Please, give it a rest! Even if you do not 'require' children to accept the beliefs of their parents children will do so anyway. The basis of the article is saying that 'forcing' children to accept their parent’s beliefs is akin to child abuse, that children are not naturally inclined to follow their parent’s beliefs. Yet this very idea is disproved by the first paragraph of this ridiculous article. Children do not need to be taught to be whatever culture they are born into, why? It's not down to some form of genetic memory, nor is it down to abusive behaviour, a Vietnamese child grows up Vietnamese because children naturally wish to seek their parent’s approval. This usually involves absorbing and mimicking the behaviour of their parents. The basic problem in this article has nothing to do with children and the religious beliefs of their family, it has to do with what other have done - usually outside the family. The kindergarten case has nothing to do with the mothers religious beliefs, but the antiquated and ineffectual policies of the government department responsible for the management of education in that state. The case of the father has nothing to do with religion but instead with what is seen in family law courts everyday in Australia, one parent using every underhanded trick in the book to try and hurt the other parent. It was a trick, his conversion was for the sole purpose of hurting his wife. Nothing more! And to address the second paragraph - religious beliefs develop over time. Young children are what their parents are, it is only later in life - in the teenage years - that children begin to question their beliefs. It is a sign of independence, the young ones stretching their wings, getting ready to fly on their own. However a great many come back into whatever their parent’s religion was, which is the basic reason why entire families can be of one faith.

I agree with the author completely. Parents have no right to indoctrinate their children into any belief system. I'm an agnostic/atheist, but when my six kids and I talk at length around the kitchen table, on all manner of things, I am at pains to emphasise that they should accept nothing I say on faith, but think it through/look at the evidence for themselves. It is child abuse to polute a child's mind with fairy tales set up as fact. Religion certainly has no place in school, except perhaps in comparative studies or anthropology. And I think parents should be educated about not imposing their opinions or belief systems on young minds that should be free to develop uncoerced.
It's not true that children will adopt their parents' views anyway; a good many kids end up rebelling. Not enough, unfortunately, and the ones that do often pay a heavy psychological price. Belief systems, like prejudices, with no compelling evidence to back them up, or even salubrious merit, should actually be exposed to developing minds, or at the very least be left to wither and die. Propogating often iniquitous nonsense in innocent minds, viruses dressed up as gospel, is most certainly child abuse.

Glen, you encourage people to play the recorder. Full marks to you! I have spent many years doing the same. And your article has got me thinking about education and indoctrination. So help me think this through.

Some adults and children have over the years riled against my requiring all students at certain year-levels in my school to learn to play the recorder. I claim that with the recorder they can make work wonderful music and I insist that they practice what I teach them. If they dutifully do their practice at home some parents yell, “Stop making that bloody awful noise!” What are they to do?

The child believes my years of experience will help her to find joy and beauty in recorder music. She is starting to feel the truth of my claims as she plays in her own stumbling and imperfect way. Suppose the parent hates the very sound of the recorder in the house, associating it with his own school-experience of severe corporal punishment for any mistakes and joyless tuition by a teacher who was doing it simply because it was compulsory. The parent cannot sense the embryonic beauty in his child’s playing. To him it is a symptom of child abuse. After all, it even makes the dog howl!

The same parent listens to rock music and often sings along with it with gusto when the child is with him. Feeling the deep engagement of her father with this music, she may well identify with his emotional commitment to rock and tacitly swear allegiance to him and it. She then also decides to reject my proclamation of the beauty of the recorder music and stops practising.

I don’t oppose rock music. But I know that practical experience of other styles can lead to joy and understanding of a more enduring quality.

So am I indoctrinating the child? Is the father or mother indoctrinating their child? What is in the child’s best interests?

Thanks for an article that is stimulating my thoughts on this subject. And don’t stop your efforts on the recorder front!

Just like all cults the mainstream religions prefer to get their "converts" from the ranks of the desperate, naive and hopeless. Targeting children is just an extension of this. As is their proselytizing at the impoverished peoples of Africa, Asia and the Pacific. Only children and the uneducated and desperate are susceptible to the lies and manipulations of the godbotherers. Normal intelligent people can see right through the fearmongering and mendacity of the faithful with their bigotry, intolerance and elitist arrogance. Then there are the catholics and their serving up of their kids to the pedo priests that they protect and revere so much. Sickos.
LEAVE THE CHILDREN ALONE YOU INSANE, EVIL MISCREANTS.

This is a scary article. Religions are not all the same. Religious parents may want their children to follow in their footsteps but why is that atheists who want to intervene in the affairs of other families and remake the world in their image the only one's who aren't indoctrinating people? Seems a little illogical, illiberal and un humanitarian to me.

Mr. Glen Coulton,

Yes, childhood is ‘time of innocence and indoctrination’.

Yet some of the children reject all indoctrinations and become anarchists or dictators.

Trouble is that the majority of them looses the innocence and keeps the indoctrination.

Well there's religious indoctrination. And then there's religious indoctrination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tlFL8r9n4Y

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58434

The author is trying to pull a swifty.

There is no such thing as a 'neutral' belief to teach. Who gets to decide what is an 'acceptable' belief?

Arguing that the state has a right to decide what religious beliefs are taught instead of the parents is no different to a theocracy.

Of course, the author tries to appeal to science and gravity in drawing a contrast, yet research has consistently shown that regular attendance, worship and prayer at Christian churches (and I say Christian only because I am aware of the studies for Christian attendance, and not aware of studies for other religions) adds 2 to 10 years to a persons lifespan, and improves their quality of life.
(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2651_128/ai_55500404/)

(and not just for the practitioners themselves, but for the surrounding communities http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-07/lsu-por070308.php)

The author instead is promoting the idea that we take this benefit away from children...perhaps it is he that is advocating child abuse.

i would support the 5 practical proposals. Proselytizing for particular religions has no place in the public education of children.

As fof children at home, whether or not parents consciously indoctrinate their children, the latter will be enculturated by their significant others as religion is a core value for religious people. Core values are embodied in the very language spoken in the home, family occasions, and everyday customs and behaviours and the way people conceive of them. As anthropologist Edmund Leach wrote, 'All culture communicates'. The example of parents and peers is more powerful than what they say, which is why many children are not successfully indoctrinated. Children do not simply mimic parents. They are not blank slates (innocents) but construct their own beliefs and behaviour in complex ways in response to the influences around them in the home and increasingly of the influence of their peers in the wider social environment as they grow up.

In countries like Astralia, the influence of peers and experience in the worlds of work, social networks and more advanced education is more powerful for the majority of people and even for those of those people who attended religious primary and secondary schools.

Several people have already noted that children can indeed follow in the same steps, religion-wise, as their parents. Indeed, not EVERY child is being 'forced' by their parents to adpot their religion. That is obvious. I also believe that was not the point of the article.

I believe the point was specifically relating to the use of the school for the purposes of prosetlysation. The comments section does not provide me with enough room to give a full justification as to why I feel that a state should remain divorced from social engineering where possible (although I'm more than happy to run people through it on other mediums), but to at least prevent the favouring of one religion over another, I believe the state should remain completely secular, so religious studies that indoctrinate (as opposed a secular study of religion as part of anthropology) should not be funded by the state.

Of course, schooling (unless things have changed since my time) only occupies the hours of 9am - 3pm 5 days a week. I have absolutely nothing wrong with religious organisations prosetylsing to children in any of the remaining 18 hours of the day (plus the whole weekend!) I understand that a school environment is the best place to connect with large numbers of children, considering that all children pretty much by law (with some exceptions of course) HAVE to be there, with large-ish numbers of them in the same spot at the same times, so why not let them hire school facilities to do so, should they desire? That the schools I have seen, indeed, do just that.

Let's face it, would an athiest, a buddhist, an islamic or hey, even a catholic taxpayer want their money to fund the preaching of an Anglican to children, as one example? I say happy for you to teach the children - just do it in your own time, not in school hours.

If two Vietnamese people have a child in Vietnam, the child is Vietnamese. If two Vietnamese people have a child in Australia, the child is Australian. He or she will have an Australian accent, and grow up as an Australian. Vietnamese quickly become Australianised more than any other group.

Strike one against whatever follows from this author.

Strike two concerns the supposed indoctrination of modern kids, using a long-gone Ireland to demonstrate such nonsense. Religion no longer holds the sway it once did in Ireland or anywhere else in the world. Even Muslims are individuals, with many of them no different from lapsed Catholics or Protestants in a modern world.

“We don’t have pre-pubescent liberals, conservative, monetarists or anarchists”?
Bullswool! I had Left-wing ALP doctrine shoved down my throat by my father. It wasn’t until I was 30 that I realised that I was fighting on the wrong side and changed my views.

I was also sent to a Presbyterian church for religious instruction (my parents were also of the Presbyterian persuasion) and church services until I was 16 and decided that religion was not for me. My parents did not object, and I have had no religious affiliations since.

However, the Left-wing political indoctrination continued, and it took marriage and in-laws who weren’t as dogmatic for me to see that I could take up different ways.

This Left-wing garbage against religion (a sure sign of a fear of one of the few institutions that stands up against socialist dogma) is part and parcel of the Red onslaught against old traditions which the Left wants to replace with its own tyrannical, totalitarian beliefs.

I almost found myself agreeing with Grey here.

Almost.

The author is indeed trying to pull what Grey calls a "swifty".

It's the sort of article one writes when one considers one's own work to be at the centre of the known universe. The clarity with which he sees the problem - parents cruelly poisoning the minds of the kiddies - while he and his colleagues in academe are having to deal with the consequences, sad, broken lives, full of despa...

Sorry, got a bit carried away there.

O, Mr Teacher sir: children tend to live with their parents for the first few years of their lives. Deal with it.

Only fanatical religious folk will embark upon the journey of indoctrination. The rest of us set examples, set boundaries, and generally encourage good behaviour. If that involves going to church, so be it - the rebellious teen years will sort out that little issue.

Of course, if you happen to be in a war zone, where tribal loyalties are linked to religion - such as Northern Ireland in the seventies and eighties - the chances are you will be a Mick or a Proddy Dog just like your old man.

But that's hardlty a fair sample, for the accusations the author is making.

Talking of samples, Grey, I was amused by your reference to the "Churchgoers live longer" study. The sample was taken from an old folks' home - sorry, "community-dwelling adults" - in Marin County, California. It occurred to me while glancing through the tables that the one variable they didn't take into account was how much fun the old geezers had had in their lives. And let's face it, California was a pretty fun place in the fifties and sixties. Know what I mean, nudge nudge, wink wink.

What clinched it for me was that one of the other variables indicative of a longer lifespan, apart from attending church once a week, was "attending museums or art galleries".

So I'd be betting that the early departees were the ones with that slightly spaced-out, nostalgic smile on their face...

We go down a slippery slope if we start dictating to parents what they can and can't teach their children.

Most religious families will raise their children within that doctrine. Most are moderates and the children will also experience life outside the home through school, media and friends. From there teens will sort out in their own minds whether or not they will follow the religion of their parents.

What is practised within the home should be a matter for parents as long as there is no acutal child abuse related to religious practices eg. such as severe beatings to rid of the devil, and other such maniacal nonsense. There is also a thin line in relation to blood transfusions and similar beliefs that may lead to the death of a child who has no power in the decision making process. That is where the line gets a bit tricky from a legal aspect - religious rights vs right to life.

Teaching religion is not akin to child abuse. Children are raised in all manner of families including hippy communes, middle class surburbia, socialist, right wing, farming life etc. No matter the character of the family, children generally grow up and decipher the many mixed messages for themselves.

Religion is a matter for the home, rather it there than used as a mass indoctrination exercise in public schools, where at least in a secular society, children benefit from experiencing opposing opinions and can determine there are many paths and what they know from the homefront is just one.

Since Homo Sapiens began to think and wonder about their origins,they have sought to explain it.
Each in their own time, Philosophers have come up with theories, some exist today.

Australian Aborigines believe their world was created by the Rainbow Serpent; The Wagilag Sisters Story explains their belief.
Judaism claims God gave the jews the promised land and so it is told in the old testament. The birthplace of Jesus and his place of execution have become shrines for Christians , occupied by Israel as their promised land.

Mecca is a shrine for Muslims as their holy birthplace.
A new sect emerges fairly regularly claiming to possess the true word of God.

I look to science to provide me with a credible explanation as to our origins and I therefore believe it is quite inappropriate to close the minds of our children by plying them with myths .
My children were raised to have respect for other people and exposed to as wide a variety of explanations without tying them to a dogma.

They have been encouraged to seek knowledge and to make a decision as to a belief in their own time as adults. So far, none have embraced religious dogma and are raising their children in the same way.
The mind is like a book;it only works when it is open

It just goes to show how important environment and the herd instinct is to personal belief systems.

Most people stick with whatever system they are indoctrinated into, probably on the basis of the fear of leaving it for the unknown or meeting with the disapproval of family /tribal members.

