system."
They make poor decisions *because* of the system.
....................................

"please explain our civilisation's history *without* mentioning Christianity."
That's what many want, as part of SRE.
.................................

"Explain Joan of Arc.
"Explain the Sistine Chapel.
"Explain the Teutonic Knights.
"Explain Utah."

None of these have any bearing in explaining civilisation today. "Deal with it."
.................................

soccer balls .... cook pasta?
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 5 May 2011 7:21:40 PM

Irrelevant 'red herring' fallacy.

You exhibit a lack of empathy and a desire to belittle:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio/2011/may/05/science-weekly-podcast-simon-baron-cohen

http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk/BerteShopWeb/viewProduct.do?ISBN=9780713997910
.

To Dug, Chrys and others, I realise that many do want religion taught objectively, but I am also acknowledging that many don't want it taught at all, and this is often because they perceive that a proponent of one view will do more harm than an impartial surveyor of mere knowledge. Yet dispassionate presentation of data is no fair advertisement for the value of religion which is an essential component of any teaching of it. For example, I wouldn't ideally want my kids to learn 'art' or 'science' theoretically without a trained practitioner being able to show them from their first-hand experience how and why to appreciate these subjects. I think we can all relate to boring history teachers who do little to inspire kids regarding the value of their subject, yet a passionate teacher of history will inevitably risk conveying a particular viewpoint or slant and with little real harm done - I know which I'd value more!

[Deleted for abuse.]

Shockadelic, playing the "troll" card is an admission of a lost cause. You have lost all coherence with the rest. The one bit I could decipher -

"Ditto. Leave your progressive utopian agenda, taught compulsorily to *all* students, out of the school curriculum... *Your* children don't have to attend."

Uhuh. And what agenda would that be that I am calling for? The only thing I asked for was "comparitive" (as opposed to "indoctrinational") religious studies, if religion is to be taught at all.

You are so easily reduced to gibberish through inability to address actual argument. We're I of the tar-n-feathering kind of guy, I would say that is so theist...

I have given up on counting your individual instances of "militant atheist" and it's variants on the other hand (I would love to meet one by the way) to which you now add troll. All you are spouting is ad hominem, strawmen and a close to complete checklist of other rhetorical dirty tricks that would leave Schopenhauer speechless. To use a rugby analogy, you are too slow to play the ball so you play the man. And this, from the word go, from all concerned on your side of the fence, is all you have to play with and the only way you know how to play.

That alone is reason enough to keep you as far away from young impressionable minds as possible.

Hey Shockadelic,

I've rethought my glib response to you before. It'd be better to use one of ACL's ridiculous "arguments" right back at you and see how inconsistent you are. Here...

JJ said: "Children of parents who don't want their children taught fairy tales as though they are true are forced to DO NOTHING."
shockadelic said: I used the library or playground to study when I was young. I doubt anything's changed (except some people's attitudes to SRI).

Given that you think library and playground time to study is beneficial, surely you must agree that offering playground study time to only some students disadvantages those children who choose to attent SRI?

After all, the ACL opposes Ethics classes on the grounds that it would disadvantage children who attend SRI (presumably because they won't be learning any ethics - haha!)

Dug "Every child should understand christianity, they should also understand and have a working knowledge of Islam Judaism Hindu Buddhist and atheism."

Why? What significant role has Islam (other than as violent invaders) or Eastern religion had on our civilisation?

+=+=+=+

What indeed has Islam given us Well the first thing that comes to mind is "Zero"
The concept of Zero that we base modern maths on was developed by Muslim scholars, We use an Arabic Numeral system rather than a Roman one Imagine trying to work a modern society using XVii numerals ?

During the dark ages in Europe Muslims kept alive the philosophy of the Greeks they developed advanced geometry, algebra, maths, medicine, astronomy, and other sciences.

It is BECAUSE this is not taught in schools that most people ( LIKE YOU ) are ignorant of how much of our modern society is built on discoveries made by Muslims.

May I suggest you read a copy of The House of Wisdom by Jonathan Lyons that goes into detail on this very subject.

Christianity is based on Judaism how can you understand Christianity without an understanding of Jewish law and custom ?

Many of the teachings of Jesus were predated by similar ideas written in Eastern philosophy and religions like Buddhism and Hindu mysticism.

Zoroastrians was the first of the monotheist faiths how can you discuss modern religious beliefs without a working knowledge of how this developed ?

Our children live in a world of variety they will travel to different countries and encounter different religions and cultures.

How irresponsible would it be if we let our children leave a modern education system as ignorant and ill equipped as you obviously are to deal with these cultures.

Just imagine if they left school and thought the 1.6 billion muslims were all "violent invaders" and nothing else

Imagine if they left school and like you not only did not grasp the concept of but could not even spell "Civilization" A Civil society of people living together.

Would you have our kids grow up as ignorant as you are ?

Yes, Marantha, by all means let's contrast the kind of class a trained, professional teacher might give with the scintillating excitement of an SRE class taught by a volunteer. Here's an excerpt from a transcript of an SRE class taken by a supervising teacher:

“The classroom teacher remarked that while these kids were normally quite well behaved, they were almost a polar opposite during the scripture class.” Control and interest was only maintained by the Scripture teacher handing out chocolates and lollies to the children – the reason, the teacher speculates, that most of the children chose to attend the class.

Transcript begins:

Handed out chocolates first.
Handed out scrap paper, kids to write nickname and class.
Then started setting up computer.
Questions on board to copy down
* nickname – explain
* what do your friends think of you?
* what does your family think of you?
* how would you describe yourself

Showed slideshow of famous people, kids to write a single word describing what they think of each person.

Very poor control of the class – kids screaming out constantly.
Then asking kids to consider “what we say about others, compared to what god says about us”.

Started playing ‘celebrity head’ ...

Then said no matter how else others think of us and describe us ‘the only thing that doesn’t change is what god thinks of us’.

Wrote down numbered list of possible sources of her own opinion of herself – god first, then husband and kids, family, friends, sport. Says she’d be up and down if she relied on other people, so “that’s why I rely on god for my opinion about myself”.

... Pushed the “whole new way of living” Jesus brought, that it’s important to not worry about what others think, but “to care about what the Creator thinks”.

Showed a video of a guy rapping about “how great god is” and that all the problems in his life are solved by the presence of god in his life.

... Finished with choice of watching remainder of movie [Napoleon Dynamite] or playing marshmallow game."

""I realise that many do want religion taught objectively, but I am also acknowledging that many don't want it taught at all, and this is often because they perceive that a proponent of one view will do more harm than an impartial surveyor of mere knowledge."

Posted by Maranatha, Thursday, 5 May 2011 8:22:03 PM

You are just 'muddying the waters', or 'poisoning the well'
.....................................

"Yet dispassionate presentation of data is no fair advertisement for the value of religion which is an essential component of any teaching of it."

You are just 'special pleading' for indoctrinating.

..............................
"I wouldn't ideally want my kids to learn 'art' or 'science' theoretically without a trained practitioner being able to show them from their first-hand experience how and why to appreciate these subjects."

Nobody can *make* anybody appreciate anything. *You* make that point when you then say

"I think we can all relate to boring history teachers who do little to inspire kids regarding the value of their subject, yet a passionate teacher of history will inevitably risk conveying a particular viewpoint or slant ... "

We don't want 'slants".

" ... and with little real harm done - I know which I'd value more!"

But it's not all about you. This highlights a key issue with those pushing the narrow one-religion SRI agenda - self-centredness; a lack of consideration for others; a lack of empathy.

Education has gone from imparting knowledge and superficial understanding to higher ordered thinking including evaluation, appraisal, etc as components of a deep-approach to learning to deal with reality, such as the reality the Bible may be fiction.

Check out Marton & Saljo's "Concepts of Learning", or the "SOLO Taxonomy", or "Bloom's Taxonomy".

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/deepsurf.htm

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/index.htm

Maybe, Chrys, the CRE teacher in question could have been better treated, being a guest speaker, and offered more support precisely because they were not trained. Not many other visiting speakers would be expected to offer their services without such assistance. Herein lies a real, though understandable, bias. However, it would be hoped that most CRE teachers come not to impose, but to add value to the all-round education of students. I suspect that you could have cited a more successful example. I can think of many trained teachers who are poor classroom managers, too, and many non-trained teachers who are gifted communicators. I, myself, am an experienced teacher, qualified in many subjects, yet found that when visiting a school as a CRE teacher, the job was much harder. Many kids were predisposed against my class because of negative parental influence and their own predetermination that my material was nonsensical. Although I don't begrudge this, these kids would not even try to wrestle responsibly with what I adamantly believe to have been creatively, objectively and sensitively presented material about faith and religion, its reasoned defence, and its practical application to everyday life.

I am just going to leave this here.

http://www.godless.biz/2011/05/04/warding-off-christianity/

wow, what an interesting Article to stumble upon on my way to bed.. plenty to think about. There's so many good comments on here and then there's some that are..well - without education.
Someone said Ethic classes would be good, well I agree - but who's ethics - they're all different.
What do I think, I don't really know. I do think that school should be about the mental, physical, social and spiritual education of our young people, and after all, havn't most Australians been bought up with RE? Have they all decided to follow it? I don't think so.I have had my fair share of abusive teachers for my children, but how are RE teachers doing harm? Maybe they should at least have some educational training, perhaps the same as teacher aids?
Chaplains are great, they listen, and if you have never needed to lend the ear of a friend then you would not understand. I have been a youth leader in the last few years and these poor kids are under unbelievable pressure, teachers are too busy to spend an hour listening a child cry. RE says you are special because you were created and are loved. The kids ask lots of questions.If you were bought up in a secure family and knew you had a place then that is great, but not all kids have that protection, I have seen some awful things and had to report some. Unless you get to the heart of the child you miss the message they quietly impart. Who will catch them when they fall certainly not their parents or the government? Kids with decent parents sleep well at night, but those with no blankets or food..who is going to tell them it's not ok? Do you judge reckless kids in the streets or do you get beside them? Just leave it alone, They will decide soon enough for themselves what they believe - you can disagree but I am out there and morals in their parents would change their lives. Choose for your own children but not for the country.

Chrys,

Your post indicates the poor sort of example those children must have received in their home environments. If anything they require more education in acceptable behaviour, rather than less.

I agree with Maranatha, one poor example does not a trend make, but rather a bias in some schools against anything outside their rigid syllabus. Your example is also indicative of an attitude of total self-interest which is becoming so prevalent in our "modernised" society, and which unfortunately is being passed on to the new generation.

Religious education must certainly be less exciting and interesting than playing video games, but what is the preferred example for opening up young minds to the real world and to the complex interpersonal relationships with which they will be faced in adult life?

askegg...yes, Nice article, thats typically drenched in the facts of forcing Supernatural on impressionable minds. Religions will use law or any means possible to keep the game going.

And these are the evolved and enlightened one,s...lol

The world see's them for that they really are, however the power they have to intimidate others in thinking their way, is no real surprise, it is:)

Leap

Shockadelic
"And now it's your turn."

How so?
How is the argument for SRI as a personal matter for the home/Church environment 'forcing' people to deny their religious beliefs?

You are the one advocating the forcing of SRI into the public school system, even with opt in-opt out arrangements. Do we have Islamic lunchtime classes, Bhuddist retreats for the weekends, Jewish teachings of the Talmud at recess. Maybe cake making on Wednesday lunch and origami Thursday.

There is already criticism of the failure of schools to raise the standards of literacy and numeracy, lets let educators concentrate on education. Pushing one particular religious philosophy without discussion other alternatives is dictatorial.

The resentment in this article stems from nothing more than a fear of losing power and influence over young and impressionable students. I would be arguing the same if there were any 'actual' militant atheists pushing for anti-religion classes or Atheist classes.

Real freedom comes from allowing personal values and belief systems to co-exist within the law, it is not about using the education system as a marketing tool.

"Explain Joan of Arc.
Explain the Sistine Chapel.
Explain the Teutonic Knights.
Explain Utah.Posted by Shockadelic"

Many of these topics can be discussed in history or social science as part of Comparative Religion and most importantly in the Church community.

Christians disagree about many aspects of the Bible and interpretations otherwise there would not be 1000s of different sects. Whose Christianity do we teach? Christians are not a homogenous bunch and each sect quite willing to criticise the other as in a recent article critical of the Uniting Church.

On the note of what makes religious education different from sex education, metal work, PE and science:

All the other subjects are life skills and expand a childs' knolwedge base- particularly about how things in society actually work, directly correspond to workplace considerations, are relevant to absolutely everyone regardless of faith;
These things make children smarter and less susceptible to being drawn into ridiculous cults or other dodgy social movements because they actually know better about how the world works.

The other is brushing up on theological stories relevant only to Christians, world history that most Christians don't even believe really happened, and moral guide such as hating gays regardless if they don't even do anything to you, perceiving Jews as villains and regarding safe sex contraceptives and abortions as evil (ensuring that those who do give into their sinful urges, do so without protection, increasing the possibility of disease transmission, orphans and wellfare recipients).

King Hazza....that deserves a stand ovation.

LEA

So much fuss over a bit of kumbayah and colouring in pictures of a very white looking Jesus. Maybe he stayed inside a lot.

Some old guy who looks like Obi Wan tells a few fables about being nice to people and weird stuff about snakes and magic tricks and it's going to result in a bunch of homophobic paedophiles? Come on man!

Man I did all that, and I'm no believer. Mustn't work very well.

Nothing to fear here people.

Man, people love the hyperbowl!

Speaking of which, a few trend-driven humanists with a fresh book from Dawkins under their arm, gather together a few people pissed off they cant afford the catholic school down the road create a petition to make a little humanist ethics program to run in competition against the Obi Wans and you'd think the Worlds falling in.

Get a grip people.

I'd sum up the whole SRI with 'Mostly Harmless'.

The most effective stance is to forget the whole thing. No ethics, no comparative religion, no SRI, and just ALL children sit there glued to the TV watching Better Homes and Gardens.

We need Comsumers!

Better still, lets realise the fears of both parties as punishment. I want all the atheist parented kids to endure The Passion of the Christ, and all Christian kids to watch Al Jazeera videos of masked terrorists beheading western hostages in Iraq.

Houellebecq: "So much fuss over a bit of kumbayah and colouring in pictures of a very white looking Jesus. Maybe he stayed inside a lot."

H., I'd like you to go through this list and check off what you have *not* used thus far -

http://www.searchlores.org/schopeng.htm

What you have also *not* used is any actual valid, reasoned argument. I now have no doubt in my mind whatsoever. You are a trained, card carrying ACL shill - you and countless others like you spend vast amounts of time doing little more than poisoning and derailing debate on this subject on any forum that gives you the chance to do so.

You do not listen. You do not contribute. You just derail with nonsense.

Let me ask you a question - what would baby jesus think of your behaviour?

And A here comes the judge..lol...[ picture a angry fat woman with army boots on, walking very fast in your direction:) Watch out Mr Dawkins.

"homophobic paedophiles..you'll have to see a Catholic priest about that one Houellebecq. lol. and what are those truuue Australian values again?

If your problems are with questions beyond your understanding....its alright....we understand:)

The most effective stance is to forget the whole thing. No ethics, no comparative religion, no SRI, and just ALL children sit there glued to the TV watching Better Homes and Gardens.

A posed to Adam & EVE and the snake..lol

Sorry! I have to run to the toilet....lol....

LEA

Houel is realistic about what affects children in different ways is all. I’ve not ever viewed any poison in his contributions and opinions to discussions. Houel has certainly derailed me before with his sense of humour and some very clever insights on various topics.

I want religion out of schools and back in churches (mosques wateva) where religious parents can choose to take their young ones. I don’t want tax dollars going to specific religions for any reason in any public sector. I do want children to be taught generally about religions.

I think I just said shuddup about our Houel but yes I agree about the other stuff Franc but I’ll go off and learn more about winning arguments now.

Hey, Franc - I can't think of anyone on this forum less likely to be a card-carrying ACL member than Houellie...he's probably sitting at his desk right now unable to type because of laughter.

He likes to give an alternative take on things is all.

But, yeah, Houellie, if it's that harmless (useless) why spend money on it that could be targeted toward a more relevant purpose?

Poirot,

Reading through all of this and there have been multiple accusations of "troll" aimed at, and only at, the posters that have an issue with these indoctrination programs. One would assume that's only because the accusers have already said "militant" 5 times and want variety.

