Oh dear! Appeal to one person's "worldview" and also an appeal that one person's "authority". And a bit of preaching.

A constructive argument for more non-denominational (secular) School Councillors would be good, in case a denominational chaplain was seen as a barrier to counselling.

Why isn't the Australian Secular Lobby objecting to this:

The Australian Curriculum Studies Association -
"Learning from One Another: Bringing Muslim perspectives into Australian schools"-
Goal - getting teachers to give the Islamic perspective on:
English (p.6),
Science (p.11),
Maths (p.14),
History (p.22),
Geography (p.33),
Arts (p.42),
Health and Physical Education (p.51),
Economics and Business (p.53),
Values education, civics and citizenship, global education and religious education (p.57)?
http://www.nceis.unimelb.edu.au/school-education/resources-teachers/learning-one-another-resources

Christianity is benign compared to the malignancy of Islam.
Anybody with an open mind can see this.

NB: I am of neither persuasion.

The implementation of "Learning from One Another: Bringing Muslim perspectives into Australian schools" is insidious and must be stopped.

Sign the petition at:

http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3556:petition-agaist-lfoa&catid=276:fedaral-parliament

Thanks for raising the issue who ever you are.
I come from a secular family but I must say that I found Religious Instruction to be the high light of the week for me at primary school. It gave me hope that the world can be a better place and that God loves all people.

To McReal, What?!

To Proxy, "I am of neither persuasion." I doubt that! Christianity benign?? Please!!

To nohj, Whose god loves all people? Your god, or their god?

An open letter from "secular parents".

The phrase is becoming almost a contradiction in terms. Secularists are losing the battle of the bedroom. The religious are outbreeding us.

See for example:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/11/breedingforgod/

See also:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Back-Global-Revival-Changing/dp/B002KAORUW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278290751&sr=1-1

And I could give many more references.

Methinks secularists will find these facts as unpalatable as the religious find evolution and will respond in the same way. DENIAL!

Proxy.

The US and other countries have religious problems, not Australia.

"fund those schools who need qualified professional school counsellors with just that, qualified professional school counsellors."

Now this should be interesting.

Think at home, on Sundays, or what ever day or night a person or persons religious beliefs might be, is more than fair considering its only those thou who believe in such things, where the majority do not wish their child to be exposed too, and in my opinion, "dangerous" as we see worth, seen all-around the world.

Australia’s secular parents.

Stand your ground!

I will not personally or deliberately fill my child's heads with fairy tail rubbish! In the 21 century, they will have enough to deal with when it comes to the world of high-intell and tec living.

Reality is today's food!

To go back in time, would be a complete disaster.

And remember! The workers make the honey.

Have a think.

TTM.

Every taxpayer dollar ripped from the public purse wasted on religious recruitment in schools, because people wont go to churches, that's all this really is. Is a dollar taken from infrastructure roads, rail, public schools, hospitals. If and when you or your child ever find yourself s laying in the back of an ambulance bleeding to death trying to find a public hospital bed, think about whether some kid needs to have some imaginary religious cult, taxpayer funded private or public indoctrination or whether that funding should have been used to save your life, because this is what has taken the funding and cost your lives, hundreds of people have died and people are dying every day? That's what we are debating here people, 18 billion dollars have been allocated over the next few years to corporate private religious indoctrination cult schools and chaplins, well what are you going to do about it?

McReal... school chaplains are not allowed to provide counselling under the DEEWR rules of funding... "in case a denominational chaplain was seen as a barrier to counselling".

Besides, the issue is not 'denominational' is it, that accepts that they are all (nearly all) Christian in the first place, the issue is that they are 'religious' and in what really should be a secular public space.

The real problem with public schools is that they are expected to undertake far too much, and far too many activities, with far too little funding and trained staff, and far too little interest from far too many parents, couple with far too much meddling by far too stupid and dangerous a mob of politicians.

These chaplains are 'cheap' but not a solution to anything higher than a few extra votes in marginal seats, and that is only a 'maybe'.

As for being 'out-bred', quite so, but the armies of Christians vs. Muslims that are being built up is not going to be good for us all overall, is it?

Besides, being 'secular' does not mean having to be an atheist does it? Unless you follow the Jensen-Pell-ACL line of course. But it does mean that 'believers' have the capacity to understand that there has to be a gap between church and state, just as atheists do too.

Political stunts that involve using 'religion' as a bait is not a very solid foundation for good social policies, I'd have thought.