As Bill Maher pointed out, if a child was told that the story of Jonah and the whale was a Fairy tale but that God lives at the top of a giant beanstalk, and was threatened with the prospect of eternal damnation for not believing it - what chance or choice does the child have of thinking independently during those early stages of its life?

Oh, and Leigh - the only truly Totalitarian state left in the world today is the Vatican, where one man's decisions cannot be challenged or overturned by anybody.

I only really popped in to see if runner had posted.

I remember vividly sitting 1 metre away from the TV with the sound turned down to almost zero watching 'The Thunderbirds', praying my parents wouldn't wake up because then I'd have to go to Sunday School.

I imagine they were probably shagging or having a great lay-in thinking themselves pretty clever.

No doubt Glen would be happy for his kids to get their value systems from Underbelly or Lady Gaga. Many State zoos (sorry schools) will see to that. You will have your girls pregnant by 10 and boys smoking dope by 11. Don't however tell them its wrong. Thankfully most parents love their kids enough to see the stupidity of his dogma. Surely he isn't so stupid as to believe that his form of corrupt morality is better than that of Christ. He obviously missed having this article published on 1 April. With the huge and growing number of believing and non believing parents insisting on spending money to send their kids to a school with some moral framework we can see that most people think that Greg's dogma is simply crap.

Pelican you are always correct in my opinion; an experienced broadminded highly intelligent individual fair and compassionate too. Your partner is most fortunate to have you.

I have no problem with parents who want to bring their kids up in the same religion as themselves. Most children, like myself, will make up their own minds that it is rubbish or not by the time they are teenagers.
This will happen whether they are taught in Private or Public schools Runner!

What I don't like is those parents who bring their kids up to believe that all other religions(or having no religion)is somehow evil.
That attitude merely propagates hate in people.

I also don't like those that instill fear into their children- such as telling them they will burn in the fires of hell or suchlike!

The worst upbringings must surely be amongst those children who are brought up to truly hate people of other religions, and seek to hurt, destroy or kill either the people or their beliefs.

We have seen evidence of this violence through the ages- such as between the Muslims and Christians in several countries, and between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland/England.

This is not so much child abuse however, but more a total destruction of that child's future. Hate is such a destructive emotion.

Yes your absolutly right Mitchell only agnostic/atheists have the right to indoctrinate their children with their belief system or world view.

Runner,
You're right when you say public schools are such morally dangerous places for children.

It much safer to send them off to be molested by a priest or Christian Brother.

When it comes to world history, the track record of Christianity is not exactly morally spotless - and when it comes to the indoctrination of young minds, there's no difference between force-feeding them Christian dogma or what you see in a Buddhist temple, Synagogue, Muslim Madras or any modern cult.

The principle is always to get them before a certain age and hopefully, they're yours for life.

Who do parents think they are. The problem is that it is so important to indoctrinate our children in so many areas that who decides which are right and which is wrong. I am sure that most people would feel that there is nothing wrong with indoctrinating into reading, writing and math. We develop life skills and teach them socially acceptable behaviour that forms our culture. Is this wrong? But suddenly we are abusing our children by teaching them religion, personally I agree but that is my opinion and I handle it with my children by keeping them away from religious education. They will be teenagers soon enough and at the age of reason they can explore and develop their own opinions on the subject without the lingering guilt caused by childhood religious indoctrination. There is a good reason why the catholic church says "give me a child till they are 8 and I will have them for life". The truth is we rebel against our parents and claim that we won't do as they did but they are our only instruction book in life and I'm sure most of use recognise how much we rely on our parents guidance now we are parents too. Life is a lucky dip, good up bringing bad up bringing, I see both in my childhood but in the end I make the best from what I was taught and try to develop my own understandings of life. Influence over children will always exist but how we exert that influence can change and with that change improvement can be had for our children. We no longer pretend that their are not paedophiles in our church's and schools, we don't approve of belting children for being bad and we understand that their brains change and develop causing behaviour to alter over the years. Maybe we should use our knowledge and move forward with our children rather than hold them back with our fears, after all the worst thing we give our children is our fears and prejudices.

we are unique
You flatterer you -*Blush*.

Most people understand the rights of other individuals to follow a faith even if they don't subscribe to it themselves.

Suze makes a good point about hatred. We can only hope that whatever 'faith' or value system is taught, that it is done with love in mind and not hatred or intolerance to other viewpoints.

For the most part that happens in modern countries - fanaticism is the exception rather than the rule.

This mornings Today program featured the story of a woman who 'escaped' from a Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS)with her 8 children,all born in the cult from a forced marriage.
The leader has been arrested and charged for a range of offences ranging from rape to Paedophilia and over 400 children have been taken into protective custody.

The defenders of religious teaching in this forum might consider the consequences of trauma ,stress and confusion in the minds of the children removed together with over a hundred women who voluntarily walked out, having to come to terms with the brainwashing they had been subjected to under the influence of their 'prophet'.

Added to the unfolding evidence of endemic abuse within the Catholic Church, now offering 'counselling' to their victims, it seems to me that there is very good reason for our society to consider the mental health of our children as equally important as their physical well being in healthy diet,exercise abstinence from smoking and other drugs.

Australian of the Year, Professor Patrick McGorry,highlighted the neglected area of mental health and It is essential that we consider all the factors that contribute to the problem, including that of misleading information as to who we are

This debate, as so often happens, seems to have got polarised. Surely all reasonable people accept that we are all acculturated, that is we grow up with all sorts of ideological influences around us. Despite all the opinions expressed on sites like this, I would argue that very very little 'free' thought takes place (some of course argue that free thought is impossible). The point is that given the milieu children are born into, they should be free to make sense of it all for themselves, and not be systematically indoctrinated into any religion. Mitchell, above, is an agnostic/atheist yet he says he encourages his children to challenge his views and think things through for themselves. Surely that is the best kind of formative influence, at school and at home?

Squeers, Mitchell (and anyone else):

I have read your posts with interest. Near the start of the thread I addressed a post to the author of the article, but since he doesn’t seem to be entering the discussion I invite you to consider it in the light of the views you have expressed. The question is about indoctrination. Where does it start and education cease? The case I outlined may prompt us to find some new helpful perspectives on the topic.

"The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing"
Adolf Hitler 1937.

Crabsy,
I don't think there's anything wrong with the kind of influence you exert with the recorder as long as it's not dogmatic. My 13 year old girl plays the recorder beautifully (and the clarinet and oboe), but also listens to all the noisy (for me rubbish) music her generation listens to. She also reads avariciously but mostly, hitherto, authors like Stephen King (I hardly censor her reading at all). I've been trying to urge her for ages to read what I think are great texts (not just because they're canonical) but have met a lot of resistance; her own healthy assertion of independence. She's now reading Ian McEwan's "Atonement", on my recommendation (a compromise), but I've had to exert this influence with 'kid' gloves.
I am delighted with this independence of mind she's developing, and hope it will lead to a fulfilling life during which no one will be permitted to impose upon her, not even me.
So to want to share with your child what you find inspiring is fine with me, but they have to want to take it up of their own free will. Even religious influence is fine if it's imparted in the same spirit--though it constitutes a whole world view, as mysterious as aesthetics, and one would wish for lots of comparative material as context.
I'm far from the perfect parent, but I think I've got this matter of parental influence right. Religious texts are among my recommended reading list for my kids btw, but they can spend their lives watching Homer Simpson if they prefer--healthy satire!

My analogy was intended to illustrate three different classes of decision that parents might make, here represented by ethnicity, nationality and religion. First, children’s ethnicity is determined by their parents’ genes. End of question. Second, if parents have an opportunity to determine their children’s nationality, they should. Everyone needs a nationality and children are unlikely to be able to appraise any options available to them. Here, parents have a responsibility, not just a right. Third, children do not need a religion. This strikes out any argument that parents have a responsibility to impose one. Do they have a right to require their children to accept what they believe? Possibly. But they should always test this right, issue by issue, against sensible criteria. This is where differences of opinion arise. Here are two seemingly sensible criteria on which most religious beliefs would founder.
• The belief to be imposed should be verifiable. Nobody would countenance forcing children to believe that the world was created by a giant toad or that avoiding treading on footpath cracks will bring good luck, yet there is just as much irrefutable, replicable, verifiable evidence for these beliefs as for many of the beliefs that religions espouse.
• The belief to be imposed should have no capacity to harm the child. There is well founded opinion that encouraging children to believe in a god who spies on their every waking thought and action so that he will know which children to select to suffer the unspeakable agony of burning forever in hellish flames does them considerable harm.
Here’s the key difference. Parents have a responsibility to make sure their children know that there are people in the world who place great faith in their religious beliefs. They have no right whatsoever to pressure their own children, or anyone else’s children for that matter, to join them.
In summary: There are areas in which parents have a responsibility to make decisions for their children. There are areas in which they have a right, but not a responsibility. And there are areas in which they have neither.

Sorry Crabsy. Spent all day yesterday playing the recorder and/or encouraging others to play it and all morning preparing music for next week and lessons for my other U3A classes. If I’d suspected you were awaiting a response …
No, you are not indoctrinating children when you teach them about things or encourage them to practise provided that you do not place children under duress to believe things that are not demonstrably true. It’s true that practising something will make you a better practitioner so it’s OK to tell them they won’t realise their potential in this life if (like me) they don’t practise enough. And I’ve a lot less potential-achieving time left than most! It would be indoctrination if you forced them to believe that the price of their inattention to practice or preference for rock music in this life would be suffering in the next; and that’s not just because it would be a cruel thing to do —it’s because you can’t demonstrate to them, or yourself, that this is true. In fact, you indoctrinate whenever you force children believe anything that cannot be shown to be at least strongly implied by all the observable evidence.
Two hints that might help. There are some great arrangements of contemporary popular music for recorders, even including rock, and a great source of contemporary arrangement at Mayhill Edition. And, when I was a child, my father built our first ever brick, pull-the-chain dunny in the backyard. Its acoustic was amazing — made a descant sound as big as a saxophone. I practised there for hours to my family’s and my complete satisfaction. There was the occasional interruption! Moral? Parents do have a responsibility to try to tolerate children’s excruciating learning efforts; but the children also have a responsibility to minimise the pain as much as they can.

"First, children’s ethnicity is determined by their parents’ genes. End of question."
Only if you narrowly define ethnicity solely in terms of race.
Ethnicity is more accurately defined in terms of race, religion, language and other cultural traits.
Of all these aspects of ethnicity, only race is genetically determined.
You can't even get that right and you want to determine what should be taught to other people's children?

"The belief to be imposed should be verifiable."
I thought relativism had consigned verities to the waste basket of history?
Except the ones you would want to impose, presumably.

"The belief to be imposed should have no capacity to harm the child."
Here's one:.
Religious belief - Homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural.
21st century secular liberal belief - Homosexuality is normal and natural.
Fact: Homosexual males have 40+ times the HIV/AIDS prevalence than do heterosexual males.
By effectively encouraging homosexual experimentation, the 21st century secular liberal belief has the statistically demonstrable capacity to harm the child.

"There are people in the world who place great faith in their religious beliefs."
Would you ban tautological repetition?
I'd give my backing to supporting that.

"There are areas in which parents have neither the responsibility nor the right to make decisions for their children."
Yes, these decisions should be made by state bureaucrats.
Seig heil!

"To instruct someone in some particular teaching or doctrine" this is the Macquaire dictionary definition. To me this covers all teaching at a primary and high school level where challenge of what is taught is discouraged. How some have come up with these definitions of what is and isn't ok to teach your children is amazing. Have and do you still challenge your own belief system. It is not important in the end what you think just don't force it on your children. They will learn more from how you behave and treat other people especially those different from yourself than they will from what you tell them. If you demonstrate a patient, kind and caring attitude toward others then there is a good chance so will your child. Don't tell them to be good just be good. So come on, stop fighting about what you believe and live and let live. We only need concern ourselves with those who wish to hurt others not those who are different. OH and for the record, i would like to see all recorders burned. But that would be a personal opinion and not one to push on to others.

Runner
I can’t be sure whether you mean to be taken seriously but in case you do, I have to confess to never having watched Underbelly and to never having laid eye or ear on Lady Gaga. And worse, not only my children, but my grandchildren do not seem to have turned out as you predicted. If the grandchildren continue as they are going, they will continue the performance of their mothers who, between them, did not manage even once to make their mother or me think “difficult teenager”. They are all incredibly splendid, pride instilling people, except possibly for the five year old whose violin is still a bit excruciating. But she dances beautifully, reads heaps and writes reams. And I take some encouragement from that. Sorry to have to disappoint you.
As a skeptic, I don’t dismiss claims outright as rubbish but I do sometimes ask for the supporting evidence. Please explain how state schools could have made me happy for my children to get their value systems from popular culture, especially as I never attended one. Where is the evidence that supports your claim that “most parents love their kids enough to see the stupidity of his dogma”; and please also explain what “dogma” means for I cannot work it out from context. Please also note that while some people claim to be adept at miracles, I have to remain a Glen from start to finish. I assume that Greg and I are one and the same because you have fixed us both up with a “dogma”. OK, that’s only a correlation, and doesn’t prove that everyone with a dogma is a Glen/Greg. Or would you say that it does? But back to evidence. Where, please, can I study the evidence for your claim that “most people think that Glen/Greg's dogma is simply crap”? And may I ask if “crap” has always been your noun of preference or if you are merely expressing solidarity with the latest alternative prime minister?