There is a huge difference between "devil's advocacy" and "derailing", which is more akin to actual "trolling" - the generation of noise through statements that a person doesn't necessarily mean, but make with the knowledge that they will inflame and distract. If what you say about Houellebecq is indeed correct, then the only person in this discussion guilty of "trolling" is him. Playing a devil's advocate enhances and broadens discussion, and does require a modicum of intellect to carry off. Houlle falls flat on all acounts.

Praise the lord!

Kumbaya m'lord, kumbaya!

Any posters who try to discredit my pastafarianism will all go to hell where the beer is stale and the strippers have VD.

His Noodly Goodness is watching you.

I think I've just proved it's impossible to have a rational conversation with LEAP (Well, we all knew that already) and this new franc hoggle character.

Tell me fran, how did you miss the bits mocking the white Jesus, churches behaving like record companies and kumbaya, and with quotes like this... 'What you have also *not* used is any actual valid, reasoned argument.' you may become my perfect straight man. You remind me of examinator.

Yes Poirot, that guy owes me a new keyboard.

Hey Poirot, am I speaking a different language? Or do people just pick out the bits of each post they don't like and go nuts, neglecting to read the bits where I also slam everyone on the other side of the argument?

I reckon I mocked both the religious and the Humanists in equal measure. It's so much fun to be attacked by the Nut Job Christians AND the loony left at the same time.

'But, yeah, Houellie, if it's that harmless (useless) why spend money on it that could be targeted toward a more relevant purpose?'

What's relevant? It's primary school. Colouring in and times tables. I never said I wanted to keep it, I just want to highlight the REAL motives of both sides. I'm not bovvered either way. I think really they should just send the kids home early so they can have sex before mum and dad get home.

PS: LEAP. It was well commented what Joooolia was talking about, and how many times do I have to say I support Gay marriage to not be labelled a homophobe by you and Ammonite? I hear by declare you immune to parody. I would have answered you on the other thread if I could decipher what you were talking about. Picture me on a bus next to a loony nodding and moving sideways.

I don't share Chrys's faith in the void of secularism. In secular countries like England, the US, and Canada, Christians are already being persecuted for their beliefs (including fines and prison).

Nature hates a vaccuum, so as we become more and more secular and religious people face increasing persecution, Chrys and his fellow secularists deserve to be reminded of the practical unjustness of their belief system constantly.

"In secular countries like England, the US"

N0w I n33d a n3w k3yb0ar4.

Aw3s0m3 stuff

R0bert

It is polite, TRUTHNOW78, to provide some form of reference - such an a URL, or a quote from an article, that sort of thing - when making outrageously false statements.

>> In secular countries like England, the US, and Canada, Christians are already being persecuted for their beliefs (including fines and prison)<<

That enables anyone who cares, to find out where you dredged up such a bizarre interpretation of events.

Care to enlighten us?

Thought not.

In secular countries like England, the US, and Canada, Christians are already being persecuted for their beliefs (including fines and prison).

OH COME ON PLEASE !!

Telling lies makes the baby Jesus cry :-(

The countries you state all have freedom of religion enshrined in their laws and it s unthinkable that anyone would be fined or placed in jail for their beliefs ( unless they instigated violence or hate )

I am guessing you are referring to so called Christians who used illegal hateful or discriminatory language or actions against others and who were found guilty of such actions in a court of law or legal tribunal.

Many Christians feel they are being persecuted when the law prevents them from persecuting others.

Please let me know if I am wrong I know thousands of atheists who would be willing to protest for the freedom of a christian who is persecuted for their beliefs.

Sadly I cannot say the same for christians they seem pretty unwilling to stand up for the rights freedoms and beliefs of anyone but themselves.

Beelzebubba,

Houellie is perhaps the most hilariously perceptive of the articulate posters on this forum - he adds another dimension and adores nothing more than puncturing the three p's - pretension, pomposity and piousness.

Added to that he he was on topic and made comments relevant to the discussion - what's yer beef?

Dug,

"Sadly I cannot say the same for christians they seem pretty unwilling to stand up for the rights freedoms and beliefs of anyone but themselves."

I don't know where you "Dug"-up this bit of bile. Can only imagine you just woke up in a bright new world with no idea of how this idyllic setting came into being. Bit of history ol' son, your present freedoms didn't magically materialise without quite a bit of coaxing from a lot of honest decent people, and, guess what, they weren't Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist, OR Securlarists! Your secular freedoms are a natural progression from a sound foundational past, Not in spite of it.

Next your going to blame the Greeks I suppose for not bringing democracy, philosophy and ethics to the West so much sooner, and thereby saving the old UK from having to go through the "dark ages" before having an "enlightened" age thrust upon them. Or are you going to blame Islam for inventing algebra, because it just complicates you otherwise blissful state.

Ingrate just doesn't really cover it adequately.

"Do unto others as you would would have others do unto you" AKA "The Golden Rule":

"Overview:

The Ethic of Reciprocity -- often called the Golden Rule in Christianity -- simply states that we are to treat other people as we would wish to be treated ourselves.

Almost all organized religions have such an ethic. It is normally intended to apply to the entire human race. Unfortunately, it is too often applied by some people only to fellow believers."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc2.htm

Many religions, eons before Jesus preached, held to the ethic of reciprocity, along with many humane values that assist people to get along with each other, Christianity simply repeated values that have been held by many different cultures.

Claiming Christianity as the font for all good and decency is quite simply a lie.

Back on topic the issue of SRI is another attempt by the Christian Faith to put its ideology ahead of the beliefs of others:

"Is SRI Representative of our Multicultural Community?

Quite clearly, the answer is no. In a 23 page legal opinion commissioned by the Victorian Humanist Society in 2010, Holding Redlich has concluded that “there appears to be a reasonable argument that the SRI being provided for in Government schools infringes both the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006&#8243;."

http://religionsinschool.com/sri-the-facts/

I invite all who are interested in open and fair debate to read the links from which I have provided quotes.

Thank you.

Poirot, my "beef" is that your perception of "hilarious" is markedly similar to my perception of September in the US in the early '90s when the freshest batch of college kids first got access to this new fangled internet thingy. Funnily enough, those kids also liked defending stupidity from sock puppet accounts, or tag teaming each other, under the impression they were fresh, clever and new. It was *very* exciting, more so with every repetition. It is threads like these that Australia really does stand up and earn its moniker of being the "arse end of the planet" - that 2 decades later you can still find it amusing.

As for TRUTHNOW78, mythology requires no evidence. Both islam and xtianity are cults of the victim. They lose substance without a victim to persecute, be it the stoning/burning of heretics or immodest women, or when they have no victims, to transorm themselves into the victim role and support it with fables of imaginary persecution or the vainglory of a stupid martyrs death.

These persecution fantasies are essential in this fight to infiltrate and poison schools. It is the petrol in the tank. Without it, they would have bugger all to work with.

Now that really is hyperbowl to call the Crusades and The Inquisition 'general coaxing'.

Thanks for the kind words Poirot.

'adores nothing more than puncturing the three p's - pretension, pomposity and piousness.'

I always thought PPPs were the public private partnerships I despise so:-)

I think I'm being socially excluded:-) Where's Tristan Ewins! So much violence. So much violence.

All this talking about freedom of religion makes me want freedom *from* religion...

"In secular countries like England, the US, and Canada, Christians are already being persecuted for their beliefs (including fines and prison)."

Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Friday, 6 May 2011 1:41:54 PM

The few cases in England have been where they have broken discrimination laws, or done things like worn dangerous jewellery (chains) with crucifixes on them, but falsely claimed they were being persecuted for the crucifix when they were really ewaring a dangerous chain.

"Nature hates a vacuum" - nature doesn't hate.

Secularism allows for equal space for all belief systems, so none dominate, unlike the SRI and ohter special pleading scenarios.

Beezlebubba,

Sorry about that. I should have realised how transparent were our antics.
Houellebecq and I are notorious tag-teaming sock-puppet college types and it's time we grew up. (It's not easy living at the "arse end of the planet"- so perhaps, you'll cut us a bit of slack)

Btw, i agree with the sentiments you expressed to TRUTHNOW78 - I have an issue with indoctrination programs.

'These persecution fantasies are essential in this fight to infiltrate and poison schools. It is the petrol in the tank. Without it, they would have bugger all to work with.'

Sounds a lot like humanism. Where would they be without their persecution fantasies at the hands of those poor old 70 yo Christian volunteers that they beat up on and demonise.

I'm wondering if this guy is a Paul Keating sock puppet but he's probably too busy with Lend Lease.

I like your 'Niceness is overrated' blog. Good work! My cup of tea. It's funny how a guy who has posted 2 posts to my 'established user' 9 million, decides I am a troll and a sock puppet, when he has an agenda (atheist site) and I have none (besides amusing myself at others expense. But as I say, it's not too expensive for them because they always come back for more.)

I think mr Beelzebubba, it is you that lacks sophistication, in that you assume two posters who have vast posting histories you could easily look at are one and the same just because they have a sense of humour.

'Btw, i agree with the sentiments you expressed to TRUTHNOW78 - I have an issue with indoctrination programs.'
Yeah same poirot, if the guy bothered to listen he would know that already. I'm happy for the monopoly to be disbanded. But he's like that Monty Python skit where the guy's looking for an argument. Lucky I'm happy to oblige.

Surely the SRI teachers believe in sky fairies, but their message ain't exactly 'poison'. Comedy and light entertainment perhaps, but why are people so threatened. Maybe they're secretly scared His Noodly Goodness really exists.

PS Beez, it's so 1980s to think you're clever outing 'trolls'. We're all trolls these days. You're the only straight man left. I think you need a shag is all.

Houellebecq, Yes your quite right, I suffer from foot in mouth from time to time. Now! Just some news in, The ABC has just announced gay couples now have the same rights as heterosexuals. Well its about time.

Jewely, with this all concerned attention that anyone can read easily, I feel the wind has changed for a new course, and its great to see equal-opportunity stretch its wings and fly to new boundaries.

I understand the many great commitments one must cover in order to save face when the need arises. SRI in its wisdom has its points to which I don't fully agree, but who can have it all they own way. Well, and part of the many Jewely is a compliment to any intelligent mind with full respects.

LEA

Chrys Stevenson "I'm not going to bore everyone [already done] by refuting every one of your points."

No, please refute them, smartypants.
Or don't bother us with your presence.

The fact that a story made the newspaper indicates just how *unusual* that scenario was.
Note the only reason any child sat in was the lack of available staff.
So your real gripe shouldn't be the SRI classes themselves, but the lack of staff.

Jimmy Jones "You must surely agree that kids ought to be sitting around twiddling their thumbs for 8 hours a day in the library every day if it's beneficial. Are you really suggesting that??"

This is *one* class, smartypants #2.
One class.

McReal responding to: "Explain Joan of Arc.
"Explain the Sistine Chapel.
"Explain the Teutonic Knights.
"Explain Utah."

"None of these have any bearing in explaining civilisation today. "Deal with it.""

The question was explaining *history* without mentioning Christianity, smartypants #3 (why do all think you're so clever?)

"soccer balls .... cook pasta?"

"Irrelevant 'red herring' fallacy."

No it's not smartypants #3.
You guys firstly assert that certain matters are the responsibility of parents *only*, and complain about the *money* spent on religious education, yet find no problem with the government spending millions to teach children how to play musical instruments, do carpentry, cook food, play sports, learn foreign languages.

How on Earth are these subjects any less the responsibility of parents and how do you justify the public cost of these lessons and the equipment needed?

Jimmy Jones (still thinking he's clever):
"Joan of Arc is... what? What does that even mean?? I don't understand who or what this "Joan of Arc" is... the words are complete gibberish to me!"

Open an encyclopedia.
Then EXPLAIN "Joan of Arc" without any reference to, or knowledge of, Christianity.
Do the same for the Sistine Chapel, the Teutonic Knights and Utah.
Remember, explain *without* the C-word.

"Jesus would vomit on you."

Hate to see his response to you then.
I don't have to turn the other cheek or anything else written in the Bible.
I'm not a Christian.

franc hoggle "The one bit I could decipher.. reduced to gibberish through inability to address actual argument."

I express myself in perfectly clear English.
And you wonder why I call you a troll.

"To use a rugby analogy, you are too slow to play the ball so you play the man."

Look who's talking.

Jimmy Jones (still thinking he's smart)
"I've rethought my glib response to you before"

And propose another glib response.
"Given that you think library and playground time to study is beneficial, surely you must agree that offering playground study time to only some students disadvantages those children who choose to attent SRI?"

If they feel so, they can opt out too.

Dug (smartypants #4)
"What indeed has Islam given us Well the first thing that comes to mind is "Zero"'

And can you point me to the page of the Koran where any numeric system is proposed?
A hadith?
I asked what *Muslims* have done, not *Arabs*.
You understand the difference, right?

"Many of the teachings of Jesus were predated by similar ideas written in Eastern philosophy and religions like Buddhism and Hindu mysticism."

Irrelevant.
Jesus and his followers had no knowledge of this.
Nor does one need to today.
Christianity replaces Judaism, so only a perfunctory knowledge of that redundancy is necessary, and the Bible contains plenty of information about it.

Zoroastrians? What does it matter who invented monotheism first?
Each religion is a self-contained system.

"How irresponsible would it be if we let our children leave a modern education system as ignorant and ill equipped as you obviously are to deal with these cultures."

If people want to travel or interact with other cultures, it is *their* responsibility to learn what they need to know.
Our education system is supposed to prepare students for life HERE, in OUR society.
Our society is not Muslim, Buddhist or Zoroastrian.
It has been, and still is, very much Christian, whether you like it or not.

"Civilization"?
I didn't realize [sic] we were living in America.
No need to criticize [sic] my correct spelling.

pelican "You are the one advocating the forcing of SRI into the public school system'

I'm not 'forcing' anything.
It's already been there for a century.

"Do we have Islamic lunchtime classes, Bhuddist retreats for the weekends, Jewish teachings of the Talmud at recess."

Students can do anything they want in their *free* time.

And you're conveniently forgetting: this class isn't just for Christians.
*Any* religious group can have a class.

"There is already criticism of the failure of schools to raise the standards of literacy and numeracy"

So let's cut the sports, carpentry, cooking, music...

"I would be arguing the same if there were any 'actual' militant atheists pushing for anti-religion classes or Atheist classes."

What do you do in Atheist class? Sit quietly and not believe stuff?
Oh, you can do that right now!
By opting out of SRI!

"Christians disagree about many aspects of the Bible and interpretations. Whose Christianity do we teach?"

The same can be said of any other religion. Or indeed of subjects like history, science, art, music.

King Hazza: "On the note of what makes religious education different from sex education, metal work, PE and science"

Nobody is questioning the value of these subjects.
The question was, why are these considered appropriate for the state school system, and *not* the parent's responsibility, and both time and money.

Jewely "I want religion out of schools... I don’t want tax dollars going to specific religions for any reason in any public sector. I do want children to be taught generally about religions."

It doesn't matter what you want.
You want personalised schooling, then homeschool your children.

You live in a *SOCIETY*.
You have to put up with lots of things you don't like or want, because other people do like and want those things.
The majority of Australians (who are Christian) PAY TAXES.
But I guess it doesn't matter what they want.

@Shockadelic

JJ wrote: "Joan of Arc is... what? What does that even mean?? I don't understand who or what this "Joan of Arc" is... the words are complete gibberish to me!"

Shockadelic replied: "Open an encyclopedia. Then EXPLAIN "Joan of Arc" without any reference to, or knowledge of, Christianity."

Don't grasp sarcasm, do we sweetie? Anyway, your request is bizarre. Tell you what...

YOU EXPLAIN TO ME why you think children need to be groomed to praise God and fear Hell in order to refer to, have knowledge of or mention Christianity.

I don't think they do, but according to you it's essential! You're not a Christian though are you, so I guess Joan of Arc is "utterly indecipherable" to you too, huh?

"utterly indecipherable" my arse!! hahaha

@Shockadelic cont'd...

JJ wrote: "you must agree that playground time for some students disadvantages those who attend SRI?"

Shockadelic replied: "If they feel so, they can opt out too."

But then they'll be disadvantaged by not attending SRI, silly!