The Secular lobby are to blind to see that the less Christian influence the more bullying, drugs, suicide, perversion, pornography. No doubt they would love ethicist like Singer teaching why bestiality and paedophille is not always wrong. The good news is that most parents are bright enough to see the fruit of secularism with its amoral values. No wonder the multitudes including unbelievers are voting with their feet and making the sacrifices to send their kids to schools with Christian values. Secularist expect the Government to pay for their dogma and lies to be taught. Most people care more about their kids than they do failed secular dogma.

Shadyoasis,

Use of the comparative: "Bill is taller than Tom and Tom is taller than Jim. They are all short."

"More benign" does not mean 'benign", although as soon as I hear of some Christian group blowing up a rival church, or a crowded market-place, or burning down girls' schools, or throwing acid in women's faces, I'll change my tune :)

Joe

Runner... "less Christian influence the more bullying, drugs, suicide, perversion, pornography"... ahem, do tell us all where the 'faith' schools are that have none of the above going on amongst the student populations they hold.... never mind the churches.

Anyway, you seem to fail to comprehend the meaning of 'secular' here.

It is not a code word for 'atheism', but an ability to live with others of different views, which I would have thought would be something you might support.

I watched that ABC Compass show with the Hon Michael Kirby, ex High Court judge and clearly a decent person.

Clearly also a Christian, and clearly a tolerant person, and clearly 'secular' in his outlook.

His published speeches to a couple of schools would indicate he clearly understands the benefit of having secular public schools.

http://www.michaelkirby.com.au/images/stories/speeches/2000s/2009+/2418.Speech_-_Sydney_Grammar_Speech_Day_2009.pdf

http://www.michaelkirby.com.au/images/stories/speeches/2000s/2009+/2417.Speech_-_Melbourne_High_School_Speech_Night_2009.pdf

If I were a betting man, I'd wager that Kirby is more of a Christian than all those noisy 'Christians' in NSW trying to prevent the St. James Ethics course from continuing, for instance, with far more Christian compassion than Pell, Wallace, Jensen, Houston and Rudd & Abbott put together.

Now, what is it that you really object to with secular public schools, given that there are faith schools by the hundredweight throughout Australia for those too scared to live in the real-world?

Runner stated; The Secular lobby are too blind to see that the less Christian influence the more bullying, drugs, suicide, perversion, pornography.
How is it that the religion of priests does not prevent their paedophilia?
You also keep accusing Peter Singer of supporting criminal sexual activities. I would back his moral outlook against the outlook of and religious indoctrinator who can see nothing wrong with inhibiting a child's ability to learn to think clearly.

For everyone's benefit I quote again the conclusion to Singer's book "How are we to live."
“Anyone can become part of the critical mass that offers us a chance to improve the world… and take up new causes and find your goals changing. You will not be bored, or lack fulfilment in your life. Most of important of all, you will know that you have not lived and died for nothing, because you will have become part of the great tradition of those who have responded to the amount of pain and suffering in the universe by trying to make the world a better place.”

Good article. Hopefully, PM Gillard might take some action to reduce the influence of the powerful Christian lobby on Australian government and public education. Getting rid of chaplains from public schools and replacing them with properly qualified counsellors would be a good start.

As for religious education, I think that teaching kids about the various religions probably has a place in public schools, but actual religious instruction is the province of religious schools, churches, Sunday schools, mosques etc.

I've had a look at the 'Learning From One Another' document that Proxy is so hysterical about. It doesn't purport to teach Islam or Islamic values, but seems to me to be designed to educate students about Islam's place in society. Given the amount of vilification directed at Muslims by Islamophobes, it's probably a good move.

Indeed, that's the sort of treatment that Christianity should receive at public schools, rather than being privileged above other religions and secular thought as it is now. Get rid of the chaplains from our public schools!

If ever there was a chance for a secular society it should be now with a non-believer as a Prime Minister. Well, the alternative is Pell's Pal, the feckless Abbott who would turn this country into a Catholic enclave given the power that he would have with most of his front bench, all of the same flock. He would be funding anything that was Catholic, couldn't help himself as he sees that he has such a role in Australia.
Thanks but no thanks and fortunately the voters also see him as a dim-witted politician and he currently is the best of the bunch? Save us!

Well, for all the wrong reasons, not the least is the current love affair with the female media, Gillard will romp in so Abbott shouldn't ever be a problem and the poor old opposition are completely colourless without a shift to someone like Turnbull, so have no fears.

As for Rudd's Sunday leanings, practices which were a matter of convenience in his case, be assured, as a man who was such a blasphemer could never have had any worthy Christian values, just a need to pander to the rightwing church-goers for whatever votes he could muster.

