As regards Peter Singer's views on bestiality you can read his work "Heavy Petting" or just check him out on QANDA.

Once again, I would like to reiterate my concerns about the supposedly neutral point of view taken by practitioners of the Enlightnment project. When it comes to sectarian prejudice there are none so blind as those who will not see. Please brush up on your Gadamer and look a little to the pre-judgements about religion, values and the nature of the human person that you are taking into this debate. They are culturally conditioned. We are all striving for fairness and universal rationality but we are each doing so from within a particular tradition.

One particular point of view that seems to be recurring here is the utilitarian one. Striving for 'the maximum good' is not uncontroversial. There are other contending notions of ethics, not least the deontological ones as encapsulated in the United Nations Declaration of Universal Rights 1948.

Except that some ethics do NOT stand up as actually helping anyone, just castigating people for being something that doesn't actually hurt anyone, but simply contradicts a religious doctrine.

That is why we require that ethics conveyed in schools are secular (that is, they actually stand outside a religious context)- because it is much harder for similar ethics to come into play.

Hence why the point stands, and why Proxy proves it correct (that teaching anything less than homosexuality being immoral and dangerous is akin to promoting it).

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT.... fixing the Author Glen Coulton...

1/ Identify the PROBLEM. "Not performing rationally or honestly" (possibly due to ignorance"

According to Glen "Religion is about:

:: how people should behave so as to secure the greatest possible well being for themselves in the next life ::

Evaluation="MISINFORMATION."

2/ Identify the SOLUTION.

Read owners manual...... (Mark 12:30ff)

a) "The first great commandment is love the Lord your God with all your heart"
b) "Love your neighbour as yourself"

Does anyone beside me see that the 'religious' (Christian) approach to human life is EQually distributed between the divine hereafter and the human here and now ?

If we applied just b) alone.. this would be all the *ethics* we would ever need. But unnnnfortunately.. we are evil, fallen, selfish and greedy. Hence the need for a) also.

CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT COMPLETE.
-Misinformation corrected.
-Product returned to customer.

Ethics teaching kids to think for themselves and make up their own minds versus religious dogma, authoritative, not to be questioned and requiring unthinking obedience, under threat of eternal punishment.

The answer is obvious for anybody who values intelligence, freedom and logic

King Hazza,
<<There are so few Shariah-advocates they aren't even worth including
either which way (and good, I say).>>
So if there were "Shariah-advocates" trying to indoctrinate school
children on an Australia-wide basis you would be concerned?
Then sign the petition:
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3556:petition-agaist-lfoa&catid=276:fedaral-parliament

Boazy: << we are evil, fallen, selfish and greedy >>

Speak for yourself. That sort of crap is exactly why we need to rid our oublic schools of religious education.