And on that anti-Ethics "argument" of the ACL and others, if kids who want to attend SRI would be disadvantaged by missing out on Ethics classes, then surely the ones who are learning to be Christians are disadvantaged by missing out on the Muslim classes. And the one who are being taught to think Islam are missing out on Bahai instruction. And...

Oh dear! So many children being disadvantaged! I wonder why the ACL only think it's a problem when secular Ethics classes are proposed, but have no truck with letting the kiddies miss out on other religious instruction or that oh-so-valuable sitting-alone-in-the-playground time you put so much stock in, Shockadelic.

It's *almost* as if they fear a secular ethics class would undermine the propaganda that you can't be good without religion! If people found that out, then where would the ACL be!?

It's also funny how these diverse religions band together when it's expedient. ACL (at the moment) has no problem with other religions being taught at the same time as Christian scripture... after all, it's all religious innit? You've gotta have "faith"!

But then of course, we occasionally see their true colours emerge, such as the egregious Jim Wallace's recent ANZAC Day twitter gaffe in which he let slip the Christian lobby's utter contempt for muslims, and gays, and really anything that's changed in the last 95 years since Jim's old dad was a wee lad.

And THAT is the real reason why activist Christians are adamant the kiddies must be indoctrinated into their ways: The Christian lobbyists HATE CHANGE and want to ensure their own personalities are preserved in perpetuity, by promulgating their pathetic little prejudices & pecadilloes to the poor little primary people.

Nothing at all to do with Western culture being "utterly indecipherable" if you don't praise God in primary school as you LAUGHABLY suggest, Shockadelic.

If anyone reading Chrys Stevenson's last comment is wondering why a professional teacher was required to supervise a volunteer SRE teacher, this quote from the president of the Queensland Teachers Union explains:

"Queensland Teachers Union president Steve Ryan said teachers were sometimes compelled to supervise the instructors "because of all the fire and brimstone stuff".
Mr Ryan said Education Queensland had deemed RI a must-have, though teachers would prefer to spend the time on curriculum."

Source: http://www.news.com.au/national/creationists-hijack-lessons-and-teach-schoolkids-man-and-dinosaurs-walked-together/story-e6frfkvr-1225899497234#ixzz1LTWRSedd

http://www.news.com.au/national/creationists-hijack-lessons-and-teach-schoolkids-man-and-dinosaurs-walked-together/story-e6frfkvr-1225899497234

I guess as unbelievers we need to understand that these Christians are not opposing us in person it is just that they believe we represent SATAN the devil himself and the hordes of evil demons hell bent on the destruction of civilization as they know it.

it is not sufficient for them to actually believe their holy book that the simple power of prayer is enough to defeat us they need to take on our demonic horde in every debate and forum.

To me this shows (A) that they really do not believe their bible and (B) that believing in totally imaginary beings and ancient superstitions is dangerous in the extreme.

People who are closet creationists, those who are anti science, those who are willing to terrify young children with threats to gain their compliance, those who are willing to openly lie to spread their beliefs have no place in our schools.

Somewhere someone told me I was unreasonable and did not acknowledge the role of the church in creating our modern free and open democratic society.

I wonder if they have studied any history at all, Religion has had a far greater role in repression of new ideas and freedoms, in punishing those who disrupted the established order of the world as they knew it.

For centuries religions and feudal Monarchies ruled with the fear of torture in this world and hell in the next for anyone who spoke out and asked for change or freedom.

We are still seeing priests and ministers vilified for offering a different opinion on controversial issues. To say organized religion is a force for freedom, openness and the rights of individuals is just laughable, or it would be laughable if it was not so sad.

To all those theists who read this, IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF PRAYER AND THE WORDS OF YOUR BIBLE DO NOT REPLY, PRAY FOR MY SOUL AND
ONCE I SEE THE ERROR OF MY WAYS I WILL PUBLISH A RETRACTION.

You all powerful God will command me to and I will be powerless to disobey.

Actually, I just remembered something.

As a child, I once had occasion to be installed in a Christian mission for several moths (long story)...and was fairly well dipped like a sheep into Christian proselytising - and I remember that they had mini comic books extolling the virtues of following the Christian religion.

The "only" detail I can remember of these books is one page depicting the fires of hell and an unbeliever's accompanying anguish - most disturbing for a child to see a drawn depiction like that - and I can't remember anything else about the message in these books except the hellfire. It's my abiding image.

Poirot
Your experience is not an isolated case.

Some teachings have very little to do with ethics, values, love or humanity and focus on sin, hate and revenge. I remember watching a documentary set in an evangelical youth camp in the US and the kids were subjected to nothing more than immense cruelty and humiliation around natural sin to the point where students were pushed to tears. It was nothing more than abuse. It is the negativity of SOME who practice religion and pushed by SOME of those involved in Chaplaincy and SRI, many often without any real qualification that is of real concern.

There appears to be little screening and while not all who teach RI are of this ilk, many being more secular and ethical in their approach, the problem lies with power. As soon as you give any group too much power and unaccountable authority there is room for abuse.

This is the only reason I oppose any dogma or agenda being pushed in schools. (Excluding natural open discussion and debate within the curriculum)

Shockadelic
"What do you do in Atheist class? Sit quietly and not believe stuff?"

I am not advocating Atheist classes? According to the author of this article there is an assumption that those who do not share the Christian religon are 'militants' and atheists are baying at the door with armoured vehicles ready to ban and criminalise religion.

They are not. They are reasonably asking that religion be for the home and that schools not be exploited as recruitment for any manner of dogma whether it be Marxism or Chritianity or Islam. What ever happened to parents taking responsibility for the ethical development of their children. Ethics can be reinforced in schools via behavioural expectations and by modelling respectful behaviours but not served up as a dish.

Like Christians, Athiests are not a homogenous group, the only commonality being a disbelief in the supernatural without evidence. This is not the same as not having values, moral codes and an ability to show love and compassion. Religion does not always enhance morality or compassion in the way that you seem to think it does, look at the discrimination against gays. It always comes down to individual choices about how to treat people, religion has not changed that simple fact.

Atheists as a group certainly have not idolised false gods nor have they burnt people at the stake who disagree with their worldview - these are not values that people in the main would subject another human being other than via indoctrination. It is the same indoctrination that led to the persecution of Jews under Hitler's Germany, the persecution of Christians in the Middle East etc. This does not mean Atheists aren't flawed but no more flawed than those who choose a supernatural belief.

Now we know Christianity has evolved from some of those more barbaric practices, despite some of the remnant language in the Bible, so lets keep evolving and move away from State sanctioned indoctrination within schools. It is more than just about Opt In or Opt Out.

It is about cultural maturity and growing up.

I'm wondering how many of the christains taking part in this debate keeping in mind the bible's teaching about letting your yes be yes and no be no (in the plainest sense of that) can say that they really believe that most of the christian adults involved in RE do so primarily because of the importance of the cultural heritage aspect rather than the outreach/evangelism aspects.

How many think that they could stand before christ and say that when they thought of RE in schools that cultural heritage was an important issue and that they didn't think evangalism was a big part of what it was about?

R0bert

As all 6 of my children attend a State school and we are Bible believing people, perhaps I should have been upset when teachers taught about the dream time and evolution - all of which are only theories (yes people, evolution is only a theory, so too is the Big Bang - falsely taught as fact - do your science before you try to tell me off as you will see that there is actually no evidence so far to prove either - only theories which change with each generation of scientists including Darwin who himself said that if you cannot find a missing link then my theory is null and void). Perhaps you would like no Bible teaching at school but I and many other Aussies do, hence the 'discussion' - which some of you can't handle by the looks of all your criticisms. Whether YOU believe it or not is irrelevant, It is an alternative that has been taught for thousands of years. The evidence of Jesus Christ's existence is undeniable, He was recorded in many ancient documents and acknowledged by ancient civilizations; you think you're smarter and want to say he didn't, then your foolishness speaks for itself.Archeologists vouch for the Bibles authenticity; Did you know that Noah's ark is found on Mt.Ararat exactly where the Bible said?
Be values universal or of the Bible, who is going to teach them to children if their parents don't? we all know there are negligent parents out there.Do they have to be caught stealing before they evolve in their realization? Is 'not knowing' about something an argument that will win in court?
Only a fool thinks that the teachers teach fire and brimstone,that is not even 1% of whats taught.If you only have bad memories then I would suggest you didn't listen. The virtues that are taught stay with people their whole lives, even non-believers. If Maths, English and Science are the most important things to teach kids then why do we have depression, suicide, Murder? The key lies in teaching the heart - teachers don't teach that.

Oh Rebecca,

the level of your ignorance and misunderstanding is very sad.

Theory, in science, means "the best possible understanding we have of how things are, based on evidence and many attempts to show the understanding to be incorrect or not a unique fit to the facts". It does not mean "a sort of guess".

Evolution itself is just an observable fact. Populations of life forms change over time. The theory you are referring to is the theory of evolution by natural selection. We have shown, over thousands of years, that the form of animals and plants can be changed by artificial selection, by humans choosing the best seeds or the best mating pairs in domesticated animals and plants. The theory of natural selection proposes that nature also does such selecting by the circumstances of life, death and procreation in the wild. Huge amounts of evidence have been collected and studied that show the theory is correct.

The reason this apparent derail is important is that religious indoctrination teachers tend to hold dogmas, as you do, against the scientific facts because of various metaphorical stories in ancient texts. Those texts, such as the Bible and Koran, were written by people who were ignorant by todays standards and what they wrote in this respect would not be considered valid by anyone who was not defending a very outdated dogma. Fortunately most churches have accepted this and moved on, but the RI teachers from Catch the Fire Ministries, as just one example, are very narrow dogmatists.

Children that are instructed in such dogma have a difficult time with science education, because they must prevent themselves from following the logic of the scientific method, in order to avoid mentally disagreeing with the dogma they have been indoctrinated into.

Using the school's authority to push this on students, and making the students fear contradicting the dogmas presented via these classes, is very bad for them and for the society that they will eventually be contributors to.

Now, Rebecca, as to your other comments. Christianity is one of a great many belief systems. As with the other religions christianity contains factual statements about the nature of the world that are simply wrong and it also contains instructions about behaviour known as morals. The morals bound up in christianity (and its countless variations) are simply not universally agreed by all parents, nor are those of buddhism, islam, taoism, and so on.

The process of working out what is right or wrong is known as ethics. The skill of ethical thought does not involve being given rules and proving them to be true no matter what. Instead ethics is about seeing how what you do effects your future, and other people, and deciding principles based on deep thinking about how to achieve the best for everyone concerned and to minimise harms from your own actions.

The dogmatic religious groups behind much religious instruction in schools hate ethics because it does not automatically agree with their deeply held moral opinions, and can lead to students developing other ideas. So, here is the question, why should we accept religious instruction in one narrow brand of religion rather than helping students to guide themselves and develop their own wisdom?

Oh dear Rebecca you know telling lies for Jesus makes him cry.

No ark ship vessel or any evidence of such has ever been found on any mountain anywhere in the world. Regardless of repeated claims it is just not true.

If you can point me to a published thesis that has been reviewed and tested that support this THEORY then please post it here for out edification.

Unless sound science based evidence is produced to support your theory then it is even less valid than the big bang or evolution.

Regarding the teaching of evolution no decent science teacher would ever teach a theory as a fact. One of the basics of science is to properly explain what a theory is and how it can never be proved only ever disproved.

For over 150 years many have tried to disprove evolution as a theory and all have failed in every attempt, it remains the best explanation for how life developed on earth. the same for the Big Bang it is the best and most supported theory we have available.

If you are ignorant of these FACTS please take the effort to educate yourself before posting and displaying your ignorance here.

If any teacher is teaching Big Bang theory or the theory of evolution as a fact then please publish the evidence supporting your claim and we will back you 100% to get that changed to the correct wording.

If you have no facts to back your claims then please have the decency to do the right thing and admit you were wrong and apologize for spreading disinformation on a public forum.

cheers doug

Rebecca6,

welcome to OLO. I also have six kids, four so far currently going through the state education system.

I think most of us acknowledge the historical Jesus, but we have a hard time believing he was the son of God. Indeed Jesus makes no such claim himself, except on one dubious occasion in the Markan trial scene, where Mark has his own agenda. Jesus doesn't claim to be the Messiah either, except on two occasions, both historically dubious. Indeed the term Messiah was conceived more as a human rather than a divine figure, the dominant sense being Israel's political redeemer, along with some vague allusions to spiritual redemption. Curiously the, all the Gospels are disposed to incriminate the Jews and exculpate the Romans. Such textual revisionism surely bespeaks a degree of poetic cum political licence in the Holy book? The assumption supported by the fact that the Gospels are all decidedly post factum. And of course you know that translation effectively means cultural transmutation? and that historicism renders ancient texts obsolete in any case?
Since Jesus' divinity is not established, and that we've never seen the like, we are also sceptical that Jesus was exempt from the customary laws of physics and human mortality. Do you have any evidence to support these extraordinary phenomena?

We did know that the Ark has allegedly been pinpointed in various locations, but that there is no compelling evidence.
Did you know that thousands of dinosaur fossils, hundreds of millions of years old have been found and validated?
I'm sorry, but the utter paucity of evidence on your side and the overwhelming and uncontravertable evidence, including of evolution, on our side, points to the fact that humans are not the centre of the universe, bummer!
I would therefore rather my six children were taught religion as part of the rich history of human folly, but also as part of the grand history of human maturation and striving to understand.
I understand your wishful thinking (which should make you sceptical), but it doesn't make it so.
Much sounder ethics are available from other human sources.

Dug,
I think "evolution" has moved a bit beyond theory now, but, be that as it may, a pretty fair posting. The best I've seen of yours I think. Pity you have to bash Christians so much. You've proven yourself to be a pretty clear thinker, quite capable of reasoned, considered argument. In view of this, I think your expressed views of Christianity are somewhat out of character. Whereas there are those out there who are indeed, in my humble opinion, "beyond the pale", there are also many, many moderate, humble Christians who hold no ill-will toward any man, and who are just intent on leading the best lives they can, and without interfering in the lives of others, irrespective of belief. As with other belief systems, we're not all tarred with the same brush.

This is the longest, and perhaps most controversial thread I've encountered so far. In view of the broad range of opposing views expressed I have come to a conclusion that religion should Not indeed be taught in schools. "Pelican" and "Dan Dare" have offered reasoned arguments for religious studies as such to be a matter for families, outside school, and that schools should only provide some instruction, by appropriately qualified professional teachers, in ethics and introductory, comparative, studies of religion generally - just so students are aware of the many and varied belief systems out there, and their origins. I'm sure an appropriate course curriculum could be developed, with goodwill on all sides. With a sound foundation I feel students will have the best opportunity to develop their own views on what is now a rather vexed, though important area of our global society. At what age, and over what time-frame, I leave to those with appropriate expertise to determine.

As in all things, I certainly hope goodwill may prevail, through appropriate compromise for the common good.

There is virtually no support for a historical Jesus outside the 4 canonical gospels - just scant reference to his followers or him in a few extra-biblical texts (Josephus and Tacitus). Some of Josephus's writings referring to Jesus are considered by a majority of scholars to have been later additions.

It is conceivable the stories are a compilations of characters given the popularity of the name Jesus in that messianic age (Josephus refers to at least one other).

Salty ;-) You do actually make me laugh with your comments, let me assure you any christian bashing I do is purely verbal and in the spirit of a healthy discussion between adults who can choose to participate.

No where near the almost ritualistic punishments I and my school friends were forced to endure at the hands of "Good Christian" teachers. Beatings were a regular occurrence as were other punishments for any child who dared hold an opinion that was not church doctrine.

Any minor infraction was punished, failure was not tolerated ( being disabled this made me a particular target for their abuse)

So pardon me if my language occasionally offends your sensitivities, perhaps I am looking at this from a different viewpoint to you.

My view comes from that of an abused christian who regularly prayed to a person who he was told was a loving and caring God/ Jesus to either make him able to do what was required to stop the abuse or if that was not possible to make my teachers realize I was trying as hard as I could and to stop beating me.

6 years later when I was expelled from school for not being able to cope with my lessons my prayers still had not been answered.

45 years after the beatings finished I still have pain in my hands form them and I still have the scars physical and emotional from the abuse.