So there it is. A PM by default. Already compomised by Zionists so maybe the Christians will get to her as well. Let's face it, she has shown quite clearly that she will do anything for a vote, even kill off an elected Prime Minister.

Secular? Who knows. But let us hope so.

LOL

and LOL

and ROFLMAO

The secularists here really don't get it.

YOU HAVE LOST THE BATTLE OF THE BEDROOM

We can argue about whether the "meek" or the Jihadis shall inherit the earth. But of one thing we can be certain:

THE UNBORN SHALL NOT INHERIT THE EARTH

The religious are winning because they have more babies - MANY more babies - than the secular.

Who is going to have a bigger influence on the future of Britain:

(Childless) Germaine Greer?

or

Essma Marjam (34 with six children)?

See: http://www.eutimes.net/2010/02/single-muslim-mother-of-six-finds-2m-mansion-on-the-net-and-then-gets-you-to-pay-7000-a-month-rent/

Proxy,

"Learning from one another" is a hoot. Thanks for the link The section on science starts, ponderously:

"The exploration and advancement of science has been one of the hallmarks of Muslim civilisation" LOL

Then:

"Devout Muslims see science as a portion of the knowledge that God gave to human beings. This aspect of God’s knowledge is gained through investigation, experimentation and contemplation, which the Quran encourages human beings to embrace."

Except that devout Muslims insist that the koran is scientifically accurate.

The section on English with it's insistence on benign translations for words like "Jihad" exceeds Monty Python at its best.

CJ Morgan

If we're going to teach this stuff we should at least get it right.

Like WHY (yes, WHY) did the "barbaric" Europeans leave those "scientifically inclined" Muslims so far behind when it comes to science and technology? Could it be that the Europeans weren't actually so barbaric and the Muslims weren't scientific?

Now that would be an interesting topic for school kids.

stevenlmeyer,
I suggest you rinse your mouth out with camel urine after speaking like that about Islam.
Don't you know that Islamic science teaches that camel urine is a curative?
If the perfect man said it, then it must be so.

The story below is illustrative of Islamic science and Mohammed's infinite compassion.
Maybe it should be included in "Learning from One Another"?

"FROM THE HADITH OF SAHIH BUKHARI (2)
From Volume 1, #234
1.234: Narrated Abu Qilaba:

Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and
its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to
the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a
medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy,
they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the
camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent
(men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He
then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their
eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. They were put in 'Al
Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them."
Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder, became
infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His
Apostle."

This is the sort of stuff we should be teaching our kids.
It's so inclusive and multicultural.

State schools should be places of learning as well as sanctuaries from the religious tripe kids are often forced to endure in society at large. There is no question but that school chaplaincy is the Trojan horse of evangelism in the State system. Christianity is no longer the passive social presence it used to be for people to take up or not as it pleased them. It is now an aggressive, sectarian and too often fundamentalist phenomenon responding to its secular and reasoning antithesis.
Nor are chaplains in schools any different; the vast majority are zealots in disguise.
So yes, Labour; a secular government has never been more needed.

McReal..not a bad thought actually.

TOPIC/Article.
WALLLL separation between the religious proselytising ambitions of church recruiters and our children.

Not my children thanks...I absolutely love the idea of them receiving extra spiritual encouragement at their primary or secondary school.
But there is already a 'wall of separation' and it's called 'non compulsory attendance'

If you don't want your children to receive spiritual guidance or information at school..just SAY so and it's a done deal. Methinks you actually have a darker agenda.

Get over yourself secular lobby... and get the real story first.

RichAl.. how does that 'wall' work when chaplains 'coach' school sporting teams, pray (prey) upon the entire school assembly and events, accompany the children on all school excursions and camps, enjoy 'access all areas' every day, wandering in and out of any classroom they choose and even chair student committees? There's nowhere to hide.. there is no choice.. there is no 'freedom from religion' in chaplain-infested state schools. Regardless of parents' wishes, kids are either exposed to the third-world missionary tactics of these extremist fruitcakes or miss-out on what were once school activities for all. You must be kidding.

@ Shadyoasis (Monday, 5 July 2010 10:38:44 AM)

I don't think an open letter like that should appeal to the incoming PM's "worldview", nor should it appeal to the incoming PM's authority. The letter is a bit preachy, and waffly. The sentiment is good, although could also address councillors.

@ TheBlueCross - of course counsellors don't have to personally be secular, but their behaviour in schools should be, including seeking appropriate religious guidance where requested. The whole chaplaincy thing implies a special holier-than-thou authority.