GlenC, you need to revisit the books--more likely consult them for the first time!
"children’s ethnicity is determined by their parents’ genes. End of question".
Would you like to site some evidence, cobber? That's the last place they get their ethnicity!
"Second, if parents have an opportunity to determine their children’s nationality, they should. Everyone needs a nationality and children are unlikely to be able to appraise any options available to them. Here, parents have a responsibility, not just a right".
Well this is just is just pig fu#%&ing ignorance! Nationalitly has got far less substance to it than religion!
I can't believe I responded to your article the least bit thoughtfully, you ignorant oaf!
Go and heill Hitler somewhere else!

Crasby, keep teaching the recorder.

Nairbe
You got me. I should have said “race” as you realized. I wonder why did not respond to what you knew I meant rather than what I said?

Look, I’m just a simpleton who can’t get his head around relativism. By truths, I mean things like: It’s true that every time I’ve dropped an egg on a tile floor, it broke. I reckon the next one I drop will too. I’m even prepared to wager a dollar that it will break absolutely. Wanna bet? Relatively speaking?

If the incidence of homosexuality in humans (and in other species as well) is over ten percent as I’ve heard, it is hardly abnormal or unnatural. You (and I) might think it’s unattractive but it would not be available to you or me to curl our lips and spout “abnormal and unnatural”. Unless, of course, we were prepared to say the same thing about left-handers or redheads. I didn’t know that responsible secular bodies encouraged homosexual experimentation. Please tell us their names.

Sorry, but this late in the day I’m not alert enough to understand your comment about “tautological repetition”, which itself seems a bit tautological to me. You wouldn’t be saying that “faith” and “religious belief” are the same thing, would you? That’s actually the problem with a lot of religious belief — it rests on faith rather than evidence. That’s why (in spite of your claims on behalf of relativism) fundamentalists, especially religious fundamentalists, are the only ones who seriously claim to have certain knowledge. Nothing can be allowed to question their faith. Scientists never claim to be certain of anything. They don’t even say that a dropped egg must break; they only say that, based on evidence, there is a very high probability that it will.

As to your final comment, here’s a hint. Proving that an animal isn’t a dog doesn’t prove that it’s a cat. Did you mean to go all Nazi at the end?

Thanks Glen.

I have used some recorder arrangements of rock tunes in the repertoire for my students. But Mayhill Edition is a new source to me, so I’ll look at it with gratitude. Since I teach in country communities the outdoor dunny sounds like a promising option for home practice. If I were to get kids to have regular jams with half a dozen mates in the dunny I wonder what effect it would have on my relationships with parents!:)

Glen, Proxy, Nairbe and others:

If Glen agrees with Proxy that race is genetically determined, you are both wrong. Race does not exist.

<…if parents have an opportunity to determine their children’s nationality, they should.>
If “nationality” here means more than the simple legal classification required for passports etc., I cannot agree.

For an expanded argument on both of the above points, see my article from some years ago on this site: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4108

So now to religion. This is much more complex. I do agree that no religious practice or belief should harm a child – or an adult or the ecosystem, for that matter. Yet even attempting to apply that principle in some individual cases of such alleged harm could give rise to extensive and complex argument.

To say that every religious belief should be “supported by replicable, verifiable evidence” implies that the scientific approach is appropriate in theological matters. This is erroneous. Understanding religious or spiritual experience for the most part must be achieved by non-empirical paths. That’s why theology is more like literary analysis (or perhaps musical criticism Glen?) than like science.

In my experience, to know the reality of God requires some religious practice, largely consisting of participation in liturgies regularly. Hence my example of the student being required to practise music regularly in order to gain an awareness and understanding of it. If a parent insists on taking her child to church regularly to give the child some experience upon which to later base a judgement of the beliefs, I think this is justifiable.

Squeers, don’t worry: the recorder will not die!

Great article, Glen!

Please ignore the bigots who think they have the right to convince all young school-aged children that they were born evil and that they're going to burn for all eternity, unless they follow their particular brand of religion.

The mental anguish and self hatred that some children go through because of this depravity SHOULD be correctly regarded as child abuse.

Because of this type of religious bigotry, the human race now faces another "Crusades" era, except that this time, the combatants have the bomb.

Will we survive?

Who knows?

If we do, it won't be because of bizaar beliefs in supernatural beings and miracles. Forget feverishly filling the minds of children with fables, fantasies and fallacies. That won't help either!

For goodness sake people, get real! There are people who believe that Superman and Luke Skywalker were real people. You're no different!

Oh, what's that? Yours is the REAL god. Yeah right! Go read about the Ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians. They also believed in their gods with equal passion. What makes their belief in their god(s) any different or less valid to your beliefs in your god(s)?

It amuses me to see atheists criticised by religious bigots for being dogmatic, when it wasn't THAT long ago that people who spoke up against Christian beliefs did so under the fear of death! That same reality even exists in some countries today!

What a waste of valuable resources!

SecularGuy,
<<bizaar beliefs>>
Is that some sort of marketplace for outlandish convictions?

Good point Proxy.
You got me! That should read "bizarre beliefs" instead of "bizaar beliefs".
Thanks for pointing out my typo.

Now it's my turn...
Let me remind you of Glen's QUESTION: "Is requiring children to adopt the religious beliefs of their parents not akin to child abuse?"

Like you (it seems), I support less beaurocratic interference, but I support less religious interference 40 times more! Is that another case of tautological repetition? I hope so :-)

Sadly, throughout the world, and yes, right here in Australia, right now, young children ARE being taught to hate others because of outrageous religious indoctrination by their parents and church representatives.

Do you not see that this cycle of hatred has to stop somewhere, some time?

Glen asked if the "requiring" part was akin to child abuse. I believe it is (in many cases).

This does NOT necessarily mean adding state interference but rather, it means eliminating all religious indoctrination in schools, particularly state-funded schools, where there is currently no alternative choice to Christian-based RI (Religious Indoctrination) for any children. They are "required" to be indoctrinated with Christian "scripture" classes.

This is wrong!

Children should be taught about all religions at school That way, they can make their OWN minds up when the time comes.

What other positive alternatives can you suggest?

I’d like to hear some.

SecularGuy,
The author does more than ask:
"Is requiring children to adopt the religious beliefs of their parents not akin to child abuse?"
He proposes a 5 step plan to counter the perceived problem.
I'm merely attempting to point out weaknesses in his proposals.
Furthermore, I have difficulty accepting your claim that
"Sadly, throughout the world, and yes, right here in Australia, right now, young children ARE being taught to hate others because of outrageous religious indoctrination by their parents and church representatives."
Clearly you've narrowed your focus down to Christianity, as you talk of church representatives and not temple, mosque or synagogue representatives.
Can you please clarify your claims with some specific examples on how Christian parents and Church representatives are outrageously indoctrinating their children to hate others?
I don't necessarily mean provide hard evidence.
I mean, hate who and on what basis?

@ Proxy

Religious indoctrination generally denigrates other beliefs or others' belief. See this view by a supposed leader of one Christian denomination about the different beliefs of another -

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/media/video/saints_and_miracles/

............................

"By effectively encouraging homosexual experimentation, the 21st century secular liberal belief has the statistically demonstrable capacity to harm the child."

No one is encouraging experimentation. Homosexuality is mostly innate, and is now accepted as that.
It is coincidence the HIV/AIDs scenario arose at the same time western societies generally stopped denigrating people for their sexuality.

“No one is encouraging experimentation.”
Legitimising a high risk activity to children is tantamount to encouraging experimentation with it.
If we told our kids that there was nothing wrong with smoking pot we could reasonably expect to see more children experimenting with it.

“Homosexuality is mostly innate, and is now accepted as that.”
This disproven canard belongs with the 10% myth.

"It is coincidence the HIV/AIDs scenario arose at the same time western societies generally stopped denigrating people for their sexuality."
¿Que?
Is it a coincidence, a statistical anomaly, that homosexual males have a 40+ times higher prevalence of HIV/AIDs than heterosexual males, or is it directly related to their behaviour?

In short,
I don't want any religious fanatics teaching my kids about their fantasy god and I don't want any homosexual activists teaching my kids their fantasy, that a man "marrying" a man is "just the same" as normal marriage.

A secular travesty is no better than a religious travesty.

GlenC
I think you may have confused me with Proxy, I hope so as i would not ever wish to go Nazi on any one.
I do though have to question your assertion that race or ethnicity is a purely gene based issue.
Now I maybe confused but I was of the understanding that science has shown with the development of our understanding of DNA that race does not exist. The differences we experience as race are environmentally based.
Again I could be confused and this may relate to a different area of genetics, I am a bit slow, so please refer me to the appropriate articles to correct me.
Non the less, if we are actually all one race in essence and matters such as evolutionary environmental effects and the influence of religion, lifestyle and community are what really form the differences between us, are we not then better to seek neutral ground and the homogenisation of culture to lessen the burden of cultural conflict.
Therefore your comment that we all need a nationality is well, What for? This maybe a naive comment by me but is not nationality cause for useless conflict and nationalism that lead to things like Nazism.
Lastly nearly all nationalities use religion as a core element of there identity. You don't need to look far to hear the "we are a country with values based in Christianity".
Look at the constant damage the indoctrination of children does. Identity is mostly built on the fears and prejudices of the community, so one could say that national identity and racial divide are merely indoctrinated concepts and don't exist.
Yes I think I am just a simpleton.

Proxy,
I can't argue against your logic.

It is always a good idea to constantly test proposals for weaknesses.

However, it is even better to offer another (hopefully improved) proposal to advance the debate and move forward. Do you have one?

BTW, it was not my intention to focus on Christianity per se, but to focus on the current issue with the rampant Christian indulgence of forcing "Scripture" classes onto ALL state school children in Queensland. It seemed relevant to this discussion.

Also, you don't need me to demonstrate recent examples of hate speech by church leaders. Have a look at the recent Easter Messages by most of the prominent AUSTRALIAN Christian church leaders where (for example) today's atheists were openly compared with the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin.

How disgustingly low can they go? I mean, Hitler (as a child) was taught to hate Jews by the Catholic church and openly supported by them during the war, and they THEN have the audacity to "point the finger" at a harmless group of people who have some integrity by checking the validity of what they're told to believe. What hypocrites!

At a time when the world needed messages of hope, compassion and understanding, this sort of mindless garbage was propagated with glee by Christian parents to anyone with an email address.

I'm not against people practising their own religious beliefs in private. I realise that there are many who have had this ideology thrust upon them from an early age, and they really need it to continue in their lives.

What I strongly object to is having religion imposed on all of us from every corner and it all starts with children being "required" to adopt some religious belief to avoid segregation from their mates.

THAT's what has to end!

Religion is private and does not belong in schools. Parents wanting a religous education should send their kids to sunday school or its equivalent.

Freedom of religion is a human right see artcile 18 of the UDHR:
* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

I am all for a course in comparative religion and a history of religion in schools. It could be quite controversial though as each religious parent would have an individual interpretation of religion and its values.

For example thou shalt not worship graven images is interpreted by:
-Protestants as not worshiping any images
-Easterners as not worshiping statues but pictures are ok
-Catholics as ignoring this rule (or pretending statues of Maria and saints are just decoration)

This may not lead to too much trouble. But pointing out that the trinity is a 4th century invention that was widely ignored by the Arians or that Mohamed married a 9 year old might rock the boat a bit. I imagine that most teachers will not be looking forward to parent interviews after delivering that part of the curriculum.

On the other hand the knowledge that Christ is known as Issa the "Prophet of Love" in islam might appeal to aging hippies.

"This debate, as so often happens, seems to have got polarised. "

You are right squeerz that always seems to happen on this topic. I wonder if anyone has changed their religous preference, gained a better understanding of others or learned something as a result of reading or contributing to this forum.

It often feels like everyone is talking and no one is listening.

People don't become fully human until
they're socialized, and the primary
context of this socialisation is the
family, starting at birth. Because the
child is theirs, the parents normally
take particular care to monitor his or
her behaviour and to pass on
the language, values, norms, and beliefs
of the culture. Although in modern society
many of these socialisation functions have
also been added to by other institutions such
as schools, churches, or even the media, the
family remains the earliest and most
significant agency of socialisation.

After all birth into a family gives the
individual a stable place in society.
We inherit from our family not only material
goods but also our social status. We belong
to the same racial or ethnic group and it's
no surprise that usually also to the same
religion and social class that our parents
belong to. Our family background is the most
significant single determinant of our status
in society.