Care to explain just why you think your god allowed this to happen to me, especially when I was praying to him every night ?

( oh and before you tell me God never gives us more than we can bear, explain my 2 school friends, the one who left school and went into an asylum for most of his life and they other one who committed suicide because she could no longer stand the bullying) All in the name of your god and we used to pray together because your bible told us that if 2 or 3 gather together and pray their prayers would be answered.

McReal,

I never read all the contributions above and was not intending to contradict you. Since, however, Tacitus was a scrupulous historian, and that his references to Jesus are more in the nature of asides than focal points, I'm inclined to think there was an historical Jesus--though I'm not an expert and would gladly defer contrary evidence. However the crucial point is surely that Jesus as the son of God, or in any way extra-mundane, is biblical fundamentalism.

"Evolution itself is just an observable fact" And you have observed mankind become what exactly?
Here's a 99.9% theory for you..
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/
Only 4 weeks ago miss grade 11 told me of her discussion with her ancient History teacher in regards to the age of the world and how it came about.a Big Bang - I need no more evidence of it being taught in school than my own children and their assignments. I take my kids to museums,we love science and of course dinosaurs exist!I love the questions,the fossils and the brilliant scientists who's curiosity is to be applauded. Creationism is widely held by different cultures with or without the Bible and should be an alternative presented. Sorry if you are offended by my lack of evidence, but I see the whole world as being evidence of Intelligent design, it ticks all the boxes, you need your piece of paper, i need only my eyes.
"Oh dear Rebecca you know telling lies for Jesus makes him cry"", this is your retort? :-(
If you want a Scientific debate http://creation.com/creation-answers
When I considered evolution it took more faith to believe that then to have a creator. As for RE, this thread -the ten commandments mixed with love thy neighbor are timeless and should be taught.(Dug, we pulled our children out of a Private Christian school(not Catholic) because of abuse and judgement, then a teacher in a state school physically abused my son for not doing homework - she was stood down. I am sorry that they got away with it with you, some people are just awful regardless of what banner they fly.
only two references to Christ in ancient texts? http://www.lifeofchrist.com/history/historians/default.asp
think not.
freedom to believe what you want is the only way to go. Being presented with more than one side (including other beliefs) perhaps should be left til high school when argumentative teens can determine for themselves. I conclude that RE should be at home but values, morals and ethics - closely related should be taught to our young people, these are the socio-economics of our Australia.

@Rebecca "Creationism is widely held by different cultures with or without the Bible and should be an alternative presented."

Oh Rebecca, what nonsense is that? Are we to infer that you want, for example, the Aboriginal creation account of the Dreamtime to be taught to the kiddies as FACT? As if you do!! haha.

Ah, but of course you really only mean YOUR particular creation myth ought to be taught, don't you? You know, the one that ISN'T "widely held by different cultures with or without the Bible", as you tried to imply.

--

@Rebecca "the ten commandments mixed with love thy neighbor are timeless and should be taught"

Timeless? Seriously? Let's see...

1. "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

I don't remember being brought out of a house of bondage in Egpyt, do you Rebecca?

2. "I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me."

Oh yes, definitely want the primary kids fearing God 'coz he kicks ass if you don't fawn all over him.

umm...
10. "You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey."

Yes slaves and oxen are hard not to covet aren't they, Rebecca?

Lucky for us God forsaw all the issues we'd still be having 2000 years later, so that he could make his little rules so "timeless", as you say.

@Rebecca "I see the whole world as being evidence of Intelligent design, it ticks all the boxes"

Which box did Smallpox tick for you, out of interest?

Hmm, Jimmy Jones..lol.the Aboriginal dream time is already taught to my children in a state primary school, not as a fact but a belief held by the Aboriginal people so too the rainbow Serpent - to keep their traditions alive - I have no problem with that.get up with the times.
And are you suggesting that God created smallpox - is this where you ditch your science to blame God for everything? Variola Virus spread through human contact, lucky for us the brilliance of mankind fixed it.
And seriously you are so off topic - Buddhists, Purana Hindus, Sikhs, Jainism, Ancient Egyptions, Aztecs etc all believed in some sort of creation be it by one God, many Gods or Animals/Monsters. I said, creation should be an alternative taught, you accused me of 'my'version, no, creation in general.
As to the commandments, do not kill (later described by Jesus as even hating) do not commit adultery - including lust; do not steal; do not bear false witness/lie; and do not covet - or greedily desire what another has(btw 'Slave' means employee/worker and 'ox' means possessions)...These things are worth teaching. You totally missed the point, our socio-economics are made up of respect for all regardless of sex, age, skin; the 'love thy neighbor' is our mateship and is dwindling in our society. Ask a lawyer where our legal system originated.
Also, come on...by saying creation ticks all the boxes you go straight to disease.. really? It ticks all the boxes cause i can marvel at the universe and not have to ask - why and where but simply say thankyou. I don't need to ask the unanswerable - where did I come from and why am I here. Very thankful for science and very thankful for the Bible, just love archeological documents. Just don't think we should throw away something that has been a part of our nation since it's beginning. I will not go away just because you criticize me.

Rebecca6,

If one believes that God is the "creator"- then it is reasonable to assume that they would believe that God also created bacteria and viruses.

It's not about "blaming God"- it's about accepting that humankind is only one of myriad lifeforms which compete for existence on this planet - including the Variola Virus.

As far as biological success goes, there is debate over whether it's more useful for a species to be smart or stupid.

Poirot:” As far as biological success goes, there is debate over whether it's more useful for a species to be smart or stupid.”

I can picture the teams - it would be a very short debate.

Last Minister I talked to was quite happy in their decision that God created the Big Bang. I think it’s the trademark of a successful religion being nice and flexible like that. It is a shame no Holy books warned us about bacteria a little earlier and why couldn’t the gods leave some kind of inventory list for us to check through every few years.

Trimmatom nanus CHECK!
Xanthorrhoeoideae CHECK!
Anthracite CHECK!
Cumulonimbus CHECK!
Prokaryote CHECK!
Imbecile CHECK!

Becca:” I will not go away just because you criticize me.”

OLO would be very empty if criticism sent everyone off tripping over their bottom lip.

R0bert that was really interesting, were you asking if the Christians will admit that this instruction in schools comes with the main intention of converting children to their particular faith? That’s not difficult for them to own though is it since it is done with the children’s best interests at heart – saving them from hell or purgatory and all that?

Re Tacitus on Jesus, Christ, and "Chrestians",

What Tacticus wrote is frequently qualified with "the information could have been derived from Christian material circulating in the early 2nd century." http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

R. T. France concludes that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he has heard through Christians. Charles Guignebert argued "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Tacitus

Dug,

Sorry about you early life experience, and sorry for my sometimes insensitive comments. No-one should ever have to go through what you have. I can now appreciate how reserved your comments have been, given the circumstances. Good on you for hanging in there. You deserve much, much better.

Children of the world, how can we best serve them all? It's a pretty big ask. So many different stories out there, so many situations, so many aspirations. It is a difficult time in which we live. We probably wish we could all do more, but have our own lives, problems, concerns. Somebody, some voice. There are so many "Egypt's" now, a global "exodus" in our time.

Oz is perhaps the clearest thinking nation, free, democratic, relatively good education system, healthy, progressive, sound economy, sound values. Our troubles are small in the global context, yet we seem impotent, transfixed, clinging to an unsustainable equilibrium. Give our kids the best possible education? Yes. With values, but free from competing overlays" Yes. "Faith", belief, descriptive of so many explanations of the ascent of human-kind, and providing hope. The future of human-kind? Is this in our hands? Are we at a crossroads? To embrace "humanity", to bury differences, to accept an inevitable blurring of origins, of culture, of "self"?

I am so weak, I can't decide without consensus. I am after all constrained by my imperfections and innate desire to support my "tribe". How can I expect more, and better, of others?

Dear Rebecca,

science is based on observing things and testing things. For example you can observe what happens if you stand up, hold a spoon out and let go. I predict that the spoon will move rapidly toward the ground and hit it. I don't need any faith to make that prediction and neither do you to test my prediction.

We have observed and documented, in real life, populations of things such as cows and wheat changing from one generation to the next. With shorter lived things like microbes, flies and lizards we have seen and recorded the development of novel abilities and the split into separate species. No more faith is required to accept the fact of evolution than to accept that things fall toward the ground.

Observing, recording, predicting and testing is a process called science. Science is not faith based, it is based on critical thinking and skepticism.

As for the "discovery" of Noah's ark, I'm sorry Rebecca but many people have discovered various Noah's arks and none of them are actually any such thing. The most recent one, the one you linked an article to, is about the discovery of a vaguely boat shaped formation of rocks with a not too old goat herders hovel at one end. The "discoverers" made a big deal about there being straw in the "cabin". Do you have any idea what 3 to 4 thousand year old straw should look like? The straw in the photos was less than a year old. And unless the ark was made out of granite the "discovery" is not the hull of the fabled ship.

Returning to science again, a global flood of the magnitude described in the bible, would leave a visible layer in the rock strata world wide with pretty specific properties. There is no such layer. Never mind the fact that there is not enough water on or in the Earth to flood the entire planet to that level. Again, this is just observable, verifiable fact and not faith.

Your lack of understanding or ability to think these things through is an example of a very poor science education. Your lack of knowledge is taken advantage of by the web sites you linked to. Those sites contain out right lies that can be shown to be false, and the site owners know this. I would hope that you wished more for your children, or at least would have the decency not to wish such poor education onto other people's children.

Dear Rebecca,

With respect, I don't think you see your own inconsistency...

1. "the Aboriginal dream time is already taught ... not as a fact"

But I asked if you had a problem with it being taught as fact, as your Christian creation myth is being taught. You've changed the terms of my question!

So you're ok with your mythology being taught as fact, but other CONTRADICTORY myths should not be. I may be preaching to the choir, since I re-read your post and it seems you agree that RE should be kept out of primary school, but to suggest creationism is "common" to all cultures when in fact you believe all the myths except yours are crap is a bit disingenuous!

2. "And are you suggesting that God created smallpox - is this where you ditch your science to blame God for everything? "

Are you serious? I don't believe in God, so why on Earth do you even suggest I'm blaming a fictitious character for anything at all?? That makes no sense.

It is in fact you who suggested God intelligently designed smallpox. You said all the evidence of the world points to it!

I'm merely enquiring what it was about Smallpox that led you to the conclusion that God intelligently designed it? That's all. If you don't want to answer that difficult question, I completely understand why. ;-)

@Rebecca, cont'd...

3. "'Slave' means employee/worker and 'ox' means possessions"

Funny, I thought "slave" meant "slave" and "ox" meant "ox". Go figure!

Ah, but I see! When you said the 10 commandments were "timeless", you actually meant "timeless" in the sense that they need to ne constantly updated and re-written by people such as you in order not to go out of date.

That sort of "timeless", huh?

4. "You totally missed the point, our socio-economics are made up of respect for all regardless of sex, age, skin"

Ours, ideally, sure.

But I think you've missed the point of your Bible, Rebecca... If you'd have read it, you would know that it teaches that women are worth less than men, slavery is condoned, gays and fortune-tellers are to be killed, and non-believers smited. And the list goes on... do you want more counter-examples?

In fact, women are expressly forbidden from teaching, and are instructed not to hold any authority over men, so I don't know what you think you're even doing here offering your apparently worthless woman's opinion on any of these matters to a superior man such as myself!

You may, of course, CLAIM that your Bible teaches "respect for all" until you're blue in the face, but simply stating blatant falsehoods doesn't make them true, Rebecca!

5. "Ask a lawyer where our legal system originated."

I just did, and he told me that despite Christians trying to retro-fit their commandments into the development of our legal system, legal historians actually agree that the greatest influence on modern legal systems was Greek and Roman, and not biblical.

6. "get up with the times."

By Odin's beard, the irony is delicious!!

Being told to "get with the times" by a woman who thinks some ancient "best-guess" that mankind was created from dirt and a rib using magic is MORE accurate than facts revealed by nearly 3000 subsequent years of rigorous, unbiased scientific investigation into these questions!!

Good one, Rebecca!! You nearly made my head explode! haha.

Rebecca Many many believe they have seen Alien Spaceships (UFOs ) many people believe they have met aliens and been kidnapped by them.

if you ask them they are 100% sure of what they have seen and experienced.

Does that mean that aliens and UFOs are real ?

Unless and untill they provide some credible form of proof their beliefs are not scientifically valid are they ?

Same with your Ark argument the person who was looking for an ark and found something he believes 99.9% is an ark does not make it a fact does it ?

Not untill he can provide some decent science based proof.

Most people believe Pharos ruled Egypt and that they built Pyramids and they have an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence.

Some people believe aliens in spaceships built the Pyramids but they can produce no evidence at all.

What theory should we believe ? The one that has supporting evidence or the one with no evidence ?

As for seeing and believing in creationism I see the same things as you I see the natural wonders of the earth and universe. I see evolution and physics at work.

I have scientific evidence to support my visions and beliefs. I am sorry but creationism fails to produce any evidence of any supernatural supreme being other than faith and belief.

If you can produce the same massive weight of science based evidence to support creationism then please post it and we will review it.

I have studied for some 30 years now and I cannot find any convincing arguments .

Thanks, Rebecca, for mentioning the creation.com site. It's a good one for combatting false ideas, such as evolution being somehow demonstrated and beyond questioining.

Dan Dare,
Observing, recording, predicting and testing help make the process we call science. What we observe is that things like microbes, flies and lizards always remain things like microbes, flies and lizards. We don't observe them evolving into anything else. Record it, predict it, and test it as much as you like, but you'll always end up with microbes, flies and lizards.    

--

RI, which includes the gospel teachings, is currently in schools as a reflection of our spritual heritage and part of our cultural history, which many see as valuable for our society going forward.

It could be compared with other intrusions into the standard curriculum, such as Anzac Day memorials and AFL football clinics, which are also valued by many.

When the author describes the atheists as militant, that is rather emotional language. Yet in their fervent determination to expel from our institutions what they see as the foreign invaders, some atheists demonstrate their passion for their preferred creed; just as Joshua who cleared out the enemy from the promised land, or cleansed the temple of its foreign idols and gods. 

   

Welcome, Dan S de Merengue.

Rebecca6 was beginning to run out of puff, what with all those devotees to the cult of reality closing in.

>>...the creation.com site. It's a good one for combatting false ideas, such as evolution<<

The problem is that - even ignoring for a moment its stance against science - it contains a whole load of "false ideas" itself.

Here's one:

"If there is no Creator-God who rules over us, then there is no ultimate basis for morality, meaning or purpose"

Taken out of context, it is just possible to see that the invention of a form of father-figure, complete with the power of judgment, punishment and indeed forgiveness (all highly admirable traits) would be one way in which to instil morality. A short-cut, in fact. Much like Rebecca6's confession earlier that... "when I considered evolution it took more faith to believe that then [sic] to have a creator"

Receptus ignavorum. The coward's retreat. The easy way out. I can't be bothered to exercise my mind any longer, so I'll believe that it all just happened the way the Bible tells me. End of discussion, end of curiosity.

To suggest, though, that this is the sole means to arrive at a code of civilized conduct that respects other people, is little more than arrogance. Unless, of course, you have already taken the decision to opt out of thinking, in which case it completes a nicely circular argument: I believe, therefore I believe. No need to think any further.

The other two legs of the argument, that the "Creator-God" provides meaning and purpose, are equally dubious. Mainly because of the assumption - again, a somewhat arrogant one - that there has to be some form of meaning and purpose in order for us to exist in the first place.

So the invention of such a purpose allows the position to be completely circular: only those who believe that there needs to be a meaning or a purpose, find it necessary to have one.

Which is mighty convenient for those peddling religion, but doesn't prove a thing.

@ Pericles,

Better yet, here's a video of a Christian being handcuffed and taken off for re-education -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FruQO8qaw9c (skip to 1:30 for the action)

The High Court in Britain also recently banned Christians from being foster parents -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361469/Christian-beliefs-DO-lose-gay-rights-Judges-ruling-devout-foster-couple-lose-case.html

Yet another persecuted Christian, this time about the cross -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7552145/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-hits-out-at-cross-ban.html

And in Canada, a street pastor get thrown in the clink -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ojDRStCCj4

This is becoming commonplace with no signs of it slowing down.

