That's an interesting angle, George.

>>What is objected to are sermons in churches, aimed at closed congregations (who e.g. are supposed to believe in God, so no need to explain that “assault on God” makes sense only if you believe in God). The fact that every Sunday, and especially at Easter, preachers reassure their audience how good it is to be a Christian and how bad not to be one, is hardly newsworthy<<

Do you feel the same way about the sermons of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali? Were his remarks in his Ramadan sermon in 2006, where (presumably) he was reassuring his audience how good it is to be a Muslim, and how bad not to be one, "hardly newsworthy"?

>>So I presume this on its own cannot be the “events of Easter” that made you “start to wonder”<<

Well, yes it was. I suspect that a number Muslims felt distinctly uncomfortable when Hilaly told them that "When it comes to adultery, it’s 90 percent the woman’s responsibility". To me, preachers who take such anti-social positions risk losing their audience. Especially those who live in a free society, as we do.

I also "started to wonder" when Hilaly put his clerical foot in it three and a half years ago, whether it would strengthen or weaken the hold of his religion's hierarchy over their "flock".

Same with our Christian brothers' less temperate outbursts against atheists and atheism.

>>As to the consequences that you are unsure about, so am I, although I think they would lead to internal purification<<

You may well be right. If you are, it will be fascinating to see what form the "purification" takes.

Incidentally, I apologize if I come across as a "historian". I don't mean to.

George.

<<The fact that every Sunday, and especially at Easter, preachers reassure their audience how good it is to be a Christian and how bad not to be one, is hardly newsworthy; the same like others feel obliged (e.g. on this OLO) to “preach” how good (rational, logical, moral etc) it is to be an atheist and how bad not to be one.>>

Remember that theism and atheism are not just two equally opposing “world-views”. One is a faith-based assertion, and the other is a reason-based response to that assertion.

Your failure to acknowledge this very important distinction leaves your superficially correct but fundamentally flawed analogies and comparisons (such as the one above), seriously lacking, and renders them misleading - whether that be intentionally or unintentionally.

Rusty,

Thanks for that. I figured JP’s quotes would have simply been a classic case of Creationist quote mining deceit, but just didn’t have the motivation to go looking into it.

After years of debating them, I think I’m finally starting to tire of Creationists. One can only debunk the same argument so many times before one starts to become concerned about the point that Mark Twain made about debating fools.

Pericles,
>>Do you feel the same way about the sermons of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali?<<
The sermons by Jensen and Pell were objected to by those here who call themselves atheists (and Dawkins is seen by many as a fair representative of them) not Muslims. So Sheik al-Hilali (or, as a matter of fact, any other preacher or speaker) is irrelevant to what I asked you.

Let me repeat:
I was just trying to find out what made you “start to wonder”, and apologised for not having looked closer at the link provided in the article. I thought the regular Easter sermons cannot be that (or do every year’s Easter sermons make you “start to wonder”?) so I concluded it was the unusually harsh - or whatever word you prefer - words in this year’s sermons, and speculated what could have been the reason for that. This brought me to Dawkins’ lectures (“sermons”) during the Atheist Convention in Melbourne, and I admitted that there was no point in comparing piece by piece the “derogatory intensity” of what the three said in their sermons, because the conclusion about who has more reasons to be upset will depend on what side you were on from the beginning.

I still think this is pointless, and even more pointless is to make comparisons with the offensiveness and/or dangerousness of the pronouncements of some extremist Sheik al-Hilali.

>>I apologize if I come across as a "historian". I don't mean to.<<
Does this mean that I was mistaken when I thought your qualifications were in history?

AJ Philips,
I never claimed that theism or atheism on their own were world-views. For the rest of your post, I am well aware - since you told me so many times - that I provide “superficially correct but fundamentally flawed analogies and comparisons” that are lacking and misleading. I suppose you simply mean they do not convince you, and I just have to live with that.

This non-believer took his family along to experience the 'Walk of the Cross” this Easter in Melbourne. I had it up there with other 'Big City' events I wanted my girls to experience.

In many ways it reminded me of the dawn service at the shrine. What started with a couple of hundred people swelled to a couple of thousand within the hour and I found it quite moving.

The walk is conducted in the CBD and moves around 10 churches of different denominations taking about 3 hours. At each 'station' there is a marble slab with a bronze sculpture depicting part of the passion story. It is accompanied by police who close the various intersections off as we passed.

I understand that many traditional churches have the stations of the cross inside but this attempts to, in a small way, recreate the commemorative walk the Crusaders did in Jerusalem each Easter.

Being a part of such a large gathering conducting themselves with quiet dignity and devotion was a privilege and gives some sense of what a religious faith is capable of.

I was inclined to question my motives though.

Was I there just as a consumer of experiences? Well it certainly was cheap, just a small donation which would have barely covered the cost of the free water and hot cross buns that my daughters consumed at the end.

Was it akin to going to a museum, or an indigenous ceremony, to understand in some superficial way faded glories of once powerful movements? The architecture was indeed stunning and held the attention probably disproportionally. Plus I'm one of those strange people who find the old Mechanics Institutes fascinating places.

Ultimately it was something I felt valuable enough for me to ensure my kids experienced the occasion, it is just that I find it difficult to definitively explain why. Certainly the interdenominational aspect was appealing however perhaps it was the chance for them to acknowledge and respect a belief system that some in our community hold very dear to themselves and is a vital part of their identity.

If that was supposed to be an answer, George, I'm afraid it fell way short of being a satisfactory one.

>>The sermons by Jensen and Pell were objected to by those here who call themselves atheists (and Dawkins is seen by many as a fair representative of them) not Muslims. So Sheik al-Hilali (or, as a matter of fact, any other preacher or speaker) is irrelevant to what I asked you.<<

It most certainly is relevant.

You claimed for Pell and Jensen a certain privilege. That because they were speaking "in churches, aimed at closed congregations", that their pronouncements should not be newsworthy.

I merely asked whether you extend the same courtesy to remarks made by Sheik al-Hilali, in the same circumstances: namely, in a mosque, to a closed congregation.

That's all.

The answer could be an equally simple "yes" or "no", or it could bear a rationale why the two should be treated differently.

But irrelevant? Certainly not.

Pericles,
I never spoke of privileges, but if you like, of course, Jensen, Pell, Dawkins and Sheik al-Hilali, or whoever, have the same right to talk to their congregations in reassuring words as long as what they say cannot be deemed as inciting violence or hatred, or unlawful in some other way, which is not for me to judge (as I said, different things upset different people), but for people better knowledgeable about the Australian legal system.