$42-50 million pa is not cheap.

Runner - your dogma is the worst emphasis or deceit or both. What is the single most paedophillic organisation in the media at present?

ALGOREisRICH - "just SAY so and it's a done deal" is not easy for many.

Parables are one thing, Dogma is another.

Separation of church and state should mean separation. If an organisation has GOD hung around their neck they must be excluded from government organisations. I have no issue with these organisations existing freely within the society ( only because i believe in free speech ), but stop knocking on my door with your weak baseless rubbish and expecting love. If i told you the world was flat and offered a work of fiction to prove it i would be laughed off this page so stop selling religion with a novel and the faith line. I had this rubbish shoved down my throat as a child and will never forget the hypocrites that fed it to me. These wonderful people were there to be forgiven for all the horrid things they had done all week.
All religion is the same, and for those who seem to think that the Muslims are so bad see how you feel after the US bombs your cites non stop for months on end. Oh and what the hell were the IRA and Ulster Unionists doing for all those years, making christian harmony. I am sure that many of you can put together a long list of links to prove or disprove this but history shows both christian and muslim are to blame for the ongoing stupidity and i for one hold them both accountable. They have both brainwashed, oppressed, condemned, Raped, robbed and generally lied to their faithful with what would appear to be little consequence. If any organisation had the wide spread and endemic problem of pedophilia that the Catholic church has had for over 50 years (that is currently documented), it would be destroyed and all their wealth distributed to the victims as proceeds of crime. I see nothing different for islam either. as I said, I believe in free speech so can't support destroying their right to exist, just the assumption that they should have some special right to pollut the children of their communities with paranoid brainwashing.

nairbo writes

'If i told you the world was flat and offered a work of fiction to prove it i would be laughed off this page so stop selling religion with a novel and the faith line.'

That's exactly the preachers of the evolution myth do. Only those willing to distort and twist the obvious deny this.

Alright, runner. I'll be the first to put up my hand and say that I am "willing to distort and twist the obvious" and deny that evolutionists "told you the world was flat and offered a work of fiction to prove it".

What work of fiction do they use? They use a range of scientific evidence to support a constantly-evolving theory about the origin and transformation of a diverse range of species on our planet. Or that was my understanding, anyway.

The latest utterances from Catch The Fire Ministry, the sort of Christian that supports the Coalition, and that Jim Wallace said voted for Rudd in 2007.

Let's see what Danny has to say in his latest epistle:

"At the other end of the scale, we have Julia Gillard who is openly anti-God, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Homosexuality, wants Christian Chaplains out of schools, refused to take the oath on the bible and the list goes on. She will also most probably pass the carbon emission treaty and pass laws to stop Christian evangelism (Bill of Rights). She is currently living in blatant sin, as she is not married but living with her partner. What a terrible role model for the next generation. I am shocked that we have a PM who would possibly move into the lodge with her partner. Possibly this has never happened in the history of Australia.... I think this gives us a clear cut mandate as to whom we should vote for...[with] the Coalition government we would achieve much more in order to protect our Judeo-Christian Heritage.... If you still say ‘I will vote Labor’ that is your choice. That’s the freedom we enjoy in a democracy, but I must say you definitely cannot be a Christian who has a proper relationship with Jesus if you vote this way."

Danny decides, like Runner and Al Gore, who is a 'real Christian' and who is a fake one.

Dangerous stuff, and rather sad and pathetic.

I am not as certain as Danny is that Gillard will rid our schools of the toxic chaplains, but maybe he has had another 'vision' and knows something we don't?

If we are going to allow religion tax a tax free ride, perhaps they should stop operating as a political lobby group, and telling punters how to vote?

Otokonoko
,They use a range of scientific evidence to support a constantly-evolving theory '

You are so right Otokonko. The ever evolving theory is a very convenient way to describe one failed theory constantly being replaced with another failed theory. The arrogance and denial by evolutionist of twisted observations and fraudulent conclusions is astounding to say the least. To derive our morality base from such deceit has shown itself to lead to a death and perverted culture

Heh TBC - I particularly enjoyed this bit:

<< Unfortunately, from day number one when Rudd came on the scene I knew he was not fair-dinkum. A few months after he was elected I had a vision at one of our weekly intercessory prayer meetings, that Julia Gillard came behind Rudd and stuck a knife in his back and Rudd fell to the ground, then she took over the government. Immediately I shared the vision with my team and we prayed about it. >>

This is the same frootloop that claimed the Black Saturday fires were God's punishment for abortions or something, wasn't it?