Just because persecution stories aren't on Today Tonight, ACA or Sunrise doesn't mean it's not happening :

Oh Pericles, run out of puff I did not, I realized that arguing with a fool will only lead to foolish arguments.
The Bible clearly States "men and women were created in Gods image and are equal in God's eyes" and a women is only to obey her husband not to " a superior man such as Jimmy Jones", I should not have expected more from you, in that I was wrong.
"Starting Law' by J.F.Corkery page 41 'English Law governed all the Colonies of Australia'. English law is made up of the Irish Brehon Laws and the Roman laws - the Roman laws were influenced by the Greek law and the Israel Laws..try taking the Bible out of that...Ignorance? I simply gave up combating your 'know it all' attitude.
If you were presented with every bit of evidence you'd still not believe and still hang Christ on a cross because you are simply smarter than the rest of us and know better. You will be confronted with your own futility one day and when that day comes, God will be there waiting to love you.
Criticize me as you will but you are not exempt from human condition, argue it til you feel strong and victorious, continue to breath and you will need help at some stage of your life. When you realize how very small you are like Christians do, your piece of paper won't matter.
I chose to not entertain your folly any longer. This thread is about RE, but you only take on a 'worthless woman' like me because it empowers you. Very very sad for you. I am sure your come back will involve a lot of petite comments toward me but You simply show your own ignorance. Go to Bible College before you take on the Bible,I chose small words because you obviously thrive on philosophy,but do not understand outside your own opinion, this tends to never solve a thing.
RE not RI is important, people in other countries die trying to get it under ground and here you are trying to remove it.

So, if you wanna persecute, that's OK but atleast be honest about it because when Mc Real says things like "Secularism allows for equal space for all belief systems" - he just looks a little silly :)

Peace out,

The Gangster of Truth

@rebecca,

I'm sorry if you misunderstood my sad attempt at sarcasm, but I don't actually believe women are worthless; I was merely parroting what YOUR Bible teaches.

As for your claim that the bible says "men and women are equals", I couldn't find the passage you refer to. Could you provide the reference for me?

In my search, however, I did stumble across this piece of advice from your god...

"The LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the LORD by giving the equivalent value, set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, ... for a female, set her value at thirty shekels"

So there you go... a woman's worth is about HALF that of a man. (according to your religion, NOT to me, mind!)

Of course there are innumerable other examples I could cite from the bible about how to deal with disobedient wives, or slutty daughters, but I get the feeling you would simply ignore them as if they didn't exist.

Are you sure you've actually read your own holy scripture?? Because you sound horribly misinformed about their contents to me.

Oh, and Rebecca... "a women is only to obey her husband"

And you think that embodies equality, do you? Oh dear.

I hope you've got your husband's permission to post on this forum, because you KNOW what the bible says the punishment for disobedient wives is, don't you??

Unbeleivable that those still hanging on to the big bang theory still claim they have no faith. So irrational! Speak of the lenghts god haters will go to deny the obvious.

What is all this trouble with the big bang theory.
Scientists know exactly how it happened.
It was caused by an alien by the name of Ted (translated into English)
who foolishly flew his spaceship into a black hole?
Sounds ridiculous - it is but it is just as ridiculous as your imaginary friend creating everything.
Your imaginary who can be as awesome as you wish,
but can do no more than your imagination is capable of.
In the last say 6,000 years since man's ability to worship there has never been one demonstrated example of his existence.
Please do not start quoting from your bible it is a book of fiction.

Ponde, it's ridiculous to say the universe has always existed when you don't have proof. Especially when you know that, logically, a thing needs to have a beginning. But each to their own.

At the end of the day it's a choice, it's not about evidence or proof. Either you choose faith in God or you choose to live free from God. They will never be proof to make this decision for you. Atheists seem to have hope that scientists will come up with some answers before it's too late - but sadly, that will never happen.

TruthNow,
“a thing needs to have a beginning”
If everything had a beginning then when did your creator begin?
If your creator had a beginning then the universe had a beginning and vice versa.
Yes it is a choice a choice between blind faith and logic.
I have faith in the flying spaghetti monster (all praise the FSM) it does not mean he exists.
With blind faith you will be happy with “God creates rainbows” instead of making scientific investigations into the real cause of rainbows.
And that would either have left us in the Dark ages or drive us back into the dark ages.
It was only when man told the church it was wrong did we ever leave the Dark ages.
You might be happy dying from an infected broken arm but I would put my trust in antibiotics any day.

Ponde, science may cure an infected arm but it won't stop us dying eventually.

"Yes it is a choice a choice between blind faith and logic"

But it's more logical to have a creator than to say it's always been there. So, it's really a choice between a logic-based faith and a secular nothingness.

Obviously, a creator doesn't need a beginning because it's in the spiritual realm and not subject to natural laws, etc. (this is where the faith comes in), whereas Earth is the material that logically must have a beginning.

Appreciate the response, TRUTHNOW78. But it doesn't make particularly impressive reading.

>>...here's a video of a Christian being handcuffed and taken off for re-education<<

He was arrested for an offence similar to "breaching the peace", by haranguing some folk waiting for a government office to open. Quite right too, that the law should wheel him away and give him a talking-to about common politeness.

Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks this way:

http://mayheincrease.com/2011/05/thoughts-on-the-arrest-of-calvary-chapel-hemet-pastors/

>>The High Court in Britain also recently banned Christians from being foster parents<<

Not because they were Christians, though. Did you read the judgment?

"It was ruled that there was no discrimination against them as Christians but that their views on sexual morality may be inimical to children."

Moving right along.

>>Yet another persecuted Christian, this time about the cross<<

Nothing to do with her Christianity. It was a health-and-safety issue, applicable to anything dangling from a nurse's neck. The fact that it was a cross was irrelevant to the ban.

>>And in Canada, a street pastor get thrown in the clink<<

C'mon, you can't be serious? This man isn't a Christian, he's just a one-man "lookit-me" agitator. His "church" has been de-registered, and his sole objective has been to make trouble, and get himself noticed.

http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2010/01/25/calgary-church-loses-charitable-status-kings-glory-fellowship/

I seem to recall you stating:

>>In secular countries like England, the US, and Canada, Christians are already being persecuted for their beliefs (including fines and prison)<<

The sum total of "persecutions" you could find between 2007 and now?

Four.

Fines? None at all for being Christian. $1 for "placing an electrical cord on a sidewalk".

Prison? None at all for being a Christian. But one night in the pokey for Pawlowski... for resisting arrest.

If you call that persecution, TRUTHNOW78, then what word, or words, would you use to describe this?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/kneecapping-of-14yearold-causes-outcry-476312.html

Or for a more scholarly view on kneecapping, try this official report:

http://web.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/reprint/71-B/5/739.pdf

Whose opening lines are:

"For several hundred years, rival factions within the religious communities of Ireland have had their differences..."

Gruesome reading. Puts a couple of street-corner spruikers into perspective, persecution-wise.

@Dan S de Merengue said “What we observe is that things like microbes, flies and lizards always remain things like microbes, flies and lizards. We don't observe them evolving into anything else. Record it, predict it, and test it as much as you like, but you'll always end up with microbes, flies and lizards.”

Sorry Dan, you obviously don't understand simple taxonomy. Our common ancestor with chimpanzees was a small form of ape. Humans and Chimps are still apes. Whatever our species evolve into in the future will still be apes. We have a common ancestor with all mammals. Apes are mammals. All descendants of apes forever onward will also be mammals. Birds are descended from reptiles. They are reptiles. Their descendants will always be reptiles and birds.

If you don't understand science don't pretend that you do by quoting what some dumb twit said on a creationist website. Especially don't expect that silliness to be repeated to students in school as some form of truth. Its not, its rubbish.

Dan Dare "Theory, in science, means "the best possible understanding we have of how things are..."

So, it is not unquestionable, absolute Truth.

Yet we teach our children "best possible understandings" that may be invalid in 5 years time.
Since you can't teach *absolute* truth about anything, perhaps we shouldn't teach children anything.

Spiritual beliefs are also based on people's "best possible understandings".

And unlike science class, history class and art class (all subject to future revision) you can *opt out* of religious instruction.

"science is based on observing things and testing things"

That can be tested.

You cannot "test" how the Universe began (only whether a theory is possible).

You cannot "test" whether Men and apes evolved *from* a commmon ancestor.

Perhaps "God" created multiple lifeforms with a common genetic "blueprint" (like some painters do a "series" of artworks on the same theme).

"We have observed and documented, in real life, populations of things such as cows and wheat changing from one generation to the next"

And crocodiles and nautiluses *not* changing in millions of years.

If change occurs, it seems to be very restricted in the amount of deviation possible.
But maybe "God" designed it that way.

"there is not enough water on or in the Earth to flood the entire planet to that level"

Were the polar icecaps always frozen?
Was the landmass always at the same height it is now?

Dug "no decent science teacher would ever teach a theory as a fact"

Yeah right.
I'm sure the students understand that when the teacher keeps saying "this happened, then that happened", he really means "this is the most *likely* thing that happened".

"it remains the best explanation for how life developed on earth"

How *species* developed.

Not the origin of life, or even *why* there are lifeforms at all (why is there "life"?, rather than just inanimate material forms).

Jimmy Jones, when God invented smallpox it may have caused no illness, as Man was perfect (so the story goes).

@Shockadelic, big Gish Gallop there mate. I'll break it down over several posts.
You said “Dan Dare "Theory, in science, means "the best possible understanding we have of how things are..."

So, it is not unquestionable, absolute Truth.

Yet we teach our children "best possible understandings" that may be invalid in 5 years time.
Since you can't teach *absolute* truth about anything, perhaps we shouldn't teach children anything.”

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The discussion you quote mined has the context of “doesn't theory mean a guess?”. The answer is “no it isn't, it has been worked on to the point we are very confident in it, which is the best possible level of understanding science can reach”. Science does not, cannot deal in absolute truth and neither can you in any way. Nothing we teach in school is absolute truth. If we followed your suggestion we would teach nothing at all.

You also wrote “Spiritual beliefs are also based on people's "best possible understandings"”. No, they are not the best understandings possible for those people, they are just the adoption of points of view that they like.

@Shockadelic you said “And unlike science class, history class and art class (all subject to future revision) you can *opt out* of religious instruction.”

The “opt out” has already been discussed to death. Its an old sales trick that makes more sales then opt in. The desire for opt out is the desire to catch as many children in the spider web as possible.

@Shockadelic you said “"science is based on observing things and testing things"
That can be tested.
You cannot "test" how the Universe began (only whether a theory is possible).
You cannot "test" whether Men and apes evolved *from* a commmon ancestor.”

You can observe the current conditions of the universe. You can find out how it works and test your understanding. You can learn what evidence it leaves as it undergoes change. Given that then you can work out how the early universe was. You can observe life, how it changes and evolves. You can test your understanding of what you have observed. You can find evidence that shows how all these things are related.

You obviously would not accept forensic evidence at a murder trial by uttering some stupid comment like “You weren't there so you can't know that”.

That's a whole lotta wrigglin' there, Shockadelic.

>>Yet we teach our children "best possible understandings" that may be invalid in 5 years time.<<

Not at all. What we know today is far from "invalid", as it forms the foundation upon which we can evaluate new discoveries.

Our children will find out, as we have, the joy of discovering and learning about new things. We look, we find, we research, we ponder. It's all part of the wonder of humanity.

How tragic it must be to deny yourself this excitement, the sheer thrill of living in this world, still looking for elusive answers to impossible questions.

How even more tragic, if you try to deny it to your children.

>>spiritual beliefs are also based on people's "best possible understandings".<<

I beg leave to doubt that. One of the most common themes proffered by those with "spiritual beliefs" is that all that is, is known. Thanks to the convenient concept that "it woz god wot dunnit".

>>You cannot "test" how the Universe began<<

But if you approach the topic with an open mind, you find out some pretty amazing things. About time. About distance. About the sheer volume of galaxies that surround us, and which continue to change their form.

How sad to deny yourself an understanding, however slight, of how it has all grown over billions of years.

How much sadder, to deny it your children.

There is no real problem, to my way of thinking, in telling kids Bible stories. They are after all just stories. So long as they get a balanced view from home, there's not much harm in them.

The idea of religious Counsellors, on the other hand, is plain creepy. As Rebecca6 explains...

>>I have been a youth leader in the last few years and these poor kids are under unbelievable pressure, teachers are too busy to spend an hour listening a child cry<<

A teacher at my son's school was fired for listening to a child cry. Apparently, the rule is to walk away, to avoid being compromised.

And Chaplains are allowed to?

Scary.

@Shockadelic "Jimmy Jones, when God invented smallpox it may have caused no illness, as Man was perfect (so the story goes)."

Fascinating. So you're willing to speculate, as long as any speculation is predicated on the existence of the Christian god and a literal interpretation of an ancient myth.

That's the tail wagging the dog there, matey!

It's apparent you've picked what you personally WANT to be true (i.e. Christianity), and filter everything through the lens of your own desires. Why you WANT Christianity to be true is anyone's guess, but I'll have a go... Did your parents raise you to be Christian by any chance?

At any rate, you're welcome to your myths, legends and the best-guesses of those ancient tribesmen, honest! I wish you luck with it all.

But please don't fool yourself into thinking fairy tales and legends are as useful for understanding the real world as the scientific method is. That would be tragic.

By the way, did you know that Smallpox will be cured if you simply rub yourself with oil and call for the local church elder? Well that's what your stories say, anyway.

I don't know about you, but I think if I fell ill, I'd be relying on scientifically developed medicine rather than some hokey old ritual made up by some ancient witch doctors. (Actually, I lied before... I KNOW you would too, despite your affected disdain for science)

Actually, instead of teaching the kiddies CPR and all that rubbish at primary school, perhaps we should just instruct them in the oiling up ritual described in your stories instead. What do you think? Good idea??

Dan Dare,
You say that I shouldn't be quoting what some dumb twit said. Have a look. The only person I quoted (loosely) was you.

You were adamant that science was about observation. But you follow this with claims that 'birds are descended from reptiles', etc. This may form part of your belief system, but it's not an observation. No one has ever seem a reptile evolve into a bird.

You're entitled to your beliefs, but don't let your particular leanings cloud the line between beliefs and observations.    

Evolution was validated by the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1940s when a few put together the concepts of

*genetics elucidated by Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel
*the role of chromosomes, and
* Darwin's and Wallace's theories of evolution.

The subsequent discover of the nature of DNA and they way it works sealed the concept as fact.

It's all on the 'Net.

That's a bit thin, Dan S de Merengue. Even for you.

>>No one has ever seem a reptile evolve into a bird.<<

No-one has ever seen Jack the Ripper, either.

But Mary Nichols is still dead.

Houellebecq: "PS Beez, it's so 1980s to think you're clever outing 'trolls'. We're all trolls these days. You're the only straight man left. I think you need a shag is all."

Houe, the difference between 80's trolls and you is that they were amusing and/or brought something new to the table. You are very much a 21st century troll - shaking a paint can full of ball bearings because you know noise gets attention, and that is to compensate for lack of wit and depth of observation. But attention is what you crave, and if you lack subtlety and content, raw noise will have to do. You fail on attributes that made your troll ancestors artists by comparison.

@Shockadelic You said “Perhaps "God" created multiple lifeforms with a common genetic "blueprint" (like some painters do a "series" of artworks on the same theme).”

Ok, provide some evidence that leads to that conclusion. Explain the contrary evidence that shows all life on Earth is deeply genetically related. If you can do that then you have formed a hypothesis and work can proceed in producing a theory.

@Shockadelic You said “ (DanDare said)"We have observed and documented, in real life, populations of things such as cows and wheat changing from one generation to the next"
And crocodiles and nautiluses *not* changing in millions of years.”

And so what? Some things change and other things are at the top of their nieche with no pressure to change and no drift that is anything but detrimental. Whoop de doo.

@Shockadelic You said “If change occurs, it seems to be very restricted in the amount of deviation possible.”

No there is enormous deviation. Its all over the map.

@Shockadelic You said “But maybe "God" designed it that way.”
There is no evidence to suggest that, and since your previous statement is just wrong its not likely you will find any.

I said "there is not enough water on or in the Earth to flood the entire planet to that level"

@Shockadelic You said “Were the polar icecaps always frozen?
Was the landmass always at the same height it is now?”