The family is a "haven in a heartless world."
Human beings have a need for affection, nurturance,
intimacy, and love. The family is the primary
social context in which emotional needs can be
fulfilled and the deepest personal feelings can
be expressed. To suggest that teaching children
the religion of the parents is a form of abuse
is ludicrous. The family is the place of ultimate
emotional refuge and comfort and it fulfills its
role so effectively that it takes primary
responsibility for it in human culture.

The author obviously has not studied the subject
of sociology.

Foxy,
All those nice, warm, fuzzy things you mentioned about families can easily be achieved without any religious indoctrination.

Until recently, it was considered OK for parents and church-run institutions to physically abuse children with belts (and the like)' That behaviour is now recognised as abuse.

Times change! Standards change with the times and public opinion!

You might (or might not) know something about sociology, but your lack of knowledge or understanding about real life issues is very evident in your post.

BTW, the question is not about "teaching children the religion of the parents", as you put it. It is about indoctrination and "REQUIRING children to adopt the religious beliefs of their parents". Big difference!

Got it?

SecularGuy,
<<Until recently, it was considered OK for parents and church-run institutions to physically abuse children with belts (and the like)' That behaviour is now recognised as abuse.>>
I remember receiving corporal punishment at both of the state-run secular primary and high schools that I attended.
Clearly, "parents and church-run institutions" did not have a monopoly on corporal punishment.
What's your point?

GlenC

‘Sorry to have to disappoint you’ You have not disappointed me and I am pleased your children/grandchildren are doing well. No doubt with this kind of result you must have imposed your values on your kids/grand kids,

My evidence that many people are rejecting your dogma (a humanistic course in ethics for kids) is the mass exodus of this failed Marxist ideology and dogma . State schools have claimed to have ethics and morals for years. If these have not failed there would not be a mass exodus from these schools.

No doubt you want your doctrine of ‘moral rights and responsibilities’ taught. Popular culture is and has been adopted as morally acceptable by those who don’t teach a replacement. If you are not happy for your children to adopt popular culture ( body image obsession) then you have done well. You seem blind however to the fact that you have imposed your beliefs on the child. The next person has imposed a totally different set of beliefs.

You also fail to acknowledge that many kids have a curiosity to where we come from and how they got here. The failure of science to give any plausible and provable explanations should be acknowledged. Science textbooks that have been full of frauds and men’s vain imaginations should not be taught to kids as science. This is deceitful and fraudulent (the very thing you accuse the religious of). The simple chance of something coming from nothing is really pathetic science compared to the obvious design we see in the universe. Many dogmas flow from the fantasy of evolution. No doubt you are comfortable with these dogmas brainwashing your kids. To teach a baby is not a human until a certain age is deceitful and destructive. It actually leads to people believing they can murder children without conscience.

The fruit of denying the obvious is shown by communist countries such as China and North Korea. The non belief in God in these countries make the protestant/Catholic casualties look very small indeed.

Childhood indoctrination ranges anywhere from ‘inappropriate’ in its most mild form, to ‘full-blown child abuse’ in the most extreme situations.

Telling children that a place like Hell exists and potentially awaits them if they don’t believe is mental and emotion abuse, and in extreme cases, has been known to cause severe anxiety problems that extend well into adulthood even after the victim has pulled themselves out of the indoctrination.

Mental and emotional abuse of a child would normally result in a visit by Social Services and probably a few family counselling sessions.

But not where religion’s concerned.

No, as usual religion gets its underserved free pass to do whatever the hell it likes. Not only are we not supposed to criticise religious belief, but were actually supposed to respect it when there is no reason respect it.

Parents can focus all they like on how allegedly loving their alleged god is, but so long as the concept of Hell is even so much as far off in the background, that’ll never really be enough.

Religious parents always see the need to get in there quickly before the critical thinking skills kick-in, yet it never seems actually occurs to them why that is.

In 2008, I ran a 9-week U3A discussion of Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”. I’d read a 30-minute slab without comment and then moderate a 60-minute discussion among 35 participants. They came from differing religious backgrounds and most of them didn’t miss a week. I was thrilled by the quality of their input, by their ability to remain perfectly civil while putting their often conflicting views, and by the depth of learning — book and life — they brought to them. On the last day, eight accepted my invitation to present a ten minute paper under parliamentary maiden-speech rules — you can say what you like without fear of interruption. The papers were good enough to print; so I printed them.

This exchange has been almost as rewarding. Thanks everyone. I’m sorry I’m no expert in race/ethnicity, sociology or even nationality. All I meant by saying that everyone needed a nationality was that having one makes it lots easier to get passports, pensions and stuff. And overall I was only trying to illustrate that while there are certain characteristics over which children have no control, religion isn’t one. Or shouldn’t be.

I didn’t say, and don’t believe, that children should not be taught about religion. They just shouldn’t be forced to commit to one until they are old enough to know what it means.
Of course my wife and I encouraged our children to uphold certain values just as they now encourage theirs. But we never forced them to believe anything, religious or other, that flew in the face of evidence. And neither should anyone else. That’s indoctrination.
Two years ago, my seven year old grandson came home from SRE and defied his mother with the slogan “Anyway, you are not the boss of me. God is the boss of me.” A week later, I heard a Victorian mother on Four Corners complain of being confronted with exactly the same words. Coincidence? Even if you don’t agree that those children had been mentally abused by their religion teacher, you must see that neither had they been loved. Or respected.

Dear Secular Guy,

I was raised as a Catholic.
Staunch and true.
As I grew up, went to uni, travelled -
I didn't like what organized religion had
done to the world. I still do not.
I've come to see, however, that true
religion is internal, not external.
The spirit within us can't be blamed
for the blasphemies carried out in its name.
What some have done in the name of religion,
projecting their neuroses even perpetrating
evil on the world does not make religion as a
mystical phenomenon invalid.

Secularized organized religions have become,
in many cases, as calcified as other
institutions that form the structure of the modern
world. Our religious institutions have far too
often become handmaidens of the status quo, while
the genuine religious experience is anything but
that.

Anyway, the point that I'm trying to make is - children
will make up their own minds and choose what's right
for them as they grow. We all know this. They choose
their friends, and their own path in life. But to
suggest that parents have no right to pass on to their
children their beliefs, values, norms, et cetera -
is not very realistic.
That's what parents do when they're raising
a child. They try to give them the basics in life.
The rest is up to the child to choose which path their
life's journey is going to take.

By the way - you need to tone down your posts and watch
your language and work on the assumption
that you're dealing with people of at least
average intelligence. Phrases such as, "Get It!"
are unnecessary. And if people don't "Get It,"
it may be because they either
disagree with you, or you may need to look at your
posting style. This is after all merely a discussion.
We're all entitled to our opinions, even if they don't
happen to agree with yours.

The author actually demonstrates that his arguement is false.

He was 'indoctrinated' as a child, as he went to a Catholic school. Gee they didn't do a very good job brainwashing him, now did they.

I have no problems with religious education in schools, and actually think it should form a core part of the curricula, but it should cover all the major religions and the topic of cults. It should also look at the effect of religion on politics etc. It could be part of the social science section.

However, before an informed discussion can be had on religion, one must first know something on the topic. The small bits of religious instruction in schools is minimal, and if parents want to have thier children know nothing about religion, I believe they are doing the children a dis-service, not abusing them.

By including religion in the curriculum, the power for people to use religion as indoctrination is reduced, and children will form critical opinions for themselves, some choosing to stick with their parent's religion, others will choose a different path, as the author obviously has.

The author is acutally pushing for his form of religious instruction to be regulated - that is agnosticism (or whatever it is called).

I would much rather children are educated in religions as a topic, as many Catholic schools are doing, so that children can make a free and informed choice as adults.

An informed choice is far better than being denied the information with which to make a choice - that is indoctrination in itself.

Dearest Foxy,
I value your opinion and your right to express it.

Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant to me. I will still read your posts and absorb their content, unless it becomes obvious that you have nothing worthwhile to offer the discussion.

To me, intelligence (high, medium or low) is no indication whatsoever of the value of a person's post. Many religious leaders are far smarter than I will EVER be, but that doesn't make them right.

What disappointed me about your previous post was that (like some others) you chose to ignore the "required" point of Glen's question. And do you know what? You STILL don't get it!

"...to suggest that parents have no right to pass on..." is very different to a child's religious status being "required" to be that of their parents. Do you see my point?

IMHO, the main thrust of Glen's question (and three of his five bullet points) relate to the current school environment, where fundamentalist Christian parents have (over the years) abused the RI/RE/SRE periods to the point where they have become blatant indoctrination for ALL the children in the school, otherwise your child is considered an outcast.

The spokesman for the Australian Christian Lobby might see this as "appropriate", but many parents believe it is wrong, but currently, there is no alternative class.

The only possible neutral "Ethics" alternative trial is being vigorously attacked by religious fanatics who are afraid of losing their "market share" of young minds. WHat does that tell you?

BTW: I suggest that you watch YOUR language in future. The use of "We all know this." clearly shows that you have no valid reference for your claim.

all

(secular guy)There is difference between having no allegiance and being anti something. Sadly you are tending to fall into the latter as does the author. I would refer you to Pericles' post.

I do make the point I agree with some of the author's bullet points but for other reasons:
BP #3- no RI in public schools. More along the point that:

- just because one is a pastor/priest( much less an enthusiast) doesn't necessarily the individual is either competent or appropriate (including skilled).
- the material is suitable for the children i.e. I recall being read 'Pilgrim's Progress' and obscure interpretations thereof at 6. It scared the bejesus out of some others.
- home and peers tend to be of greater influence and/or simply undo the work 1 or 2 lessons per week.
- without exams (motivation, reinforcement) they are practically speaking a Waste of school time (a budge class).
- to make it valid, the STATE would need to sanction a curriculum and make it part of the grade assessment procedure. It isn't competent to do so and in a secular STATE that is *not* its province to do so.
Even if it were it would be impossible to provide for all religions/denominations and therefore unintentionally sanctioning unintended discrimination.

BP 5- ethics lectures (although I doubt that it will make a lot of difference)to Australia per se given home or peer examples (see Pericles).

Beyond that and in the time honoured saying,(IMO)the author's ideas has left the building'

Aka and nairbe
Aka, actually, my schools did a very good job — except in English, Maths and Science where the instruction was inhibited by both teachers’ ignorance of their subject matter: I was into my thirties before I gained the courage to shed what I had been REQUIRED to believe. Even then, I had to steel myself to step away from indoctrinated views fearing the hurt I might cause my extended family; and I still tread warily at reunions. As usual, music helped. I realized it had become the only part of religious observance that my mind tuned into.

I don’t understand how you can say “The author is acutally pushing for his form of religious instruction to be regulated - that is agnosticism (or whatever it is called)”. What I actually said was that children should be taught “the beliefs that define each major world religion and the influence of its holy books on the belief, culture and literature of its followers.” How did you get your accusation from that? Are you sure you were not responding to what you wished I’d said rather than what I actually said?

nairbe, my sincere apologies if my riposte to the Nazi sounding comments was misdirected. I’m still struggling a bit with the amazing opportunities that technology now offers even oldies to interact with and learn from interesting strangers. What a world the youngsters are inheriting — if we haven’t already sentenced it to death from overheating. Btw, they say that accusing an opponent of Nazism is a sure sign that you know you’ve lost the debate

Glen,
It seems to me that your major beef is with your family and the fact that they were able to extend their influence by placing you in an educational environment that compounded and cemented their views. That is a symptom of a society that educates their children in institutions - it's pretty much one size fits all and, therefore, some members of the population are always going to feel hard done by.
My family don't have to worry about indoctrination (of any sort) that goes on in educational institutions because we don't use one. I homeschool my son which means he will probably have his outlook coloured by my ethics. I'd like to think that I will provide him with a broad range of views and allow him to form his own opinions on religion, politics and philosophy in general - I'll do my best, but it's a pretty sure bet that his outlook will be coloured in some way by my opinions and the way we live our life. Still, it is a luxury to be able to choose and one that is available to any parent if they so wish.
It is interesting that you support the notion of education of religious belief in theory, yet when the theory is put into practice, which seems a natural progression,you are against it. It is hard to go past Foxy's assertion that it is the most natural thing in the world for children to be identified by their parent's religious or cultural views as it is their socio-economic status.

GlenC,
<<Btw, they say that accusing an opponent of Nazism>>
racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, EVIL, bigotry, prejudice, xenophobia, hatred
<<is a sure sign that you know you’ve lost the debate>>.
It's all par for the course at OLO.

Dear Secular Guy,

When I said that "We all know this,"
my point of reference to the "we" was -
we as parents know this. That children
choose their own paths in life. I was
speaking as a parent - from my experience,
which is I feel quite valid.

And when I said that we are all entitled to our
opinions, I still believe that.

I may not 'get it,' as you believe. However,
I can only speak from my own experience.
My children were never "forced" to follow the
religion of their parents. Who or what they
chose to believe in (or not) was left up to
them completely. You raise your children in the
best possible way that you know. It's really a
passage. It isn't lasting, and if handled well,
it moves into a healthy friendship that only grows
and grows.