If I was a Christian I'd be embarrassed by the likes of Nalliah, and indeed by runner, Boaz et al.

Sad to say CJM, that yes, this is Peter Costello's old friend, Danny, who told us all about his vision of Victoria burning due to the abortion laws there.

He is also a supporter of the National Day of Prayer, whom both Rudd and our GG gave lavish praise for some weeks ago, and a great supporter of the ACL and chaplains in schools.

Now, although I rather relish thinking of AlGore's kiddies being counselled by such a character as CTFM provides, I am not so sure that having a Runner type let loose in schools evangelising and proselytising for all they are worth is a 'good thing' for the majority of students.

In fact, I rather believe it is a shameful thing to give oxygen to these people, along with such high status and totally uncritical support by each and every politician in Canberra, and out in the sticks in each and every state-territory parliament, with the lone exception of Dr. John Kaye, Greens, NSW, and of course Senator Lyn Allison when she was still in the Senate.

Gillard, of course, is as bad as Rudd and Howard about all this, having never once questioned what was going on in our schools.

There is nothing too gross, nothing too appalling, nothing too sick, dangerous, ill-advised, and patently snake-oil like, that the 'true believers' will not believe in, and apologise for, that is, spruik for, when it comes to gods.

Yes, any decent Christian should be aghast at what these people say-do, but no, they will not be, because, to do that, would be to question every last element of their 'faith', and that is neither expected, encouraged, nor done.

Look what happens when they do.... they become a 'Bishop Spong' type character, believing in everything but what makes it all tick, a post-Jesus Christian, what others might term a 'humanist'.

Runner said, "To derive our morality base from such deceit has shown itself to lead to a death and perverted culture"

Now come on, do we need to start doing an accountability audit for the state of world morality or will i just stop at the inquisition. And it takes no imagination to see the reaction you would receive for suggesting that this country does not base its value system on christianity so look within for the perverted culture. Oppression of sexuality resulting in desperate priests and paedophiles living under the protection of the church.

You do have some limited credibility about scientific theory that has been proven rubbish, but please do look at who does the discrediting. It is called peer review and is a very critical part of the scientific process. There is science fact and this you will be hard pushed to discredit. Then there is scientific theory where using the available facts, observations and mathematical deduction the theory is developed offering the most probable outcome. This theory is meant to be challenged that is how it is either disproved, further evolved or made fact.

I would be interested to see what result you would come up with if you compared the storey of Moses against the Egyptian history around the time of Ramses the Great. We find the sea of reeds, the regular floods that turned the Nile red and were relied on to keep the fields fertile, but the best is the assassination of the eldest son of Rames that started a period of mourning.

Despite what you think, i was not defending science rather questioning the logic in having a group of people teaching morals in schools and attaching it to a concept as dangerous as religion that has a record of moral corruption, manipulation, greed and war.

Keep the separation of church and state. Church's do not belong in our institutions and governments.

nairbe,

AS horrendous and ungodly as the Catholic church acted throughout history they have nothing compared to the mass killing of unborn babies which is promoted and encouraged by secularist. Currently the murder rate is about 80000 per year in this country now. That is without mentioning Stalin, Mao or Idi. You have a very selective view of history. It seems to me that the secularist self righteousness and denial of the corrupt human nature has you bluffed to.

CJ writes

'This is the same frootloop that claimed the Black Saturday fires were God's punishment for abortions or something, wasn't it?'

You would think someone who belongs to the idiotic Greens who prevented farmers from clearing their land resulting in many deaths would be quite on this one. Oh that's right the climate religous dogma was blamed by these earth worshipers. How convenient for them to turn to their faith when their actions or non action was despicable.

Runner... "killing of unborn babies which is promoted and encouraged by secularist" ... what on Earth does this mean?

Are you suggesting that, say, Hon Michael Kirby, is a baby killer?

Or any other person who believes in a 'secular' approach to life?

Why do you confuse 'secular' with so many other words?

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just ignorant of these things?

Now, do you also believe that your god sent the bush fires to 'punish' people for some state based law?

If so, can you explain where the 'lurv' of you god kicks in?