If the antarctic and iceland melt that will raise water level by about 80 meters. Catastrophic but not enough for a global flood. The arctic melting makes no difference to sea level. And over 6,000 years there has been very little change in land mass position or height.

@Dan S de Merengue The “dumb twit from a creationist web site” that you quoted was one of many that carry on with the “kinds” argument. It is not an argument against evolution and you have just regurgitated it without knowing its profoundly stupid.

Also, nice quote mine. Any one reading this conversation will see that I was not “ adamant that science was about observation”. That's a straw man. There is plenty of evidence that reasonably shows that birds are descended from reptiles.

That is not belief, its logical examination of the evidence. On the other hand your attempts to argue are based on belief rather than intellect. I hope readers that were unsure can see now why religious dogma should not be in our schools. It produces dumbed down students.

Dan Dare,
Name calling is not highly intellectual and won't carry you very far.

I never (on this thread) quoted anyone (besides you). And I never spoke about 'kinds'. I think your imagination is getting the better of you.

However, you did talk quite adamantly about observation as important to science. I don't know why you're trying to wriggle out of it now.

"Observing, recording, predicting and testing is a process called science." - Dan Dare, above page 28.

OK cool we have some real genuine Creationists here

can I sideline the argument/discussion and ask:

(1)what happened to the thousands of species of trilobites please ?

They were flourishing in all the oceans of the world and would appear to be perfectly suited to no only surviving a world wide flood but as many of them were scavengers they should have increased in number rather than go extinct. ( Horseshoe crabs are not trilobites as one creationist tried to tell me true trilobites had eye lenses made from calcium carbonate)

(2) if dinosaurs died out in the "great flood" why did "modern" fish and marine mammals survive yet marine dinosaurs did not ( and please not rotting carcass or loch ness monster evidence the seas and oceans have been scoured trawled and studied for hundreds of years and there has not been one solid shred of evidence for surviving species of marine dinosaurs)

(3) how did coral survive "the flood" It spawns once a year, it cannot survive turbidity it needs constant sunlight to survive it cannot survive even small amounts if fresh water ( even slightly brackish water will kill it ) The coral spawn need perfect water and sunlight conditions to survive as well so they would have died. A massive world wide flood would have killed off all the worlds corals. If something supernatural happened to keep coral alive then why did trilobites not survive ?

Again to me it just does not make much sense, please explain it for me so I understand how this can happen.

Thanks Doug

I would seriously like to know how these things are explained as no creationist has ever come up with a decent explanation.

McReal,
Mendel's theories were ignored for decades after publication, possibly as they were thought to be out of step with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Later, when Mendel's work was rediscovered Darwinian evolution suffered a lull, for the two are not consistent.

Admittedly, the 1940s saw Darwinism rise in popularity when attemps were made to modify it to allign with Mendel's findings. Since then, evolution's triumph has wained, or at least has become increasingly controversial.

The problem in essence is that Mendel showed (from his experiments with flowering plants) that characteristcs are inherited from genes supplied by parent plants. Darwin's theory requires the acquisition of new characteristics not present in the parent population.  
 
Pericles,
Cain killed Abel in the field. No one saw him do it but Abel is still dead nevertheless.  And so what? Your point concerning Mary Nichols was not clear to me.
 
Dan Dare,
You might consider that it is reasonable that reptiles evolved into birds. Others may not. My point was that it is not an observation. No one observed any such thing.

Dan Dare "If we followed your suggestion we would teach nothing at all."

That was *my* point!
Have you been following this debate?

The theophobes have turned it into an argument about whether religion is *true* or not, and since its supposed truth cannot be "proven" THEREFORE it should not be taught in schools.
My point is that this argument would apply to ANY subject.

"No, they are not the best understandings possible for those people"

Yes they are. Or they wouldn't believe them.

"The “opt out” has already been discussed to death"

No it's been trivialised, when its the MOST important aspect of the whole debate.

Are you not drowning in enough bureacracy already without having to deliberately "opt-in" to school classes?

Again, this argument could be applied to ANY subject.
Why don't you have to "opt-in" to art, music, history, woodwork, sports?

Maybe there are parents who *don't* want their children in these classes, or students that don't want to attend them.

By *your* logic, ALL classes should be opt-in, otherwise you might be imposing something draconian on non-consenting victims.

"You can observe the current conditions of the universe"

And such observations have led many people to conclude it was created by a God.
Snap!
You are not disproving my statement.

All your tests do is determine the *probability*, not certainty, that any hypothesis is an adequate explanation.

It does not prove the hypothesis *IS* the explanation, and the only explanation.

Pericles "That's a whole lotta wrigglin' there, Shockadelic."

You're the ones wriggling.

1. Wriggling out of "opt in". Nobody has to attend.

2. Wriggling out of multi-faith. Pretending this is all about Christianity.

3. Wriggling out of parental responsibility.
ALL education is really a parental responsibility.
If parents have abdicated this, and transferred it to the state, then there's NO argument against state school instruction in ANY subject.

4. Wriggling out of the fact that NOTHING children are taught can ever be "proved" with 100% certainty.

5. Wriggling out of the lack of choice in other school subjects, which are all compulsory.

6. Wriggling out of the cost of many subjects that are hardly essential, yet no complaints about the cost to the taxpayer for soccer balls and tennis courts, French language instruction materials, pianos and drum kits, cooking utensils and woodwork tools.

7. Wriggling out of the fact that the vast majority of the public are religious (whether you like it or not) and have NO PROBLEM with this class.

"What we know today is far from "invalid", as it forms the foundation upon which we can evaluate new discoveries."

New discoveries that can invalidate what you now teach children.

"How tragic it must be to deny yourself this excitement, the sheer thrill of living in this world, still looking for elusive answers to impossible questions.
How sad to deny yourself an understanding, however slight, of how it has all grown over billions of years."

That post should have come supplied with a vomit bag.

Cut the corny emotional blackmail.
Nobody is being "denied" anything by attending (if they want) an optional class once a week.

"A teacher at my son's school was fired for listening to a child cry"

And that is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
As usual.

@Shockadelic "Jimmy Jones, when God invented smallpox it may have caused no illness, as Man was perfect (so the story goes)."

Jimmy Jones "Fascinating. So you're willing to speculate, as long as any speculation is predicated on the existence of the Christian god and a literal interpretation of an ancient myth."

Did the phrase "I'm not a Christian" not compute?
Christians are not the only people with a Man-was-once-perfect-but-degenerated story.

"But please don't fool yourself into thinking fairy tales and legends are as useful for understanding the real world as the scientific method is. That would be tragic."

Is that a straw man or a red herring?
Nobody is proposing the cessation of science classes.

"I don't know about you, but I think if I fell ill, I'd be relying on scientifically developed medicine"

You mean the ones the superbugs are now resistant to?

"Actually, instead of teaching the kiddies CPR and all that rubbish at primary school, perhaps we should just instruct them in...."

how to "win" debates with pathetic sarcasm?

You still haven't explained how you could comprehend "Joan of Arc" without *any* knowledge of Christianity.

Dan Dare "@Shockadelic You said “Perhaps "God" created multiple lifeforms with a common genetic "blueprint""

"Ok, provide some evidence that leads to that conclusion."

It's the same evidence you use to "prove" evolution.

A series of fossils does not "prove" one evolved from the other.
The fossil record is haphazard.
You may see the "appearance" of a form in a certain "period" only because any prior fossils have not yet been found, or have been destroyed by time and the earth's changes.

"Explain the contrary evidence that shows all life on Earth is deeply genetically related."

Again, that proves the "blueprint" theory.
Common structures would be common, if an Intelligence (a.k.a. "God") was 'working out' his pet project.
He wouldn't start with the completed model, would he?

"@Shockadelic You said “And crocodiles and nautiluses *not* changing in millions of years.”

"And so what? Some things change and other things are at the top of their nieche with no pressure to change"

How could there be "no pressure to change" considering all the Earth changes that have occurred?
In a world where nothing stays the same forever, and one where evolution happens by *random* mutation, *no* animal should still be the same after millions of years. None!

"@Shockadelic You said “If change occurs, it seems to be very restricted in the amount of deviation possible.”

No there is enormous deviation. Its all over the map."

Lifeforms are all over the map.
The deviation *within* related lifeforms is not.
There are no feathered dogs or flying starfish.

"@Shockadelic You said “But maybe "God" designed it that way.”

"There is no evidence to suggest that"

You are not REFUTING anything I've said.
You are just parroting "Standard Response #382".

"If the antarctic and iceland melt that will raise water level by about 80 meters. Catastrophic but not enough for a global flood."

Is the story truly "global"?
To most ancient peoples "the world" was the known region in which they lived.

"And over 6,000 years there has been very little change in land mass position or height."

Did I say 6000 years?

>> "I don't know about you, but I think if I fell ill, I'd be relying on scientifically developed medicine"

You mean the ones the superbugs are now resistant to? <<

Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 12 May 2011 2:03:54 AM

Medicine is more than medicinal drugs, so you can't denigrate the whole [the medical discipline] by attacking a part [medical drugs].

Evolution was validated by the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1940s when a few put together the concepts of

*genetics elucidated by Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel
*the role of chromosomes, and
* Darwin's and Wallace's theories of evolution.

The subsequent discover of the nature of DNA and they way it works sealed the concept as fact.

It's all on the 'Net.

Of course the fossil record is haphazard, particularly for the period before skeletons had developed and evolved. Look how much early European artifacts in Australia have been buried in 200 years.

Just trying to understand your position a little better, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, Cain killed Abel in the field. No one saw him do it but Abel is still dead nevertheless. And so what? Your point concerning Mary Nichols was not clear to me.<<

The statement of yours that I queried was this one:

>>No one has ever seem a reptile evolve into a bird.<<

You seemed to be offering this as evidence that it could not, therefore, have happened. I simply pointed out that the absence of direct evidence of Jack the Ripper's involvement in the death of Mary Nichols did not invalidate the theory that he did, in fact, do the deed.

Your introduction of two fictional characters, Cain and Abel, is an irrelevance. Here's a picture of them, as imagined by a nineteenth-century illustrator.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Cain_and_Abel.jpg

I expect they were differently imagined by Islamic artists.

http://www.simplyislam.com/images/products/54273.jpg

There is no connection between the mythology of these two brothers from a Bible story, and the documentation available from the files of the City of London Police, the Metropolitan Police, Scotland Yard and the FBI.

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/jack_the_ripper.html

Clearer now?

Dug

That Noah's Ark story is a beauty isn't it?

I've always wondered about the plants. No mention of bags of seeds, cuttings, bulbs or nary a pot-plant. The average gardener knows what a flood does to terrestrial plants - especially dry climate ones such as olive trees. Where did that dove find that olive branch?

And diseases, pre-flood people got colds, post-flood we still do - guess old Noah kept petrie-dishes full of ebola, measles, influenza...

And fresh water fish - how did they manage when all the salty oceans flooded into one another? And tropical salt-water fish versus cold seas fish? I suppose Noah and his magic ark kept a tank full of goldfish - and one of the best equipped labs ever seen on this planet.

I find it easier to believe in the Tardis than Noah's Ark. And it would be hilarious, but the people who believe this nonsense want it taught in all seriousness to our children and our expense (tax).

You seem to be getting into a lather about nothing, Shockadelic.

>>Pericles... You're the ones wriggling. Wriggling out of "opt in". Nobody has to attend...<<

No problem with that.

>>Wriggling out of multi-faith...<<

No problem with that either.

>>Wriggling out of parental responsibility...<<

Definitely supportive of that. I even made that exact point myself.

>>Wriggling out of the fact that NOTHING children are taught can ever be "proved" with 100% certainty...<<

Oh, please, that's just silly. Are you a fully paid-up Existentialist, or what? Surely you must accept that there is a substantial difference between logical deduction and feel-good fairy stories.

>>Wriggling out of the lack of choice in other school subjects, which are all compulsory...<<

There has to be some baseline for general education, surely? All we are discussing here is whether religious evangelism forms part of that baseline.

>>Wriggling out of the cost of many subjects that are hardly essential...<<

You present a fascinating set of examples of "hardly essential" subjects. Not sure how they compare, value-wise, with religious indoctrination, though.

>>Wriggling out of the fact that the vast majority of the public are religious<<

That is their right, of course, and I would be the last person to suggest they should be prevented from being so. It is obviously a source of great comfort to them in helping them make sense of the world.

Nor, as I said before, do I see much harm in Bible stories. It only concerns me when the line is crossed into suggesting that these might be literally true. That can be confusing for a young mind that lacks the balance of sensible parental input.

>>"A teacher at my son's school was fired for listening to a child cry" And that is completely irrelevant to this discussion.<<

Not really. The context was the suggestion that religious counsellors should be allowed to do so.

Given their "mission", I find that creepy.

Ammonite, ;-) There are so many problems with the flood myth
How do you construct a wooden boat of that size? Engineers have found there is a definite maximum size to the construction of wooden boats due to the structural integrity of wood. You just cannot build wooden boats of that size as they fall apart under their own weight. People have suggested the "Gopher wood" was stronger than normal wood but why then would it become extinct and never seen again when so many other plants and trees survived ?

Also if you remove land masses and cover the earth with water then the weather patterns have nothing to slow or stop storms or waves, they would sweep round the earth in increasing severity, even now rogue waves can build to enormous size and power threatening the largest of modern steel ships, how would a massive floating wooden barge survive such conditions ?

Several groups have built or are building replica arks ON DRY LAND not one has been game enough to try to build one that is capable of actually floating and seaworthy !!

I repete my questions

Posted a page ago

(
(1)what happened to the thousands of species of trilobites please ?

They were flourishing in all the oceans of the world and would appear to be perfectly suited to no only surviving a world wide flood but as many of them were scavengers they should have increased in number rather than go extinct.

(2) if dinosaurs died out in the "great flood" why did "modern" fish and marine mammals survive yet marine dinosaurs did not

(3) how did coral survive "the flood" It spawns once a year, it cannot survive turbidity it needs constant sunlight to survive it cannot survive even small amounts if fresh water

Dug

The story of Noah's Ark, like so many bible stories, is a gift which keeps on giving.

The more you tease apart the claims made by these tales, the more questions, holes and outright fallacies are revealed.

No religious will ever answer the issues you raise because there are no rational answers. I thought the point you made about climate on a planet completely covered by water excellent, but one of many conundrums that both biblical testaments contain. At best the tales are analogy, at their basest they claim that following god's word will mean that their souls will live on forever in happiness - selfish? Much.

That the majority of non-christians, or even non-religious can live their lives helping and caring for others - continues to be ignored by many christians. And these same people demand that all children be taught their dogma at the expense of the tax-payer.

Appalling.

The earth has plenty enough water. Most of the earth's surface is covered by water as it is. If you smoothed out all mountains and ocean valleys, the average depth of water over the earth would be many hundreds of metres. 

Dan S de Merengue

(1) if you believe in creationism and the flood story would you be so kind as to answer the questions I have posted.

(2) are you seriously suggesting that the surface of the earth was "Flattened" several thousand years ago and then "Re constituted" to it's present form without leaving a single piece of geological evidence ?

If this did happen where is the geological evidence to support your claim?

Such an occurrence would leave a single alluvial layer through all geological structures on earth. No such layer exists to my knowledge.

I await your reply and answers.

(1) Why did coral survive the flood where trilobites didn't?

I don't have the perfect answer. You would be better off asking a marine catastrophist or seismologist. Others have tried to model the events of the flood to seek detailed explanations for the world as we now evidence it.

I would say your question compares to this: when there is a tragic car accident, howcome one person survives when another involved does not? It's possible we could do exhaustive investigations without ever perfectly recreating the event to give a totally satisfactory answer. (That doesn't mean we don't try.)    

(2) I am saying the pre-flood earth was quite different to that of the post-flood. For geological evidence of the flood, I think you need to look at it from a different angle. I think you hold a uniformitarian view of geology where the rock layers represent different time epochs or sequences. This is why you're looking for one layer to represent one event. A flood theorist, however, might say that the flood was a world changing cataclysm. And much if not most of the sediment was laid down at the time of the flood.  

Sorry dan you fail

try again these were the questions
I have asked scientists and experts in these fields many many times and the answers they give make perfect sense. Evolution over a geological time span.