But letting go is a most important step: letting go
and having faith that the lessons learned will at
least in part be remembered. Sure, it's not easy,
but it's necessary, unless you want to be a parent
who has to be "dealt with," instead of a parent that
they'll come to for advice in the future.

Glenc
I think your 'misdirected' comments were meant for me.
You don't seem to have intended to come across in the manner I interpreted, however, so I apologise for the Heill Hitler line, though your position did sound a lot like national socialism.
Indoctrination (or 'interpellation', as Althusser has it) takes place from the beginning, but that's like the operating software in a computer. The indoctrination I'm against is more like malicious software that introduces irrational elements that can distort processing, or even irretrievably corrupt it. I don't think religion is necessarily a virus, it might even help some machines run more efficiently, but when it's introduced indiscriminately, opportunistically and invasively, it can only be deemed a virus.
Nationalism and racialism are for me the basest instincts we posses; properly primordial yet stubbornly atavistic, cultivated rather than genetically encrypted, they're nothing but the empty tropes of bigots.
Spirituality, which doesn't have to be institutional, can be a healthy sign of rebellion, and thus should be left to its own devices.

Squeers,
If nationalism and racialism are:
"base instincts"
"properly primordial"
"stubbornly atavistic"
which all point to genetic encryption,
how can they be cultivated?
Or are your words just the "empty tropes of a bigot"?

Proxy:
<Squeers,
If nationalism and racialism are:
"base instincts"
"properly primordial"
"stubbornly atavistic"
which all point to genetic encryption,
how can they be cultivated?
Or are your words just the "empty tropes of a bigot"?>

Have you lighted upon the ambiguity of language?
Any deconstruction worthy of the name settles for nothing less than reversal (of meaning), which is why Wittgenstein (an analytic!) designated our most concerted reasoning "language games". You may readily find all the logical flaws you please in my mode of expression, but that's because language is unstable (though of course my reasoning may be flawed as well, regardless of the rules of the game). And language is not only our mode of expression and communication, it's also, crucially, our mode of 'apprehension'. What of direct knowledge then, unmediated...?

However, it's the only game in town and so one is obliged to play.
I used the word 'base', regardless of it's primordial connotations,
as an adjective to deplore racialism and nationalism (though the distinction isn't important). After a semi-colon I went on to say that these were "properly primordial yet stubbornly atavistic"--ie, still emergent in civilised modern man. Except that today they are "cultivated rather than genetically encrypted ... [thus] nothing but the empty tropes of bigots"; my meaning being that bigots invoke primeval latency, dormant but never far beneath the civilised veneer, for their own rhetorical ends. Racialism and nationalism are no longer needed for survival, yet they're not quite extinct; they're cultivated by zealots for whatever political/ideological reason (no doubt with genuine sincerity), and used to manipulate and seduce as many as they can to their cause.
There is no imperative behind racialism or nationalism, they're just sensitive spots that are easily and opportunistically inflamed.

Exactly Foxy; I fully understood you. This is how I have raised my children. Left the religion side all the way through for them to make their own decisions and in relation to Christianity.

I would love them to have faith in God for the benefits I have received through life; yet if not so, always respect their rights as Individuals to be athiests if that is what they choose.

My parents never forced religion or attending mass on Sundays onto me, rather, gave me an insight into believing in God and left it up to me through my own life to follow whatever I wanted. The same with all of my siblings. Morals and values were a more important focus, regarding the treatment of other people as opposed to religion.

Dear We Are Unique,

Thank You for your kind words.

It's a tough job being a parent.
Children present problems which
don't disappear, even when a
parent believes in love, respect,
acceptance, individual differences,
and personal uniqueness. Though
magnificent, these concepts are too
abstract and too large. They're like
a thousand-dollar-note-good currency,
but useless in meeting mundane needs
such as buying a cup of coffee, taking
a taxi, or making a phone call. Parents
need psychological small change. They need
specific skills for dealing effectively and
humanely with minute-to-minute happenings-the
small irritations, the daily conflicts, the
sudden crises. All these situations call for
helpful and realistic reactions. A parent's
response has crucial consequences. It creates
a mood of contentment or contention. It
affects the child's behaviour and character for
better or for worse.

These are the fact of emotional life which make
teaching and learning possible or impossible.
At their best, parents recognize the core
truth: learning is always in the present tense,
and it is always personal.

We can only do what we think is best for our child.
We're expected to reach unattaiable goals with
inadequate tools. The miracle is that at times
we accomplish this impossible task.

GlenC
Thanks for the debate, i think as a single father of three i spend a lot of time considering whether i am doing the right thing or not. probably i should not worry so much but instead make sure they are free to make choices in their lives for themselves. Acting as the safety net is scary but in the end its how we all learn't. At least i know i learn't most things the hard way. I came upon a saying that i have found to be true "you can pass on experience but you cannot pass on wisdom"
The varied ideals that have been put forward are i am sure done with the best intentions. Some of the thoughts and comments in the debate i have found some what misguided and at times difficult to understand. The way people think and the concepts they hold to be true a varied and whether they are based on fact or faith they are all valid as they all exist in the community we share. I am sure the debate over what constitutes the abuse of a child could rage for ever. Remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Moving forward i will continue to challenge my understandings of the world and try as best i can to understand by what i know not what i believe.

"All that needs to be said, has been said, but not everyone has said it"... I'll leave Squeers and others to debate nationalism, which I despise, racialism, which undoes us, and the deconstruction of language, and restrict myself to what I thought the author was trying to say.

There should be no such thing as 'faith' schools in any nation-state that likes to pretend it is part of the 'modern world', although the author did not say that, I am.

But what he did seem to say, was that schools (in general I think he meant) should not be allowed to cram 'religion' down the necks of children, to which I say Hosannah!

The proselytising that passes as RI, CRE, SRE and whatever other states call it, is a crime, or it should be in public schools.

So too, the outrageous use of pretend Xtians posing as 'school chaplains' being forced upon students in schools, particularly state schools, should never have been allowed, never mind 'under Howard' because people like Rudd went out of their way to sneak them into public schools long before Howard did...oh yes, and Beattie.

Seems the ALP is unable to live without its 'spiritual lead'.

So, good on yers Mr Author... you are quite correct when you call for an end to the special privilege granted, unquestioned, to a few groups within the world of 'religions' over others.

Leave it to parents to abuse their children if they want to, since that is not illegal, or even frowned upon.

Now, I am indebted to the poster who advised we watch Jensen trying to demolish Pell's beliefs while also trying not to sound too much of a goose himself.

Amazing! That one totally unbelievable crew should dare to criticise another equally dodgy pyramid scam was well worth the visit.

But maybe Jensen does not know that the Catch The Fire crew are now rounding up Anglican vicars and getting them to talk in tongues...see Danny's latest email on his tongue-wagging trip to Bellingen NSW.

Bravo Glenn. You have finally stumbled on what is wrong with our world.
We "domesticate our children". We train them in the same way as we train our dogs and cats. Reward for behaviour that pleases us, punishment of one sort or another if they displease us.
All of us were brought up by being taught a series of lies about what will make us perfect..... then when we realise how much of our belief is based on lies we spend the rest of our lives trying to find out who we really are and what are we doing here.
Remember Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy... lies

@ Proxy, Sunday, 25 April 2010 4:17:55 PM

Whether a homosexual person has a high risk of contracting HIV/AIDs depends on his behaviour, not whether he is homosexual.

To say “No one is encouraging experimentation [with homosexuality]” is not legitimising homosexuality to children, and is not fantasising it, or denigrating it unnecessarily, either.

Your reference to smoking pot is a red herring.

"secular travesty" is an oxymoron.

Nairbe
My wife outlived my daughters’ young adulthood; just! I cannot begin to imagine how I could have coped as a single father. I think I’ll go and buy a lid so I have something to dip.

"5.In their place, implement a compulsory primary school course in ethics, critical thinking and comparative religion that will ensure that all children in Australian schools learn a. the beliefs that define each major world religion and the influence of its holy books on the belief, culture and literature of its followers,
b. the moral rights and responsibilities of all Australians towards each other, their country and the world at large,
c. a core set of ethical principles.
"

As a Muslim I'd support this and predict Atheist would come up second best.

Well, don't leave us gasping 'grateful', enlighten us all on what you mean, please.

Why would an atheist come up 'second best'?

And, since you add your religion into the mix, would 'an' atheist come up second best to Islam or Christianity, to Judaism of Sikhism, to a Bahai or a Hindu?

As far as I can tell, they, and many more, all compete with their own particularly spurious claims to be preaching, or peddling, the TRUTH.

They cannot all be correct, even within each of these pyramid scams there is division... see Jensen trying to out-do Pell with his chat on 'saints' for one example...and neither of them would give you two bob for your beliefs.

In fact, Jensen's mob would probably tell you that you will burn in Hell for backing the wrong mob, as my son's 'Christian' school chaplain told the Buddhist students.

Ah yes, tolerance, the hallmark of the faithful and religious.

Or might the atheist just cop a Biblical stoning?

BlueCross wrote:
quote
Well, don't leave us gasping 'grateful', enlighten us all on what you mean, please.

Why would an atheist come up 'second best'?

unquote

Would you like to begin with ethics?

Do atheists teach their children how to behave ethically?

What are some examples of what they teach?

What would an atheist teach about "holding one's tongue”?

Well grateful.... since 'being an atheist' is not a 'way of life' that would depend on what any particular 'atheist' thinks about that, wouldn't it?

Since 'being an atheist' is not actually a 'club' activity I can only tell you what my children were taught, and that is to question what they see and hear, reflect on their behaviour, operate for the benefit of all, not just oneself, and treat others decently even when it might feel too much trouble... seems to have worked so far.

They were all sent to RE in primary school, all encouraged to have a dip into the Bible as a result, and each has made up their own minds on 'religion' assisted by the behaviour of zealots who would cut off their nose just to spite their face, the 'faithful', and each has noticed how very dishonest these overly 'religious' people appear to be... almost without exception.

But 'an atheist' might have advised you to 'hold your tongue' long enough to avoid posting your first post, since it offered not too much beyond wild opinion, while encouraging you not to hold your tongue in response in your last post, since you have failed to answer the question posed.

As for 'ethics'... I am sorry to have to inform you that not only are 'ethics' not restricted to 'the religious' but it is very hard to find any hint of signs that 'the religious' do actually take too much notice of their own versions of 'ethics'.

Is there anyone else with their perspective on the question of ethics.

What do athiests teach about guarding ones tongue?

Or, perhaps about justice and the application of justice.

Atheism seems to imply that there is no right or wrong (and i have had this said to me by athiests), which seems to be consistent with what The Blue Cross is saying about atheists and it being left to the parents to decide how their children should be raised.

Is this correct? Or are there some rules that should be followed?

grateful... I did not say, or believe , that there is 'no right or wrong' at all.... that is wishful thinking on your part.

I don't buy in to post-modernism or relativism stuff.... if I did, I'd have no problem with some of the nonsense spruiked by believers, would I?

Atheism is just an absence of theism... like not believing in fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden.

I really fail to see how that then translates into what you are desperately trying to make it say.

Maybe you confuse 'atheism' with some poorly defined form of 'anarchy', with your concern over 'rules'?

We all live with 'rules', do we not? Even the lawless have them.

Try reading Richard Holloway, previously Bishop of Edinburgh,, Gresham Professor of Divinity- City of London, Fellow of the Royal Society, Edinburgh...his slim tome 'Godless Morality: Keeping Religion out of Ethics', 1999, Canongate,Edinburgh... bound to be able to find it on Amazon of nowhere else.

Grateful,

You’ve missed TBC’s point.

<<What do athiests teach about guarding ones tongue?>>

What TBC was trying to tell you (and I thought he made quite clear), was that atheism is not a “thing”, it is not a belief system, and as TBC said, it is not a “club”.

Atheism has no doctrine and no specific set of rules and as TBC also said, it has no “way of life”. Atheism has no more a set of rules or a way of life than the disbelief or lack of belief in fairies has, or disbelief in the Lochness monster has.

You probably don’t believe in fairies or leprechauns because there is no proof that they exist. Yet, like any other theist, you abandon this rational way of thinking when it comes to your religion. For reasons only you yourself can know, you treat your religion as a special case in this regard.

Atheists simply extend this very basic expectation for evidence to religion too.

<<Atheism seems to imply that there is no right or wrong...>>

Atheism doesn’t say that any more than a-leprechaunism says that.

When people who don’t believe in a religion ask themselves what the moral thing would be to do in a particular situation, they don’t consult their non-belief. They simply use their in-built, altruistic instincts that Humans acquired as a survival mechanism long before religions ever were invented.

The same altruistic instincts and commonsense theists use to distinguish the good parts from the nasty parts of the holy books they mistaken think they’ve derived their morality from.

Let me rephrase:

If you are an atheist what do you teach about guarding the tongue, or, if you like, about justice.

Hence no more presumption that atheists agree upon a set of principles or rules of conduct.