Secular. "of or relating to the world, or to things not religious, sacred or spiritual" this is how the MACQUARIE dictionary defines it.
Runner you really seem to have become over emotive as to what constitutes secularism. If you are a satanist you are not secular, nor are you secular if you are pagan, hindu, budist and for that matter a stalinist. Being religious is "the quest for the values of the ideal life" again the MACQUARIE. This does not invoke the name of god and does not require a god to be religious.
I can only take your accusation that 80 000 in this country are killed by secularists to mean you are invoking the "right to life position" in this debate?
Secularists are not devoid of morals nor are morals the domain of the faithful. My fingering of the catholic church was an easy example but by no means am i proportioning blame to them alone.
Belief, whether it be in god or an ideology is dangerous and needs exposing for what it is. Belief means "i don't know". Sometimes you have to accept that there is no answer to the questions you have and to continue the search is the outcome. But if you have your concrete belief you are left to hate, mistrust and destroy what you don't understand.

Nairbe I think you might be a bit confused. You have just written "Belief, whether it be in god or an ideology is dangerous and needs exposing for what it is. Belief means "i don't know". Sometimes you have to accept that there is no answer to the questions you have and to continue the search is the outcome. But if you have your concrete belief you are left to hate, mistrust and destroy what you don't understand." Well, I hate to tell you but belief is the beginning of all learning. You believe that something might work so you try it, and when you try it you might make a few mistakes but you will learn from the experience what works and what doesn't and as you proceed, your belief will become fact because you will "know" what works and what doesn't. Belief is the basis for all knowledge and is only dangerous if your beliefs are untried or untested. It would appear that you don't believe that there is a God. You are entitled to that opinion and I respect it, but you shouldn't show your ignorance by rambling. I agree that we sometimes have to accept that we don't have the answers to all of our questions but that doesn't mean that there aren't answers. It just means that we don't have the answers yet

As horrendous and ungodly as the catholic church has been, they are insufficiently answerable as a public tax-exempt instutution to correction, punishment and disbandment. Greater punishment should devolve to the individual citizens that committed horrors in it's name. *they* should definitely not enjoy the finacial protection of the church, at the expense of those deserving whom the church might rightly serve.

What runner fails to comprehend is that individuals answer only to themselves, and only to his "god" thingy if should happen (against all odds) to exist.

For someone with "faith" in "god", runner wants awfully to act as if "god" is lazy in runner's own eyes, and needs his unthinking, and incompetant help.

All in time, runner.

Rusty.

Bigred, Yes your right the whole thing has slipped to a ramble.

I get your point about belief but don't agree. If a concept or theory are formed they are developed, challenged and then proven or disproven. When someone believes in something they are rarely moved from their position. I haven't noticed that islam has an active department to explore and challenge the writings of the Quran. Actually if one was to actively disprove the Quran they will most likely have a bounty on their head. This is the same with all faiths, if you challenge their lack of logic and credibility they will simply call you a non believer and ignore you or kill you.

I was actually expecting to be pulled up on the religious point. Using the definition i have, one would then consider all systems of faith or governance to be religious. I see "religious" as meaning that one becomes set within it's faith and cannot be moved.

TBC.... a 'real' Christian is very easy to define. All you have to do is go to the Gospels.. read the message...then goto Acts and see how it was 'Acted' out. Then.. peruse the letters for more guidance about what's not ok and ok... and Revelation for some hints about the future...

and voila.. ur up to speed.

There are many variations within various traditions.. but mostly the points are rather minor in the bigger scheme of things.

What is a 'real' Christian ? What did Jesus ask people to do ?

Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" MARK 1:14FF

Could it be any clearer ? You don't need me or runner or anyone to define it... it's there in plain language.

1/ Repent (from sin and unbelief)
2/ Believe (in the Gospel of the Kingdom of God) which is about Christ himself...as King.

Some groups sprinkle....others immerse... some baptize Children..others confirm.. within those traditions we have a beautiful unity of spirit.

Secular parents have no more right to dictate what canNOT be in schools as Christians (or Muslims/hindu's etc) have to dictate what MUST be in schools. But it's not about 'rights' per se..it's about democracy. No 'right' is infringed if, as a result of the democratic process.. we have chaplains in schools. No 'right' is infringed if children are offered a non compulsory opportunity to know more about The Faith.

In the light of the present plight of Christopher Hitchins... it might be a timely warning that 'my way' rather than Gods way can have regrettable consequences.

"Author, journalist and public intellectual Christopher Hitchens has announced he has cancer of the oesophagus and will undergo treatment.

"He is well-known for his prolific consumption of alcohol and cigarettes."

"God is not Great" (Hitchins)
"Galations 6:7" (God.)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+6&version=NIV

bigred, I agree with nairbe.