Now I am asking creationists to come up with decent logical rational answers to simple questions.

2 choices: Answers or admit you are wrong.

(1)what happened to the thousands of species of trilobites please ?

They were flourishing in all the oceans of the world and would appear to be perfectly suited to no only surviving a world wide flood but as many of them were scavengers they should have increased in number rather than go extinct.

(2) if dinosaurs died out in the "great flood" why did "modern" fish and marine mammals survive yet marine dinosaurs did not

(3) how did coral survive "the flood" It spawns once a year, it cannot survive turbidity it needs constant sunlight to survive it cannot survive even small amounts if fresh water

If you already know the answers to your questions, then they're just rhetoric, they're not real questions. (You also might like to work on your question numbering system).

And if you think life is about simple answers to simple questions, then I don't think you'll find much joy here at OLO.

McReal,
I don't think you're saying more by posting the same thing twice.

Nice questions Dug and Ammo etc, wish I’d thought of them. Saw one recently about if God could do anything could he make an object too heavy for him to lift.

Do Christians and Muslims etc really believe the Noahs ark stuff? I had no idea it was taken literally. I’m too embarrassed to even ask my Christian friends, it seems bad form and if they say yes I may well start laughing. Which for me brings up an interesting thought about not challenging mates because sometimes you don’t want to be right.

Having listened to bible stories as a kid it didn’t occur to me that they were true and I don’t remember them being presented in that fashion, but in no way do I want children being taught this as a fact and I also don’t want govt money going towards trying to convince young minds that these are real historic accounts. I have no objections to Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc parents taking their little kiddies off to private religious lessons. I wonder what Scientologists teach their children.

Do these religious children side-step areas of science that are not compatible with what they have come to believe? It must be confusing at school for them, do we have a term for abuse of children where the information they’ve been given has messed with their minds?

Anyone watched the movie "Dogtooth"?

Thanks Jewely

As for Dug I did warn him he wouldn't get a straight answer from Dan - just further obfuscation and sophistry (I'm not a marine biologist).

I'm not a marine biologist either, but you don't have to have much more than secondary school science to tease apart the inconsistencies in the Noah's Ark tale.

I was taught R.I. at school - when very young I used the time to goof off, when I was older (age 12) I would write essays questioning these same bible stories and why were there so many religions all claiming to be the 'one truth'. I'm guessing that most kids work it out for themselves - kids are great at spotting fakes. Also my parents weren't very religious, we stopped going to church when I was about 10. Mum used to go just for the social side of things - she sang in choir, but the serious religious stuff was never a major part of my childhood.

As for cultural heritage, that comes from a variety sources including religions, my friends whose parents were immigrants from exotic places like China or Egypt (being Anglo-Celtic seemed rather tame and boring) and my own Celtic/Pagan heritage - I believed in fairies for longer than I believed in a big daddy god.

Seems to me that Christians want it all - well, all the good stuff, bring up questionable activities like the Crusades, witch burning, gay bashing, the KKK; the list goes on and the closest a fundy Christian to acknowledging the many atrocities is the sleight of hand answer "if they were doing wrong, they weren't true Christians". Yeah, right. To me that means there aren't any TRUE Christians on this planet.

They've got that one covered too, Ammonite.

>>To me that means there aren't any TRUE Christians on this planet.<<

I'm sure you've heard the "we're all sinners" mantra. They've built a highly successful industry out of it, over hundreds of years.

Indulgences anyone? Buy one, get one free...

Here's an interesting story related to proselytizing in Victorian schools...

"The religious organisation that provides chaplains to Victorian schools appears to have breached federal guidelines that forbid it from trying to convert children.

Access Ministries provides chaplains to 280 Victorian schools and 96 per cent of special religious classes."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/13/3215690.htm

They are not alone - see the "so that they may" section of the aim's and beliefs below.

Scripture Union Queensland http://www.suqld.org.au/home/index.php

"Welcome to SU QLD... We're the largest employer of school chaplains in Australia. What makes us tick is that we want to bring hope to a young generation. And we do this through our school chaplaincy service, camps, holiday programs and kids-at-risk programs. Please stick around to find out if we can help you or your family in any way.
Tim Mander - CEO, SU QLD"

http://www.suqld.org.au/about/index.php
"Aims & Beliefs

Working with the churches, Scripture Union aims:

a) to make God's Good News known to children, young
people and families

and

b) to encourage people of all ages to meet God daily through
the Bible and prayer

so that they may

come to personal faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,

grow in Christian maturity and

become both committed church members and servants of a world in need."

Dan S de Merengue

I have asked scientists and been given their answers, and to me they make sense.

What I was doing was giving creationists like yourself the opportunity to explain your side of the discussion. You have an opposing view your beliefs are not the same as the scientists, then here is your opportunity to logically and rationally explain what happened to these animals and possibly convert me to your beliefs.

yet instead you get angry with me and say they are rhetorical questions and I do not want to hear your answers.

If I did not want to hear your answers and the answers from any creationist I would not ask the question nor would I repeat it so many times.

I think unless you can come up with a good set of answers this time ( and face it you have had plenty of time to research this already ) that you have no answers, you and your theory cannot explain these things.

So please do the honest decent thing, answer the questions or admit that you have no answers and you cannot explain why these things happened other than some form of supernatural magic.

BTW I am an uneducated person who was beaten then thrown out of a church school for being "deliberately stupid" because I could not learn to read or write.
Sorry if my numbering of my questions offends you, I am alpha numeric dyslexic and severely disabled in that area.

Aren't you guys getting a bit carried away with this discussion? I mean, it's hardly constructive to be raking over a lot of historical "witch hunts" to find justification for bashing someone over the head. There's far too much "selective" recollection responsible for so many past and present conflicts, so we at least should try not to fall into that same trap. I also think the "bible" thing and the "evolution" thing have been "done" sufficiently, thanks all the same.

We live in a complex world, where distinctions between right and wrong, good and evil, become somewhat blurred depending on what side of the fence you're living on, and we shouldn't forget that, while we live in our glass houses throwing stones.

In general, I see merit in there being some acceptable form of inter-faith and comparative religion studies being provided in our schools, together with discussion of ethics, integrity and honesty, and of the role these various value systems can play in social structure. Perhaps such study could form the basis of genuine "social studies", rather than the selective local Oz history served up in my day. History, in my opinion, should serve as both an explanation of past events and a mechanism for avoiding repetition of past foibles, as well as acting to displace prejudice and misconception by fully revealing and explaining context. To shed light, diminish barriers and dispel myth should be amongst the highest ideals we can aspire to for our education system - equally with inspiring creative thinking and preparation for a constructive career.

We in Oz can at least have the benefit of clarity, if we can negotiate the morass of real-time information available to us, and, if we can rise above our preconceptions and prejudices. Religion bashing is not going to get us to an effective medium for promoting social cohesion and understanding through our school system.

RObert has introduced some disturbing info regarding SU Qld - The most relevant posting I have seen in a while, and certainly deserves investigation and resolution.

Saltpetre, I don't think there is anything particulary new in what I posted. The point has been made repeatedly that most of the churches treat RE and chaplaincy as outreach activities, I doubt any have "cultural heritage" listed in their material unless it's recent backfill.

The idea that RE is not primary about attempt's to win kid's to Christ is spin, treated as a justifiable deception because the end is seen as more important than the mean's.

Likewise when you read of these organisations being focussed on bringing hope to people remember that's in the context of a belief system that holds the idea that without Christ there is no hope, their god loves you so much that if you don't repent and become a christian he will burn you in hell for eternity. Not much hope there except by converting.

I've been wondering if the politicans just don't comprehend the idea that an organisation might actually mean what they say on their websites. Maybe it never occurs to any of our "secular" pollies that religious organisations with a stated goal of trying to convert people might actually mean it. The religious ones know it but hope nobody notices.

R0bert

In discussing religion, I wonder if it's worthwhile going back to basics?

Eons past is it any wonder early man may have thought of a mystical being, super-human, or beyond-human entity as an explanation for the inexplicable? Why people get sick, what the sun is, if not something magical, and the moon, a dull form of the sun - a sleeping sun perhaps? Many questions, no way to find the answers. So, why not delve for an explanation - for the seasons, volcanoes, earthquakes? For the profusion of life on which man depended, those to fear, and those simply to be admired? A "God" would appear a logical explanation, would it not? Or many gods - for health, food, children, and protection from other tribes or marauding animals. So many perils. Where to seek "an edge"?

We are perhaps not so different today - seeking "an edge". Some of the basics are still the same - health, wealth, superiority. But so much has also changed - a multiplicity of "religious movements" generated from early beginnings, evolving and competing for followers, security, "fulfillment". Whereas many early "principles" were aimed at the betterment of followers or society, there has been some unavoidable divergence, as, after all, the understanding or explanation of the "mystical" is not subject to "finite" bounds. None can, by definition, have the "real" answer, but neither this, nor all of modern understanding or science, can deny the question - is there a God?, or, Would humanity be better or worse off if the existence of God was generally accepted?

Many today say no, there's no God, we don't need a God, we may or may not believe in the "big bang", we are in the here and now and that's all that matters. Fair enough. Some others sit on the fence. Also ok. For my money the hazard in mythical and religious belief today is the divergence from those early constructs for the betterment of mankind and society, and the emergence of "special case" scenarios which threaten to act to the contrary.

RObert,

Thanks for your latest posting bringing me up to date on this issue. I don't doubt what you are saying, and agree it is disturbing. It looks as though some, or many schools, may have simply sidestepped providing broad-based instruction in this area, possibly because their teaching staff have so much on their plate, and have then delegated this responsibility to outside agencies - in this case to special interest religious groups - without proper consideration of qualifications, content, or potential consequences. This is clearly not in the best interests of students, or of our multicultural society, and needs to be corrected.

A review of current arrangements is certainly required, as clearly indicated by the volume of interest displayed here in OLO. I certainly hope some of our educational and political policy makers are tuned in, and it looks as though some emails are called for to various Federal and State Ministers for Education, to ensure that they are made aware of the extent of dissatisfaction with current arrangements in this sensitive area.

A link to Access Ministry's Head, Evonne Paddison's, speech about discipleship.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55338278/ACCESS-Ministry-s-head-Evonne-Paddison-s-speech-to-Anglican-Evangelical-Fellowship

Scroll down - the controversial parts are highlighted in yellow.

If Evonne Paddison and her ilk were truly honest they would be telling governments that providing these services ( RE and Chaplains) and NOT seeking to convert young people to Christ and their church are incompatible with their core beliefs and that they cannot in all honesty provide a service as laid out in the government guidelines.

The sad thing is they believe it is justifiable to break the laws and their promise to our government in order to push their own agendas and beliefs onto young kids.

Any other group that goes into schools offering young children sweets and enticements would be very suspect.

= - = - = - =

to creationists who were here but seem to have disappeared I am still waiting for an answer to my questions :-)

Don;t be frightened

let's hear what you have to say. Perhaps if you pray god will tell you the secret ?

Ummm... thanks for sharing, Saltpetre.

>>Many today say no, there's no God, we don't need a God, we may or may not believe in the "big bang", we are in the here and now and that's all that matters. Fair enough. Some others sit on the fence. Also ok. For my money the hazard in mythical and religious belief today is the divergence from those early constructs for the betterment of mankind and society, and the emergence of "special case" scenarios which threaten to act to the contrary.<<

It is always good to hear other folks' opinion on the existence or otherwise of God.

Trouble is, I couldn't work out from this which side of the fence you are declaring yourself to have landed.

By the way, I agree completely with your summary of how Gods were invented. What puzzled me a little was your question...

>>Would humanity be better or worse off if the existence of God was generally accepted?<<

Do you mean the general acceptance of one single God? In other words, the conversion of the entire planet to a single religion?

That would be a somewhat tough ask, given the pitched battles that have been waged for thousands of years.*

Why not pose the question as: "Would humanity be better or worse off if the non-existence of God was generally accepted?"

I think we would all agree "better off" to that one, if only to rid the world of its constant - and frequently deadly - religious bickering. The only opponents to that concept, I suspect, would be the folk who, literally against the odds, believe theirs to be the only "true" version.

*Just a thought. Were there any religious wars prior to the introduction of Christianity?

Anyone?

Can't really answer you Pericles, though I think a belief in God at least gives some hope. Why? Well, apart from the possibility that people may behave better if they think there may be an eventual reward, or the reverse - depending on how well they conduct their lives - there is also the hope that one may be able to get some support in one's worthwhile endeavours from the "beyond". Wishful thinking? Probably. But, where's the hurt?

The other coin? No God. Well, that's a bit of a desperate situation. No-one to seek help from, no friendly deity smiling down at man's foibles, no chance of any interceding if mankind goes that one step too far in meddling with the biosphere. Leaves us out in the cold, doesn't it? No question about how we came to be, or the universe, or what may lie ahead. We just exist. Alone in the void? Mere chance? Maybe the last is a step too far into a vast emptiness of self. No explicable rationale for our existence, save chance. A lucky stroke, nothing more. But still, a desperate alone-ness.

The point of my last post was really to question the virtue of the divergence of religious thought from the best interests of mankind as a whole into so many trains of "special case" category. The point being that there can be no real certainty, and it can only be destructive, or at best self-serving, for any group to lay claim to some special place in some divinical plan.

I'm not going to get into the holy war thing, there's just too much of that all round. One God, serving all faiths, that's my preference and my belief. Where things go badly wrong is when anyone or any group lays claim to special privilege. Humanity needs to learn to get along better - this is too small a world to harbour hatreds. A brighter future is what we need, with goodwill towards all men, and a wondrous renaissance of cultural sharing, exchange and tolerance.

Dug,
For someone who claims to be dyslexic, you are more coherent than most here. 

Though I didn't answer all your questions, neither did you acknowledge the partial answers that I did give. 

Fair enough. If your question is sincere, I'll try and answer it. Yet I still don't claim the answer to be definitive, as I wasn't there at the time.

As bottom-dwellers, trilobites would have been one of the first creatures to be buried in the flood, possibly by the action of turbidity currents given the calamitous seismic events taking place, which explains why they are found so low in the fossil record. Indeed, the Flood could have been responsible for their extinction. 

Though they're low in the fossil record, there is nothing primitive about them—indeed, their eyes look like they were designed by a master physicist.

A question for you:  by your reckoning, if trilobites were so suited to their marine environment, why didn't they survive, or where are their decendents now?

Dan S de Merengue,

I have to hand it to you, your disquisition on the fate of the trilobite is absolutely hilarious!
Why didn't they hop on board the Ark?

Thanks, Squeers, glad to keep you amused. But I was responding to a quite specific question from someone else.

Genesis 7:22
Everything that breathed and lived on dry land died. 

D S M

>> Genesis 7:22
Everything that breathed and lived on dry land died. <<

Well that explains all the plants - therefore no Olive Branch for dove to return. Doesn't explain how the fresh water fish coped with saltwater, nor the breeding season of salmon returning from the oceans to their fresh water spawning streams.

You never answered whether Noah kept samples of bacteria or viruses on petrie dishes, I guess the petrie dishes would been made out of pottery - not the best medium for keeping micro-organisms that would not survive the altered acidity/temperature of oceans. I guess seaweed must've been gigantic - maybe the dove brought back a great lump of seaweed.

Please note that seeds do not last long in water - particularly those of dry climes - like the olive, for an olive tree to take root when the oceans subsided - not possible. And where did the water go? Just evaporated I guess - temperatures must have been higher then. Must've been monster storms with all that water vapour forming clouds, but then the water would've returned as rain.

Going round in circles - that's the bible for you.

Saltpetre

I enjoy this beautiful world as it is and I don't need a celestial carrot to do the right thing by others - as a social being like other humans cooperation works best. Albeit not for everyone - we all are subject to differences in personality just as we in height, build, colouring. Some people are just plain nasty - probably a result of the randomness of natural selection. Oooops I referred to evolution.

Dan,

Apparently scientists have successfully named and classified over 1.5 million species - and that's only the ones that "have" been classified.

- I guess Noah had a really good filing system : )

Dan It is now believed the trilobites as a species succumbed to a global warming event like the one we are experiencing now, after living for millions of years and being very successful the increase in the acidity of the oceans dissolved their calcite shells ( especially their eyes that were made from calcite crystals.) There are a few theories going around but the latest studies on how an acidic ocean is affecting calcium shelled mollusks and corals is giving weight to this theory.