Grateful,

<<...no more presumption that atheists agree upon a set of principles or rules of conduct.>>

Atheists can still agree on a set of principals and rules of conduct - as they do with many theists - they just don’t NECESSARILY agree.

But if there is “no more presumption that atheists agree upon a set of principles or rules of conduct”, then why would you ask what a person who is an atheist would teach their children in regards to principals and conduct?

That would depend on the person, the culture they grew up in and what the society in which they live expects of them.

Exactly the same as theists.

Only theists have a sense of divine justification for their actions (good or bad) and holy books from which they can pick good bits or bad bits from to justify the good principals or bad principals by which they live - depending on whether they are a good person or a bad person - and ignore what their society’s laws and people expect of them.

I trust the above should adequately pre-empt the point you were eventually going to get to about atheists allegedly not having any moral guidance and just making it all up as they go.

Of course, my apologies if you are sincere in your enquires and I hope this clears it up for you.

Thanks AJP.... grateful.... perhaps we speak different languages?

What point are you trying to make with here... "what do you teach about guarding the tongue, or, if you like, about justice".

Is 'guarding the tongue' some arcane Biblical code that I have yet to crack, and is it the same as 'justice'?

You'd have to expand a little on 'justice', since it is a fairly large topic.

If the Biblical justice of stoning people was on the table, I'd not agree with it...or the references to enslaving people, or treating women as chattels.

If you discussed the injustice of allowing religion a tax free status, I'd agree that it is an injustice disadvantaging us all quite unreasonably.

If you were discussing the justice of the UK voting system, first past the post, I'd be inclined to say that this is a very dodgy and unjust system, as I would with the Qld system of optional preferential voting, but then I might hedge my bets too, because it really upsets me living in a safe seat where my vote never counts for a cracker, and then I'd be supporting multi-member electorate, with preferential voting, and even maybe a 'list' system too.

If you were asking about the justice of having government fund the NSCP scam, then I'd say that it was unjust and should cease.

If you asked me about the justice in capitalism, then I'd be inclined to ask you where it was to be found, as I would probably also agree with you if you countered with quizzing me on the justice of a totalitarian central economy.

'Justice' comes in different shapes, and what I see as 'just', you might regard as an abomination, although there would be many times when we agreed on what is, and what is not, just.

Can you reread AJPs post, and think again about precisely what you are trying to ask.

Can you lead the way with a examples of what this means, 'holding your tongue', and its relationship to 'justice'.... having defined what part/s of 'justice' you highlight?

AJP, TBC and grateful, please don't stop now.

Well this is amusing, isn't it?
Here we have a three way discussion between, apparently, a Muslim, a Christian and an atheist (or should that be Atheist?) and TBC argues "If the Biblical justice of stoning people was on the table, I'd not agree with it...or the references to enslaving people, or treating women as chattels."
In a world where Christians have moved on from the Old Testament but Muslims haven't, this is your typical PC ignorance.
No wonder grateful supports the idea of comparative religion studies.
At the moment, only Christianity gets much of an airing in our schools.
What better way to get Islam into the hearts and minds of impressionable young people than to introduce comparative religion studies?
This way all the multicultural teachers will have the opportunity to teach the whitewashed history of Islam, the "religion of peace".
It is abundantly clear that nobody would dare teach the real history of Islam.
They would be sacked as "racist".
Mohammedan blood-letting, throat cutting, beheading, raping, pillaging, paedophilia, forced conversions, death penalty for apostasy, death penalty for homosexuality, honour killings, female genital mutilation, etc, etc, etc, would disappear in an orgy of politically correct equality where Mohammed would be portrayed as the multicultural equivalent of Jesus.
Just another prophet of peace.
The true one, this time.
Small wonder that grateful sees his opportunity.
As for grateful's prediction that "Atheis(m) would come up second best", this is also predicated on the comforting (to him) knowledge that dhimmi Australian teachers would not dare teach the truth about the barbarity of Islam, even if they knew.
I would also like to see comparative religion studies introduced into Australian classrooms but certainly not under the current "all religions are equal" regime, which is based on ignorance and fear.
Yes, I know this is what you will accuse me of and so we go round in circles.
What can I say?
Read the Koran, the Hadith and the Sunna.

Glen,

I’ll take your comment as a compliment.

Speaking of indoctrination though, have you ever seen the BBC documentary called “Deborah 13: Servant of God”? It’s a shocking documentary similar to Jesus Camp that follows and documents the life of a home-schooled and severely indoctrinated girl for a few weeks.

The parents, while being seemingly nice, tidy-jumper-wearing Christians are absolute monsters in my books.

Proxy,

Who on Earth is the Christian among the three of us?

Speaking of which, I appreciate that you no longer deny your Christianity as you did as KMB and HermanYutic. You’re easier to take a little more seriously than before.

<<Well this is amusing, isn't it?>>

For me, it’s more “interesting” than “amusing” to have a discussion with a Muslim for a change. I am a little disappointed thought that the arguments from Muslims appear to be identical to that of Christians. You two groups share a lot more in common than either of you are willing to admit. It’s understandable though considering you both worship the same god.

<<In a world where Christians have moved on from the Old Testament but Muslims haven't, this is your typical PC ignorance.>>

Firstly, the only reason Christians have “moved on” from the Old Testament, is because secularism has dragged it kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages. So much for secularism being a “travesty”, eh?

Secondly, Christians can’t just disown the Old Testament or pretend it doesn’t count anymore, because a perfect god would be perfect from the start. Jesus wouldn’t just be able to come down and change everything unless god wasn’t perfect to begin with and this would be a fatal flaw in the claims of the alleged god’s alleged omnipotence, not to mention existence.

Besides which, the alleged Jesus even allegedly said that he didn’t come to change the laws of the Old Testament, but to uphold them...

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.” (Matthew 5:17)

So no, there’s no PC ignorance there

Proxy.. yes, I forgot that grateful is claiming to be a Muslim, sorry.

But s/he sounds the same as a fundie Xtian to me, so I reverted to type for a moment or two.

"In a world where Christians have moved on from the Old Testament but Muslims haven't, this is your typical PC ignorance", but I refute the 'Christians moved on' Furphy, how on Earth can they?

And as with AJP, I am not sure who the Christian is either.

I must confess, and I think I have done this before but not on this thread, that I do not consider myself to be 'an Atheist' either.

I am, by the description of theists, an a-theist, but, to be honest, I have never thought to identify myself as this, and still do not elect to do so.

Others do this on my behalf, and I am powerless to prevent it.

There are people who wear the tag with some form of false pride, many of whom seem to be escapees from 'the faith' with a strong need to retain a membership of some sort, to something resembling the club they have just left.

I advise joining a ping pong club, or a bowls club, or something equally constructive for physical health, and leaving the need for mass assembly to .. joining the SES or rural fire brigade, or motor bike club, or cycling touring group, where all the social intercourse can be supplied, with an executive job too, if the need for belonging is too strong to ignore.

This is not to denigrate any of the above, but to point out that there are many good things to do in the community that can easily replace the coercive nature of organised religion.

I've just read AJPs post in full, so will sign off with a 'ditto to AJP' comment.

AJP and TBC,
You're part of the problem.
You cannot bring yourself to differentiate between Christianity and Islam.
In fact, you go further by condemning Christianity while giving "the religion of peace" a free pass whereas it manifestly does not deserve one.
As a non-Christian, non-Islam, non-Atheist, I can at least recognise that Christianity has evolved to a far higher level than Islam has or, in my opinion, ever will.
This probably has something to do with what JC had to say to his followers compared to the example Moh set.
JC was a prophet of peace.
Moh was a prophet of war.
My children haven't been indoctrinated into, or even taught, any religion.
In fact, my 5yo asked me last Christmas who Jesus was when she heard his name somewhere.
But if they were to be indoctrinated into either Jesus or Mohammed's teachings, I'd rather it be the former.
Furthermore, I believe that anybody without an agenda who has studied their lives and read the real teachings of JC and Moh would say the same thing, if they were honest.

Don't bother responding.
I'll do it for you:
"Nyaa, nyaa, he's a Christian!"

TBC:
quote
Can you lead the way with a examples of what this means, 'holding your tongue', and its relationship to 'justice'.... having defined what part/s of 'justice' you highlight?
unquote
The 2 were suggested as two distinct topics

An example to illustrate the first. PM Gordon Brown recently said some nasty things about a woman and was recorded doing so. He subsequently apologised.

What lessons should we draw from this... for ourselves and our children? What should the PM have done, if anything, if he was not caught? Suppose what he said about the lady was 100% correct, should he then have been expected to apologise? Should he apologise even if he was not caught?

Finally, where do you derive your answers? From 'reason', a utilitarian philosophy, gut-feeling, intuition, inspiration, something else?

Proxy.

<<You're part of the problem.>>

Wrong.

You yourself are a part of a bigger, wider problem that encompasses all religions by letting Christianity off the hook and only reprimanding Islam. All while perpetuating the myth that atheism is anything more than the lack of a religious belief - a mistake predominantly made by theists.

<<You cannot bring yourself to differentiate between Christianity and Islam.>>

As a former Christian myself, I have a very good idea of the differences between Christianity and Islam. And as someone who now sees them both from a clearer perspective, I can tell you that they really are very much the same thing.

Only a Christian or Muslim would think otherwise.

<<In fact, you go further by condemning Christianity while giving "the religion of peace" a free pass whereas it manifestly does not deserve one.>>

Neither TBC nor myself have referred to Islam as a “religion of peace”. Islam is a violent and primitive religion just like its sister religion - Christianity.

<<As a non-Christian, non-Islam, non-Atheist...>>

Okay, so if you’re a “non-atheist”, then you’re a theist. But if you’re not a Christian or a Muslim, then what religion are you? And why would you display such admiration for Christianity without so much as the slightest mention of your own religion?

<<This probably has something to do with what JC had to say to his followers compared to the example Moh set.>>

Oh, you mean like endorsing infinite punishment for finite crimes that the majority of us will apparently suffer (Matthew 7:13-14), and all because of god’s deliberate failure in the Garden of Eden that equates to giving a toddler a loaded gun - knowing in advance what’s going to happen - and then punishing him for the rest of his life when he hurts himself with it?

Yeah, real great guy that JC was, eh? Some “prophet of peace”!

Or are you just selectively referring to the good bits like a good Christian would?

By the way, only Christians affectionately refer to Jesus as “JC”, as in: “Good ol’ JC... he’s me pal!”

AJP,
"Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is distinguished from theism, which in its most general form is belief that at least one deity exists. The term atheism originated from the Greek (atheos), meaning "without gods", which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century. Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nontheist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
While wikipedia is not considered definitive it nevertheless gives a better account of atheism than you do.

Ah Proxy, I’ve dealt with this many times before.

Had you read the Wikipedia article more thoroughly and not just selectively quoted it, you would have noticed it also makes a distinction between “implicit atheism” and “explicit atheism”. Implicit atheism is simply the lack of a belief - like that of a baby, and explicit atheism is the position that there are no deities.

Essentially atheism means “not a theist”. We are either theists, or we are atheists.

So again, if you are a “non-atheist”, then what religion are you?

AJP,
I do not consider myself a theist or an atheist.
Unlike theists and atheists, I find myself in the unfortunate position of not knowing with any certainty.
I am, however, pleased for those atheists (such as yourself) and theists who are privy to the secrets of the universe.

Rather than responding to Proxy, I think AJP is doing it just as well as I could, so I'll simply agree with AJPs comments.

As for grateful, yes, I did watch Golden Brown's gaff on tellie last night.

Very amusing indeed, particularly that point when he was being filmed in the live radio show as they played his words back to him and his head sank into his hands...what joy to see a politician being held to account for his declarations.

However, I have committed similar sins myself, and felt equally stupid as Golden must have at that point, but my indiscretions did not hang over my fate or my ability to win back his degree of power.

Nonetheless, it was done.

It was not a bad idea of his to apologise for his 'spoken thoughts', but I'd have thought a personal phone call might have done it.

I still have no real idea what the woman said to annoy him, so Golden may well have been correct in what he said, his crime then being 'being caught saying it aloud'.

Then again, politicians get all sorts of views thrust at them, some mad, some angry, some fine, one assumes.

I am sure the welter of opinions would wear down anyone in his position.... I recall Hawke and Keating upsetting people with their off-the-cuff remarks...and Beattie, and maybe one of the NSW premiers too... these things happen.

I'd be inclined to say that, given he had no intention of broadcasting his thoughts, given that it was an unfortunate error, then his 'crime' is greatly diminished.... and with that in mind, his apology was all he had to give.

How do I arrive at that view?

The 'reasonable person' approach.

How is that created?

Social norms, hegemony, and a reasonable desire to be treated reasonably by others.... as part of a social survival strategy that we have all practised for eons.

Not something taken directly from the Bible...or, please note here Proxy.... any other dodgy book of 'truths', particularly those I've never thumbed through.