It goes beyond testing -

* it goes to the outcomes of testing and trialling, and whether outcomes constitute proof or verification;

* it goes to what types of trial or tests are appropriate; after

* considering the belief can be false, or based on false premisses/propositions, and testing those aspects, too.

Moreover, there is an aspect of changing and updating beliefs and approaches based on new information and reflection.

""In the light of the present plight of Christopher Hitchins [of having oespohageal cancer] ... it might be a timely warning that 'my way' rather than Gods way can have regrettable consequences."
.. ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 9:06:03 AM

Yes, bet Galatians 6 is getting a good work-out for Christopher Hitchens, especially 6:8

Galatians 6
8.The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature[a]will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

Perhaps you might follow 6:9
9.Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

Or perhaps you follow the view "some are more equal than others"
10.Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

Personally, I'm convinced by the vast weight of medical evidence that smoking and excessive drinking aren't very good for you. I don't think you need a big bogey man in the sky in order to lead a healthy life, nor indeed to understand the consequences of your actions.

I like this piece of twisted logic:

<< Secular parents have no more right to dictate what canNOT be in schools as Christians (or Muslims/hindu's etc) have to dictate what MUST be in schools. But it's not about 'rights' per se..it's about democracy. No 'right' is infringed if, as a result of the democratic process.. we have chaplains in schools. No 'right' is infringed if children are offered a non compulsory opportunity to know more about The Faith. >>

Aside from the fact that there was absolutely nothing democratic about the insidious introduction of chaplains into public schools by the Howard government, it seems that Boazy is unaware that precisely the same argument could be mounted by those, for example, who wanted to implement Islamic teaching and chaplains in schools.

I would argue against any kind of religious instruction or proselytising in public schools, but Boazy leaves himself way open to criticism of his usual hypocrisy - but I guess he's used to it. Parents who want to brainwash their kids with religious hocus pocus should do so in the home, at church/mosque/whatever, or send their unfortunate offspring to religious schools.

AGIR... "Secular parents have no more right to dictate what canNOT be in schools as Christians (or Muslims/hindu's etc) have to dictate what MUST be in schools"... hmmmm, well, actually, within a secular nation that values a public space such as a public school, there is a good reason to keep out the evangelising and proselytising of any/all religions, and non-religions too.

One no more wants bands of evangelical atheists let loose in schools than the more traditional religious terrorists, such as those within the Baptist church, Jensenites, Pellites, CTFM, AOG-Hillsong, CoC, and all the rest of 'em.

And I suspect they would not appreciate Jewish or Muslim extremists wandering through schools either.

"But it's not about 'rights' per se..it's about democracy"... indeed, and 'democracy' is well served by the secular public square, but the lies and deceit engaged in by NSCP supporters knows no bounds at all.

"No 'right' is infringed if, as a result of the democratic process.. we have chaplains in schools"... but there has been no 'democratic' process involved in shoehorning chaplains into schools.

"No 'right' is infringed if children are offered a non compulsory opportunity to know more about The Faith"... there are a few points here.

1) As Deepnorthener has said above, the chaplains are everywhere, and are not policed, and know nothing about who should and should not have dealings with them.

2) They are not supposed to be promoting any religion, and certainly not one above others.

3) All sorts of 'rights' are infringed, as well as 'rules', not to mention 'common decency'.

4) Squeers has outlined a reasonable expectation for public schools, and that does not involve being a place for religion to fiind new recruits, it actually involves 'education', a rarity, hardly to be found in our schools as a primary imperative.

As for your gloating over Hitchins cancer, the first I have heard of it, I find it just a little bit, well, sick on your part to be hinting that your god has punished Hitchins as a result of his unbelief.

The mark of a 'not real' Christian'?

Schools are for learning! Religion has been the driving force of man-kind
from day one. It’s in our blood! In our history, our Art, and so many other
aspects of our lives. At least in a place of open learning our children will
obtain the true facts and may-be some healthy debate and make up their
Own minds as free thinking (educated) individuals! Much better then ill
informed bias individuals, suffering foot-in-mouth due to ignorance!