If as you suggest they were all buried why did so many other bottom dwelling species survive and the trilobite die ? ( again many species if trilobite were capable of free swimming and could have survived better than plants and animals that can only crawl across the sea floor or live attached to the sea floor.

Seriously think about what you are suggesting, it does not make sense does it?

As for your comments about my disability, you also display a massive amount of ignorance. most dyslexics have a higher than average IQ we only have problems communicating in written form. Without a computer spell check and grammar I have the writing ability of a 6 year old. Without wishing to seem like boasting repeated testing has rated my IQ in the 160 to 180 ranges. I have problems reading and writing not thinking.

Please think before you make insulting comments about others especially those who suffer disabilities, like me we have spent our lives dealing with ignorance and intolerance like you have shown here in your comments.

"Mendel's theories were ignored for decades after publication, possibly as they were thought to be out of step with Darwin’s theory of evolution."

Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 12 May 2011 12:46:48 AM

Mendel's work, and laws of inheritance based on that work, was ignored for years because it was published in German, not for the spurious reasons you assert.

Darwin's theory did not require the acquisition of new characteristics, just changes in the proportion those characteristics were present in subsequent generations in the population, as has been validated to occur.

"Dan Dare,
"ou might consider that it is reasonable that reptiles evolved into birds. Others may not. My point was that it is not an observation. No one observed any such thing."

Of course no one observed reptiles evolving into birds - it happened over millions of years. Subtle changes in populations over many, many generations is the hallmark of evolution.

We can however observe the gradual development of feather like scales on various dinosaurs and compare those to the feathers and scales on modern birds. Especially with the similarities between ancient flightless feathered dinosaurs and modern flightless birds like the Ostrich and Emu.

Recent fossil bed discoveries especially those in China show this development in great detail.

Many of the old claims of creationists like "the fossil record is incomplete" just do not hold true anymore.

We have excellent examples of many of the so called "Transitional Fossils" they have been asking for.

( Every fossil is a transitional fossil as the changes are constant and ongoing. )

@JJ said "I don't know about you, but I think if I fell ill, I'd be relying on scientifically developed medicine"

@Shockadelic said :"You mean the ones the superbugs are now resistant to?"

Ah yes, I see your point... Some viruses have developed resistance to antibiotics, therefore the practice of oil-rubbing and chanting is demonstrably efficacious at curing all diseases which is why you've never visited a doctor.

Well done clever clogs! I suppose can't really argue with logic such as yours... (for one reason or another).

--

@JJ Said: "Actually, instead of teaching the kiddies CPR and all that rubbish at primary school, perhaps we should just instruct them in...."

@Shockadelic said "how to "win" debates with pathetic sarcasm?"

Yes, apparently. Depends on who you're debating with, I guess, but in your case it's certainly a viable option.

--

@Shockadelic said "You still haven't explained how you could comprehend "Joan of Arc" without *any* knowledge of Christianity."

Why do you keep asking me to explain something that you KNOW is "utterly indecipherable" to me?! That's just being cruel. ;-)

Or, did you not really mean what you originally said about the whole of western civilization being "utterly indecipherabe" if you don't attend SRI as a kiddy, and are now simply being obstinate instead of decently admitting your hyberbolic gaffe?

Of course, I COULD get into a lengthy discussion with you about the poor old saint if you really wanted, but you don't REALLY want me to do you, surely? That would disprove your point that religious instruction is necessary for children to understand history, since I didn't get any.

Joan of Arc explained:

A young woman suffered a mental illness probably schizophrenia and saw delusional visions. Because of the superstitious nature of the times she was able to gather followers and inspire those who believed she had magical powers.

She led the army to several important victories during a long period of wars and battles.

She was captured and burned to death by her enemies, who were equally superstitious.

Later some people in another country all together said she had magical powers because it suited their political and financial needs at the time.

=-=-=-=-=-
Any other magic stories you need translated into understandable language ?

Interesting angle, Saltpetre.

>>...there is also the hope that one may be able to get some support in one's worthwhile endeavours from the "beyond". Wishful thinking? Probably. But, where's the hurt?<<

That's the logic I hear from people who do Lotto every week.

And face it, to the poor it can be very hurtful indeed, when they get nothing in return except the warm feeling of participation.

>>No God... No-one to seek help from...<<

That also applies to booze. You can "seek help" from the bottle, but you won't actually find any. The journey can be kinda fun, though, which is probably why there are so many religious people as well as drinkers. It's the sensory/emotional hit that keeps them going back.

>>...no chance of any interceding if mankind goes that one step too far in meddling with the biosphere.<<

Interceding using... earthquakes, floods, tsunamis perhaps? That's comforting. We don't have to blame APG after all.

>>No question about how we came to be, or the universe, or what may lie ahead. We just exist. Alone in the void?... a desperate alone-ness<<

That's the nub, isn't it. The individual's fear of being alone, which is deeply rooted in our psyche.

Odd, when there are more than six billion of us on this planet, that anyone would feel it necessary to invent an imaginary friend as well.

>>...it can only be destructive, or at best self-serving, for any group to lay claim to some special place in some divinical plan<<

I'd go a step further, and propose that it is the very suggestion that there is some kind of "divinical plan" in the first place, that has caused the problem between religions.

None of this "divinical plan" business means squat to an atheist, by the way. I can't speak for others, but I sincerely think everyone would be better of, mentally and emotionally, if we could find a way to rely upon ourselves and each other, instead of an imaginary spirit in the sky.

It's a challenge at first, having to think for yourself. But you get used to it.

There’s been some interesting points made about the ridiculousness of the Noah’s ark story here and having been someone who has had a lot of experience with creationists and even having been one myself once before, I’ll let you in on some of the explanations that I don’t think the creationists here will be willing to admit as even they know just how utterly insane they will sound to rational people.

In regards to harmful bacteria, creationists believe that it spontaneously appeared as the result of two naked adolescents eating the wrong fruit in a garden with a talking legged snake (snakes must’ve had legs before the eating of the forbidden fruit, otherwise what kind of a punishment would ‘ye shall crawl on your belly for the rest of your days’ be).

So, anyway, Noah wouldn’t have had to keep petri dishes with him - at least not for the harmful bacteria - as it simply would have spontaneously re-appeared after the waters subsided due our sin.

Think that’s crazy? It’s better!

Noah wouldn’t have needed a good filing system, not for bacteria or for the millions of multi-celled species that currently inhabit the Earth, because of a little thing they call “super-evolution”.

You see, Noah would have only needed two single-celled life forms just as he would have only needed two snakes, because these “two of each kind” (try getting a creationist to actually define “kind” too) super-evolved into all the different variations of the “kinds” we see today.

For example, all the species of snake we see today - over the space of hundreds of years (at a rate of thousands of times faster than the real evolution they think is impossible) - “super-evolved” into all the varieties you see today.

So there’s no point in bringing to their attention the lack of space on the ark - they think they already have it explained - you need to point out to them the impossibility of super-evolution.

By the way, if the flood was just a flattening of the land, then what was all the rain for?

Ugh!

I meant to say, “It gets better”.

But while I’m here, I may as well point out to any creationists reading that I realise that (regardless of how impossibly fast you may believe that “kinds” can “super-evolve” into variations of that “kind”) you don’t believe that “kinds” can evolve into other “kinds”. But try finding a mechanism that prevents this.

You can’t and that’s the crux of the matter.

Oh and Saltpetre, our beliefs inform our actions and so it is important that we all ensure that we have as many true beliefs and as few false ones as possible.

@AJ Philips,

Thanks for that. As you sound like an expert on the matter, could I press you for some answers to more questions about the the flood story...

1. God say's he's drowning nearly ALL the men, women, children, infants (and animals!) in the world because everyone except one man (Noah) is evil. So why did he also save Noah's EVIL sons and wives for the Earth reboot? Couldn't he have just killed everyone, and created another innocent man and women from dust and a rib, like last time?

3. Why does an omnimax god need a mnemonic device such as a rainbow to remind him not to commit genocide again by accident?

Jim AJ Is an EX Believer I believe :-)

It seems the creationists have gone quiet all of a sudden :-( Awwwww

you would think they would relish the chance to explain their beliefs to us godless heathens who are seeking the truth and asking questions.

It would seem to me their faith is very much based on faith and faith alone and that asking questions is not something they are keen on.

@Dug "Jim AJ Is an EX Believer I believe :-) "

Yeah I got that thanks :-) You don't think I'd be asking a Christian to provide an honest explanation of their beliefs do you?

If that Evonne Paddison woman who runs ACCESS ministries is any example, it's clear they'll tell you one thing to your face while really believing the complete opposite.

For example, in public denying that SRI is proselytazing (haha!), whilst *actually* believing SRI is a "God-given open door to children" to fulfill their "Need to go and make disciples."

Squeers, you are way too droll. We may be doing ok, but there are many people for whom life is not all that grand, and it can be a comfort for these at least to believe there may be something better to hope for in the hereafter.

Of course, in earlier times this could have been "used" to keep the lower classes emptying the dunny cans, and accepting their "earthly" pain. This may also apply today, but it is now more likely to be states and administrators who do the repressing, rather than any church - and it is the church which provides the "balm".

To hold a belief, or trust, in any form of hereafter, I think it prerequisite to hold a belief in a God or supreme deity. May be wrong, but don't see how it can be otherwise.

As for atheists (and the fence-sitting agnostics) some may hold their a view as a worldly choice, of a "liberated" mind, for others it may be simply an exercise of "freedom" - so as not to be bound to do the right thing, as long as one stays within man's law (or at least not get caught). The "not being caught" limitation on personal freedoms has of course not worked all that well - else we probably wouldn't have GFC's or Storm Financial's etc.

We know that belief in a hereafter is Not a prerequisite for living a good life, and I'm sure there are many non-believers who lead fantastically good lives. Still, for many people there is a need "to belong", to be part of a similarly minded group, for the assurance this provides.

Irrespective of means, the supreme objective must always be "universal adherence to a set of commonly held moral and ethical values". Achievement of this does Not require a common "faith", or any particular belief system, just a high set of standards.

I can only reiterate - when any belief system places itself above, or aside from, universal morality, on pretext of "special place", it can only be to the detriment of the common good.

Oh dear, Pericles, we are undone! Saltpetre has divined that we are one and the same---each the other's sock puppet!

Saltpetre

I am happy to know that there are sincerely religious people who do empathize with and are accepting of others - irrespective of what religious beliefs they may or may not hold.

Unfortunately, you are not among those people. Your comments that people become atheists "so as not to be bound to do the right thing, as long as one stays within man's law (or at least not get caught)", is one of the silliest and spurious of claims. I do not believe in an all watching all powerful deity - I manage to behave decently and fairly to all people - even to you after your highly insulting comments.

Your attempts to cast all non-religious as somehow less than religious is indicative of a closed mind - I suggest the the god in which you believe would not be very pleased by your behaviour.

Clearly a watchful deity is not keeping you from casting stones at others. Do you think you won't "get caught"?

Well, Squeers, you can't really blame Saltpetre...

>>Oh dear, Pericles, we are undone! Saltpetre has divined that we are one and the same---each the other's sock puppet!<<

...no-one has actually seen us together in the same room, have they?

Saltpetre, we do agree on many aspects.

>>...it can be a comfort for these at least to believe there may be something better to hope for in the hereafter<<

Absolutely. I suspect this is the single most compelling reason why some people become "religious". They have, as we all do, a basic incomprehension of the "why" of our existence. Faced with this unsolvable mystery, they choose to go along with the idea that there is some form of father figure looking after them.

If it floats their boat, and they don't use it to oppress others, it's a relatively harmless process.

>>To hold a belief, or trust, in any form of hereafter, I think it prerequisite to hold a belief in a God or supreme deity.<<

Absolutely. Though it doesn't actually alter the reality that there is no such thing as a "hereafter". There is only a "here". And sometimes, you have to admit, a belief in a "hereafter" can cause people to do unspeakable things, here.

>>As for atheists... some may hold their a view as a worldly choice...<<

Absolutely. Although I did detect something of a sneer in all those quotation marks - a "liberated" mind, an exercise of "freedom" etc.

We have the right to choose not to believe. That means only that we reject the notion of a supernatural father figure. Personally, my choice revolved around the complete absence of a need for reassurance.

Being - unlike so many previous generations - at least cognizant of the immenseness of the universe, I feel privileged to be here at all. I don't need to search for a reason.

We agree on this, too: when religion is used as a stick to beat people with, it can only be bad.

Bad for religion, as well as bad for people.

I meant to mention that too, Ammonite, but ran out of space.

You addressed Saltpetre as follows:

>>Your comments that people become atheists "so as not to be bound to do the right thing, as long as one stays within man's law (or at least not get caught)", is one of the silliest and spurious of claims.<<

Very true.

But the sentence that caught my eye was this one:

>>The "not being caught" limitation on personal freedoms has of course not worked all that well - else we probably wouldn't have GFC's or Storm Financial's etc.<<

The strong suggestion from Saltpetre appears to be that these events were caused by atheists.

It makes a change from the usual claims - atheists kill more people than Christians ever have etc. - but is equally spurious.

Pericles

How does Saltpetre 'know' if s/he is dealing with an atheist, if they continue to behave like decent human beings? Must be a scary thought - there are atheists in SP's life s/he doesn't even know about.

Saltpetre

Do you assume that all the kindly compassionate decent folk you encounter in your daily life are Christians?

And, as Pericles has noted, that bad things like the GFC are only caused by non-religious?

I guess this is the time we ask for some evidence of such claims.

Saltpetre has divined that we are one and the same---each the other's sock puppet!....Oh dont stop there:) I just brought my super-sized POP-CORN and Large coke..
Absolutely. I suspect this is the single most compelling reason why some people become "religious". They have, as we all do, a basic incomprehension of the "why" of our existence. Faced with this unsolvable mystery, they choose to go along with the idea that there is some form of father figure looking after them.

Priceless:)

LEA

Poirot,
As AJ has crudely put it, Noah would not have needed to manage millions of species, as only a certain number would have been needed as a representation of each kind on the ark. 

Diversification or speciation can at times be quite rapid. These are processes that are observable (refer back to our defn of science) and in fact have been observed. We also observe that there are limits to diversification. For example, through special breeding programs over many decades farmers have managed to significantly increase the sugar content of certain crops, yet that sugar level eventually plateaus out at an upper limit, once all the sugar producing genes have been selected.

Not knowing the exact boundaries for a biblical 'kind' is not a sin. Knowing everything is the domain of God. Not knowing something gives reason for further research, which is healthy. (A biblical 'kind' often equates roughly in taxonomy to something near a genus or family level.)    

Ammonite,
The diversification of fish into salt and fresh water varieties can be explained by the processes of adaptation, especially in the new ecological niches and environments created by the post flood conditions. Yet as I said above, there are limits. We don't observe fish rearranging their essential structures. Fish remain fish, etc.

Where did the water go? Into the oceans (note the very deep ocean trenches, which probably opened up relating to the seismic activity of the flood, see Gen. 7:11, 'the underground waters erupted.') 

Olive trees I've heard are pretty hardy, and could possibly have sprouted from a cutting from drift debris without miraculous intervention after the Flood.

Dug,
Sorry for my insensitive comment. I was trying to give you a compliment. I noticed, even before you said anything about your background, that you have a definite clarity of thought, which i found appealing.  

What you said about trilobites does make sense. For even if most were killed in the flood, we might expect the numbers to recover from the small number that remained. 

A key phrase is found in what you said, 'There are a few theories going around.' Indeed there always are. You've put forward the idea of increased salinity of the sea. It's likely that post flood conditions for the earth became significantly different to preflood conditions, including increased salinity over time. Other changed conditions (desertification and deforestation) may explain the disappearance of the larger animals that you were asking about.

Why have creationists gone quiet? Maybe the're happy sitting back watching atheists discuss a 'fable' in such detail; at least half a dozen atheists willing to be sidetracked from a discussion about school education to defend their version of truth against a 'fable'.        

We could debate the ark much more, if we wanted. But others elsewhere have gone into far more detail than we ever will here. I just wanted to say that Christians are more than willing to explain and defend our beliefs. Not that we can ever prove our faith through science, but we can uphold it as reasonable and rational, and even increasingly so through these modern times.