Proxy,

You make the classic mistake of not realising that theism and atheism deal with belief, while agnosticism deals with knowledge. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

<<Unlike theists and atheists, I find myself in the unfortunate position of not knowing with any certainty.>>

I don’t know with any certainty either. None of us can really know and that’s what makes pretty much all of us agnostics. But I disbelieve with a high level of certainty because religions go against all reason and objective observations.

<<I am, however, pleased for those atheists (such as yourself) and theists who are privy to the secrets of the universe.>>

Oh, how sweet of you.

Atheists aren’t privy to the secrets of the universe any more than a juror (let’s call them a “not-guiltyist” to make it easier for you) is privy to the details behind a court case before the evidence has been presented.

But I already explained what atheism is yesterday and I don’t feel like going through it all again. You might want to re-read my posts to Grateful.

Anyway, what’s it like to discover that you were an atheist all along? Pretty trippy, huh?

I wouldn’t worry about it too much. The only reason it has negative connotations is because of the misinformation spread around by theists and the misconceptions of the older generations who are not yet aware that atheism says nothing about communism and is therefore not synonymous with it.

I'd buy you a beer AJP, if I knew your local.

The problem with being only e-connected is that none of us are really 'connected'.

Anonymous within a multitude.... together but apart... atomised collectives... a miserable outcome, a portent of our future?

If only we could have a sign we could all recognise, a tattoo, a number on our forehead, say, something like....ahhh.... say, 666.... then we'd all know who we were.... argggghhhh... the Biblical truths are revealing themselves to me.... all is lost.... it was all TRUE!

TBC,

Thanks. I really appreciate the thought. I enjoy your posts too. You maintain some sanity here when I really couldn’t be bothered.

I sometimes get the feeling that some here (fellow atheists included) wrongly think that I shouldn’t be saying some of the things I say - so any support is appreciated. But if that really is that’s the case, then I guess it’s probably related to what my wife often reminds me: “the world’s probably not quite ready to function completely without religion.”

By the way, my local’s anywhere within the Brisbane region. I live in the same suburb as Graham Young actually. And I’m always available if someone’s shouting!

Anyway, if you’ll excuse me I have something I need to clear up with Proxy...

Dear Proxy,

I owe you an apology.

Here you are, discovering that you are in fact an atheist; discovering that you adhere to a non-belief-system that is based on the non-belief in any religions, and here I am, insensitively making light-hearted remarks like, “Pretty trippy, huh?”

I feel ashamed.

So as a way of apologising to you and showing you how sorry I am, I’d like to mail you this pamphlet I have here on my desk about atheism to help you with your non-transformation.

It’s a blank A4 sheet of paper. It doesn’t look much like a pamphlet at the moment, but I could fold it twice into neat equal thirds to help make it look and feel more pamphlet-like. It’s the least I could do considering the sheet of paper is, after all, blank.

Nevertheless, I feel it accurately describes atheism and I believe it will help you to learn all there is to learn about this non-belief and the difference aspects to this rather un-complex non-belief-system.

Regards,

If you are an atheist "what do you teach about guarding the tongue", or, if you like, about justice.

Hence no more presumption that atheists agree upon a set of principles or rules of conduct.

Posted by grateful, Friday, 30 April 2010 3:10:20 PM
........................

"Guarding the tongue" is a vague concept: it might be appropriate in some situations, yet it might be inappropriate in others. In the gordon Brown situation, should his private comments in an enclosed car, have been reported? Were they maliciously reported to discredit him?

What about incitement to hatred comments? What about incitement to violence comments? What about "women as uncovered meat" comments?

Whether atheist ought to agree upon a set of principles or rules of conduct depends on their grouping - if they are an organised atheist group meeting regularly or a one off meeting such as the recent Global Atheist conference, then yes one would expect sets of principles or rules of conduct.

In a more general setting such a political or community debates more general societal laws, principles and rules would apply.

addendum - to elaborate on where guarding the tongue might be inappropriate - where someone, an animal, or property is being abused, it is appropriate to speak up or report or both.

with all this crap about not believing it does not change the simple fact that all will be held accountable to their Maker. A fool says in their heart their is no god. Atheism has and always will be a very poor excuse for living life as if you are not accountable to anyone.

Poor Runner et al., I watched a rather amusing film last night, Ricky Gervais (from Extras and The Office) called 'The Invention of Lying'.

My son tells me that when he saw this on a flight from UK to here it was heavily censored to prevent people, maybe those like Runner, from diving out the rear door.

Seems that when his mate saw it in Brisbane large parts of the audience evaporated, so offended were they by it.

It is very mild indeed, but quite amusing, and worth a look for those who both believe, and do not believe.... could be some material for 'holding the tongue' discussions.

In a world that has no lies at all and no one 'guards their tongues', Ricky discovers how to lie, by accident, to assist his mother to die with some illusion of peace.... he invents an afterlife of mansions, love and joy.

He is overheard by the staff at the hospital and quizzed about how he knows all this new information about 'the afterlife', and is forced to make up a story about 'the man in the sky', which everyone falls for...and you can all work out the rest.

McReal makes a good point too, about Golden Brown's comments being broadcast... not really very ethical of the Sky people was it?

AJP, I intend to visit the Qld Humanists' national conflab in Brisbane later this month...if you were to attend, look for the man with the 666 tattoo on the forehead, and the green carnation, in the dark brown overcoat, and we can have a beer...in the meantime, keep spruiking the wares.

Runner,
All you're sprouting here are your own personal opinions and other wild guesses about atheism and other non-believers.

Your religious mates might readily grab such trash and accept it, but many won't because the facts speak for themselves.

If atheism were such a "poor excuse for living" then one would expect to find jails full of non-believers.

Actually, the reverse is true.

You're probably not interested in factual eveidence, but if you decide that it might make a nice change, then see for yourself...
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Atheists do not require the threats of eternal damnation to do the right thing. They choose to live a life of compassion, understanding and justice because it is the right thing to do for a coherent society, regardless of what YOU might believe.

It saddens me that you have been so effectively indoctrinated so as to believe in such nonsense. But then again, maybe you prefer that to the truth.

Runner, I began to doubt the authenticity of what I was being taught at a church school because I could not accept that a loving god would prefer the smell of burning flesh as an offering instead of an offering of grain.

Tell us, how do you reconcile such an act with the supposed "creator of the universe"?

Moreover, there are literally hundreds of other examples of the "word of god" openly supporting, suggesting or demanding slavery, genocide, mutilation, rape, murder, stoning to death, misogyny and other currently unacceptable behaviour.

If biblical laws were enacted in the USA today, there would be millions of homosexual men and women put to death, as well as millions of difficult teenagers and anyone working on a Sunday, to name just a few (millions).

How do you reconcile that?

These are just a few of the points that have made me a non-believer.

Are these the points that have made you a believer, or are you embarassed by them?

Ah, Runner. Why is it that whenever I read one of your posts, I imagine a person hunched over a keyboard with a forked tongue flickering out occasionally?

<<with all this crap about not believing it does not change the simple fact that all will be held accountable to their Maker.>>

When you find some reliable proof for your claim, come and see me.

Oh, and just remember, this “Adamic nation” you keep referring to means nothing until you can explain and demonstrate what the world would be like without a god or this so-called “Adamic nature”.

Do you think we’d all be perfect in a Godless universe? That wouldn’t say much for god now, would it? But I guess - according to Christian mythology - god was the one who knowingly set us up to fail to begin with.

The fact that we are capable of doing wrong comes from our free will - something we wouldn’t have if god existed. Because if an all-knowing and all-seeing god created us knowing what was going to happen in advance, then everything is pre-determined and we don’t have a choice about what we do or what is going to happen.

Back to reality...

I’ve been thinking more about this misconception out there that atheism is a claim to absolute knowledge and/or absolute certainty, or that atheism is a belief system in itself - a misunderstanding that has many atheists referring to themselves, instead, as “agnostics” or “sceptics” - and I was wondering what the implications would be if this were actually the case; what would it mean?

I think it would mean three things...

1. Virtually all non-believers (including myself) would have to abandon the label of “atheist” (not that we should have to have a label to begin with simply because some choose to adopt fantastical beliefs).

3. It would then set a precedent for any old organisation - providing they were big enough and influential enough - to simply wreck the meaning of words for their own selfish and deceiving purposes (Although, this precedent may already have been set, I'm not sure, I don't know much about linguistics but I'd doubt that it's ever happened to this order of magnitude).

Let’s remember here, that the only reason theists narrow and alter the definition of atheism is to denigrate it by dragging it down to the same dogmatic level of the narrow belief system they’re stuck in. They seem to have difficulty accepting, or envious of the fact that atheists get to be the freethinkers .

2. The term “atheist” would then become obsolete and we’d then need to consider a different term to refer to non-believers.

But on second thoughts, getting rid of the term “atheist” and not replacing it could be a good thing. I mean, part of the reason there’s so much confusion out there is because we actually have a term for people who expect evidence before accepting wild claims that go against everything we observe.

We don’t called jurors “not-guiltyists”, or people who don’t believe in leprechauns “a- leprechaunists”.

Anyway, this is a bit off topic and my wife is nagging at me to “stop arguing with idiots” and just start blog or something, so I’m off...

Dear o dear,
I went away for a few days, just when the debate gets interesting!

I want to get back to ethics as that's supposed to be the trump card that all religios pull out to defend their nonsense.

Quite apart from the fact that all the Abrahamic denominations have an appalling ethical record (a long multi-strand history of barbarism between them), their so-called 'ethics' are nothing more than anachronistic tribalism, which does more harm than good. By which I mean that religious ethics foster racial and gender prejudice and are arguably, and ironically, largely 'responsible' for the excesses their ethics are meant to prevent!
The Catholic veto against homosexuality, for instance, combined with clerical celibacy, is tantamount to propagating the very behaviour it pretends to condemn. Is it not a plausible scenario to suggest that gay men, in a homophobic society, might take refuge in a celibate priesthood; either sincerely to expiate their 'sinful' thoughts, or to receive 'succour' and indulge them? The ones I pity are those who buy into and are tortured by the ethical moratorium imposed on their sexual orientation; what chance do they have of 'purifying' themselves among the nearly exclusive society of men! Their ethics are an instrument of torture! As are Christian/Islamic ethics generally; such ethics evoke, and are manifest in, a range of unhealthy preoccupations: self-flagellation, sexism, sadism and masochism, for instance. The fact that practices like B&D are 'unethical' is what makes them so tempting! Are not nuns staple fare in western male fantasy? The idea of seducing and 'violating' an attractive nun is fantasy heaven for a lot of men (including myself)! And women in the full Berka are symbolic of their 'full' subservience, and of course man's concomitant power! An ego as well as a sexual turn for many, I would hazard!
The ethics fostered by religions are largely responsible, in my view, for the 'deviant' behaviour they set-up to stamp out.

Yet I do believe we need ethics ...

The atheists I know, btw, are highly ethical; without being narcissistic about it, or making a fetish ethics!

Some influential atheists with highly developed ethics who spring to mind -
Stalin,
Mao,
Pol Pot

Proxy,
I've offered a real argument. Do you have anything but cliched thinking to put forward?

He was doing it by proxy Squeers.

Am I being ambiguous or something?

Can someone please tell me what about my posts is so difficult to grasp?

Am I not explaining myself well or something?

Squeers,

<<The atheists I know, btw, are highly ethical...>>

Not necessarily.

Atheism says nothing about ethics. There are atheists with very bad ethics. Proxy has fallaciously pointed out a few.

Like it’s been said before, organising atheists would be like trying to herd cats - impossible. They’re all individual thinkers.

Of course, theists are individual thinkers too, only they have a doctrine from which they can pick and choose pieces of in order to give divine justification for what they do, whether that be good or bad.

Proxy,

You haven’t read a word I’ve written, have you?

Like a typical theist, you ignore what I say; give no rebuttal, then comeback with the same old discredited assertions.

Anyway, thanks for revealing that you truly are a theist (of some sort). Only theists are stupid enough to mention Stalin et al - particularly while totally ignoring idiotic comments from people like Runner.

What you and your fellow theists never seem to realise is that the dictators you’ve mentioned didn’t do what they did in the name of atheism, and that’s the bottom line. They didn’t do what they did because they were atheists.

The societies established by the dictators you mentioned were not atheist societies because there’s nothing within atheism to support them. They were anti-religious societies and the fact that that technically also makes them atheistic is of no significance.

I can understand your desire to hide your theistic beliefs though. You at least recognise that your religious beliefs will cause you to lose credibility. Some theists, on the other hand, are silly enough to pretend that their faith makes them intellectual and sophisticated.

Yes much easier to name a few leaders, who just also happened to be atheists, who were corrupt and avoid naming the numerous religious leaders who, despite their faith, used their power for evil purposes. Perhaps all of these leaders had a penchant for brocolli as well, equally as irrelevant.

It worries me that Christians feel they are not accountable to anyone while they are on earth, only accountable to a supernatural force which one meets upon death and all evil doings are forgiven. Not much incentive or accountability in that.

Much better we be accountable during our lives to our families, friends, fellow human beings along with a caring of the environment in which we all live and depend

AJ Philips,
I do apologise for not hanging on your every word; I've got a bad habit of thinking for myself--not that you don't make admirable sense. I was actually addressing ethics, alluded to earlier on in the thread. And I certainly said nothing about atheists 'necessarily' being ethical, I merely recounted that the atheists of my acquaintance, including a swag of Buddhists, were 'ethical', whatever that means (I acknowledge of course that ethics is a highly contested pseudo-reality).
AJ: <Like it’s been said before, organising atheists would be like trying to herd cats - impossible. They’re all individual thinkers.>

Like 'I've' said before, true individual thinkers are rare beasts (possibly non-existent); it's pure hubris to imagine the atheist paradigm is any closer to the truth of metaphysics than theism. The great virtue of (undogmatic) atheism is humility. Atheism is properly nothing more than a negation, or unsubscription. But then, humility is non sequitur to the dogmatic atheist/positivist who believes that all must finally fall under his sway. The virtue of real enlightenment thought is its agility.

There aren't many political leaders that spent as much time in religious educational institutions as Stalin & Pol Pot

Pol Pot: 8yrs Catholic school in Phnom Penh 1935 – 1943 - the École Miche

Joseph Stalin was educated at a religious school and attended a Georgian Orthodox seminary for a few years from 16 yrs of age; he performed well for the years he was there, but missed his final exams.

Then, Stalin discovered the writings of Vladimir Lenin and decided to become a Marxist revolutionary, eventually joining Lenin's Bolsheviks in 1903.

Stalin remained religious, even pious, throughout his life (Conquest, 1991).

Historian Edvard Radzinsky used recently discovered secret archives to find that Stalin's reversal on bans against the church during World War II followed a sign that he believed he received from heaven (Radzinsky, 1995). After a mysterious retreat, he began making his peace with God. Something happened which no historian had yet written about. On Stalins orders, a new church hierarchy was concecrated (a controversial move), and Russian Orthodox Churches were re-opened, theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function.

Conquest,R. (1991) Stalin: Breaker of Nations.
Radzinsky,E. (1996) Stalin: The First In-Depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives.

Sorry Squeers. 95% of the frustration I expressed at the start of my last post was directed towards Proxy - who obviously doesn’t absorb a single word that goes against his religious beliefs.

<<I do apologise for not hanging on your every word...>>

No need to apologise, Squeers. But it is extremely important that we watch our every word when discussing religion.

One thing I’ve learnt from OLO is that you should never underestimate the willingness of theists to take what you say out of context and misinterpret what you say. Remember, these people don’t have reason or evidence on their side so they need to invent an angle to introduce their arguments from, or justify their beliefs - even if that means misconstruing what you say (and hoping you don’t notice (i.e. sophistry)), or misrepresenting the motivations of past dictators even.

Here’s a classic example of the willingness of theists to misrepresent atheists from our old, long lost friend Boaz... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6784#101967

I quite understand, AJ, having been misrepresented and taken out of context and attacked with reactionary nonsense from the likes of proxy myself on several occasions. Though you've been at it much longer than I have. I'm afraid reason has no purchase in the greasy grey matter of god-fearing bigots.

Nor 'ethics' Squeers, not any sign of ethics from the 'deeply religious'.

Being able to emit a barefaced lie seems to be a prerequisite for the 'faithful', here on OLO and in the wider world.

Squeers, TBC, AJ and other non-believers.

Having given Proxy the benefit of the doubt on more than one occasion, I have concluded that he is just an immature attention seeker with nothing tangible to contribute except criticism.

And then there's runner.

...

Well, that's enough about runner.

But AJ, I had a good laugh about your forked-tongue description. That was hilarious, and TBC's "He was doing it by proxy" was a sign of an quick wit and fertile imagination. Thank you for the comic relief, guys.

Without moving further off topic, I wanted to clarify my strong objection to the "requirement" of children to adopt their parents' religious beliefs.

This objection does not come from being an atheist. I have no objection whatsoever to parents teaching their children about their own religion.

What I object to is ALL school children being "required" by some fundamentalist Christian parents and state school teachers to have a religion assigned to them. The "If your parents don't have one, then get one" kind of approach.

State institutions should not permit blatant religious indoctrination. If fundamentalist parents need to perpetuate their myths, then they can do it at home or in their churches and leave the schools out of it.

Also, as is likely with many other atheists and agnostics, my non-belief did not come from a desire to be a non-believer. It came from a refusal to accept what I was being told when it clearly did not make any sense to me or when it violated my own sense of what's right and wrong in a civilised society.

My own atheism is a by-product of my own personal attempts at open-minded rational thought processes, not an end in itself. Atheism has very little value in itself if it doesn't come from sceptical (but open-minded) analysis of currently available information and verifiable facts.

The big mystery to me is WHY otherwise rational people accept such contradictory and irrational texts from centuries gone by as effective instructions for how to live their lives in the 21st Century.

I shake my head in disbelief!

A thoughtful piece secularGuy. However i would take exception to anyone describing my belief as irrational. To illustrate why, would the following not constitute "effective instructions for how to live their lives in the 21st Century."

From the Qur’an 4:135
“O you who believe, be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness for Allah, even though it be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives — whether he be rich or poor, Allah has a better right over them both. So follow not (your) low desires, lest you deviate. And if you distort or turn away from (truth), surely Allah is ever Aware of what you do.”

And from the Prophet’s Last Sermon:
“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.”

Err, where's the sections about stoning women to death

you tell me!

Here is more from the Qur'an to persuade those with an open mind that the Qur'an cannot be described as a "contradictory and irrational text". The selection is inspired by TBC whose post raises the issue of gender equality:

4:124 And whoever does good deeds, whether male or female, and he (or she) is a believer — these will enter the Garden, and they will not be dealt with a whit unjustly.

33:35 Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women, and the humble men and the humble women, and the charitable men and the charitable women, and the fasting men and the fasting women, and the men who guard their chastity and the women who guard, and the men who remember Allah much and women who remember — Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward.

57:12 On that day thou wilt see the faithful men and the faithful women, their light gleaming before them and on their right hand. Good news for you this day! — Gardens wherein rivers flow, to abide therein! That is the grand achievement.

(from Muhammad Ali trans, 1930, http://aaiil.org/text/hq/trans/ma_list.shtml)

These are not simply words translated from an Arabic text, but from the recitation of millions tracing back to the Prophet. Have a listen to the qur'aan recited: http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/. This is how we recited in prayer on the bus train, etc..

btw TBC there is no verse in the Qur'an that refers to stonning, let alone the stonning of women.

Grateful...it's bad enough having Xtians proselytising here without having to wade though your stuff too.

Now, what's all this about?

"33:35 Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women, and the humble men and the humble women, and the charitable men and the charitable women, and the fasting men and the fasting women, and the men who guard their chastity and the women who guard, and the men who remember Allah much and women who remember — Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward."

If all this believing and obeying and chastity is going on, what is there to be forgiven for?

Surely, if all this is worth doing, it's worth doing, and there should be no need for such a cheap thing as a 'reward' at the end of it, like a bounty hunter works for?

This hardly sounds 'new' or 'different'... or 'better' for that matter.

grateful,
If you discover a bag of prawns and they smell putrid, then there is a high probability that you shouldn’t eat them.

To open-minded non-believers, religion is like finding a bag of prawns. If they smell good, they're probably good to eat. If not, reject them! They will make you sick. Really S-I-C-K ! ! !

So far, in my life, I've only found ones that had a bad smell, and I have rejected them all, including yours, because yours has the worst smelling prawn of all.

Apostasy... forcing people (under the threat of death) to submit to your religious practices is repugnant to me.

I R-E-A-L-L-Y do take exception to that ! ! !

So I have discarded the whole bag of prawns because it smells putrid!

I strongly object to children being "required" to adopt their parents' religion because dangerous and archaic ideology like this needs to be left behind us.

My current "beef" is with un-controlled fundamentalist Christian activity in state schools, but I do realise that the next generation of Australians will have a fight on its hands, when Islam exerts its political will through Sharia law.

But that's another story!

Oh Secular Guy, you woo me with your tuneful word-smithing...a bag of prawns indeed.

And don't forget the 'something rotten in the state of Denmark'... probably the rollmops if they are faith based ones.

Sharia law, eh?

Now there's a bag of prawn heads, dead kippers, cut snakes and eye of newt all at once... one gets a taste of the Xtian version just reading the Jim Wallace stuff, not to mention the Rev. Dr. Nahlia's mob.

I watched Foreign Correspondent last night and was horrified to see the ute load of Sharia Police cruising in Aceh, chucking men out of the womens hairdressers..... (a bit like the Internet Police Conroy wants to bring in, complete with their Pell approved Opus Dei barbed wire undies).

But if he was pure in thought while he was there, and thought only of his god, surely he could come to no harm with the women there... so why the removal... (and did he leave with his hands still on?).

grateful,
<<btw TBC there is no verse in the Qur'an that refers to stonning, let alone the stonning of women.>>
Are you being disingenuous or just practising taqiyyah or maybe both?
Islamic doctrine is not limited to the Koran.
The Hadith, Sunnah and Shariah law also contribute.
Even if it were true that no verse "in the Qur'an refers to stonning" it is still practised in various Islamic states as part of Islamic law.

TBC you wrote:
QUOTE

Surely, if all this is worth doing, it's worth doing, and there should be no need for such a cheap thing as a 'reward' at the end of it, like a bounty hunter works for?
ENDQUOTE

I take you point. This issue has come up among scholars. On the one hand how can a person’s actions be considered for the sake of Allah if motivated by personal reward. On the other hand, the reward is offered and underpinning the actions of a person who would be solely motivated by the reward of the Hereafter (and this is a hypothetical case which probably is not found in reality) would afterall be a belief in Allah and the Hereafter.

There are degrees of imaan (faith) and those who are motivated by reward would not among the highest in faith. Those whose motivation is love of Allah and whose thoughts and actions are with Allah until they are distracted by nothing but Allah rise above the rest of us.

The following famous Hadith-al Qudsi (what the Prophet reported of Allah saying but not of the Qur’aan itself) gives expression to this idea:

Abu Hurairah, radiyallahu 'anhu, reported that the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, said:
"Allah the Almighty has said: 'Whosoever acts with enmity towards a closer servant of Mine (wali), I will indeed declare war against him. Nothing endears My servant to Me than doing of what I have made obligatory upon him to do. And My servant continues to draw nearer to Me with supererogatory (nawafil) prayers so that I shall love him. When I love him, I shall be his hearing with which he shall hear, his sight with which he shall see, his hands with which he shall hold, and his feet with which he shall walk. And if he asks (something) of Me, I shall surely give it to him, and if he takes refuge in Me, I shall certainly grant him it.'"
[Al-Bukhari]

cont..1/2

SecularGuy:
Quote
Apostasy... forcing people (under the threat of death) to submit to your religious practices is repugnant to me.

I R-E-A-L-L-Y do take exception to that ! ! !

unquote

Islam was not spread by force. You can find the proof in the writings of eminant historians who have state this explicitly Eg non-Muslims such as Espisito who edited the Oxford History of Islam* or Prof (and Sir) Thomas Arnold's "The Spread of Islam in the World: A History of Peaceful Preaching".

*http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/book/islam-9780195107999/islam-9780195107999-miscMatter-6

A concrete example of the principles to be followed by Muslims is the following Charter of Privileges issued in 628 C.E. by the Prophet to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai.

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.

Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them.

Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.

No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.

Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.

If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.

No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."

grateful,
Still practising taqiyya?
Here is the real Islam, straight from the Koran and Hadith:
* Infidels are your sworn enemies (Sura 4:101).
* Be ruthless to the infidels (Sura 48:29).
* Make war on the infidels who dwell around you (Sura 9:123, 66:9).
* Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day (Sura 9:29).
* Strike off the heads of infidels in battle (Sura 47:4).
* If someone stops believing in Allah, kill him (al-Bukhari 9:84:57).
* Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends (Sura 5:51, 60:13).
* Never be a helper to the disbelievers (Sura 28:86).
* Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (Sura 2:191).
* No Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel (al-Bukhari 1:3:111).
* The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land (Sura 5:33).

grateful,
what does your carefully prepared set of blatant lies have to do with the religious indoctrination of school children in state schools?

Well I'm very grateful for grateful's informative posts.. in fact..now..I'm a total convert.. his sources were impeccable and of course they were the originals....right ?

So.. clearly all of those who have believed Islam was spread by the sword are completely wrong.. Proxy .. u need a biggg smack :)

But Grateful.. would you agree that "Islamic rule" was spread by the sword?

Here..you have a nice discussion with a man named Umar (I think he was errr a Caliph or something.. u know..one of rightly guided ones or something... and his offsider 'Al Mughirah'.. they were quite close to the action I believe.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.386

As for me? well..I'll just believe 'you' because you are so persuasive and all those western historians ? well they have to know more than those who were 'on the spot'...right ? Thanx for all that.

I'm now considering my future.