Petersen:
<Religion has been the driving force of man-kind
from day one. It’s in our blood! In our history, our Art, and so many other aspects of our lives.>

This is a crucial point that's behind the general scepticism I've been trying to bring to other debates on other threads. Another way of thinking of what Petersen says above is "ideology". In this case our cultural indoctrination (ideology) casts institutionalised religion as an untouchable norm, whether subscribed, to whatever extent, or not. In our "secular" society, outrages like fundamentalist Christian Chaplains (the overwhelming majority) and their "curricular" programmes (and agenda!) in state schools are barely even noticed by most parents, whether agnostics, atheists or religious "moderates" of one stamp or another. This is because, I think, religion has long been such a staple (or else symbiotically invisible) in Australian life, such a cultural norm, as to be "tolerated" as a given, indeed a benign presence (despite constant headlines about ecclesiastical paedophilia and other abuses). I'm sure many parents blithely think it "might even do the little buggers some good". The fact is that religious instruction and other Chaplain facilitated programmes, as well as their overall influence in school, are fundamentally at odds with the concept of "education" and the ordinary tenets of reason, enquiry and learning.
It's ideology that gives religion an unthinking free pass into our children's playgrounds, classrooms and minds (as well as their parent's trust or indifference), just as it's ideology that exempts the religion "industry" from being accountable or taxable. Even the British Monarchy is under pressure to account for themselves and to pay their way and their taxes, as they should be!
We live in a highly eclectic culture and diverse belief systems play a role in most people's lives, which makes it all the more problematic and unethical to institutionalise any of them, especially in the form of child grooming, and in the name of "State Education". It's a bloody outrage and about time Australians woke up from their ideological slumber---on other issues too!

Just in case of misunderstanding; in this sentence: <I'm sure many parents blithely think it "might even do the little buggers some good"> above, I was referring to religion in schools in general and not to the sentence that immediately preceded it.

This ‘open letter’ speaks of Australia as a secular state. I’m not sure if that is an official status or an ideal.

I know some countries call themselves ‘a republic’ and the word itself means many different things or perhaps nothing. If we are a secular state, then we need to carefully define it, and the devil is in the detail.

While I am happy to support this letter in some of its ideals, I think it’s a bit woolly around the edges, especially where people define the word secular slightly differently.

Can I ask someone who supports this letter: is the word ‘secular’ in the Australian Constitution or perhaps any other official documents

Dan Asks: “Can I ask someone who supports this letter: is the word ‘secular’ in the Australian Constitution or perhaps any other official documents”

I don't know if it's in any other official documents, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't appear in the constitution.

I'm also pretty sure that you knew this and that you were waiting for someone to point out Section 116 of Australia's constitution - which mentions freedom of religion - so that you could point out that this is all it mentions.

But what you fail to realise, Dan, is that Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion.

I said what I said, and I meant what I said.

Secular can mean
* separation of state and church(es)
* freedom for religions (to not be suppressed by other religions or beliefs)
* freedom from religion(s)

I support the first two, and would hope the last option might only apply to education in state schools.

Secular is *both* a legal status *and* an ideal.

The mistaken belief that a single religion is correct in the absence of evidence is nonsense.

*first* the religionists submit a "true" one they can all agree on, and *then* it would be worth spending more than a few minutes debunking.

Rusty

Try reading this:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2010/07/19/2958156.htm

The funding of the NSCP scheme was a political goal of Howard, kept up by Rudd and Gillard.

It is a waste of ATO monies.

If we are not going to try to organise schools, public and private, into something that welcomes students to be able to live a decent life while at school, then we need to fund properly qualified school councillors, not charlatan's whose primary function is to evangelise for Jesus.

These people are just the beginning of a whole stream of non-school staff entering public schools to evangelise, with the Baptists organising their Christian mentors, and all those Hillsong programmes that denigrate women, and men, being given pride of place by our whimpering-simpering state politicians, too scared to say Boo! to a small but very noisy cabal of evangelical fruitloops.

The fight over the St. James Ethics trial is small beer compared to this horrible fraud-for-Jesus.

Rusty,
I was wondering about the status of secularity in Australia. Could you throw some more light on its legal status and where this is found. Are you talking about the bit of the constitution mentioned above?

McReal,
What does it mean to have separation of state and church? Australia does not a have an official state church. I don’t think you mean that a church member can’t hold an official office, as that would be, of course, unconstitutional.

I don’t know anyone who would say that Australia should not have freedom of religion, which is what we have always enjoyed for the most part.

My understanding of secularity is that the government does not endorse one church or religion in preference to another.

In the following list from the Australian Secular Lobby: including all of the many secular parents, students, citizens, electors, teachers, nurses, doctors, truck drivers, politicians, mine workers, retail workers, trade unionists, retired people, journalists, executives, bankers, entrepreneurs’;

why does it not explicitly contain people of faith? Does that suggest opposition or antagonism from the lobby towards those of faith?

Yes, *why* does it not include people of faith.

Our own democracy and the yank one were developed by leaders who recognised the value of secularity and the dangers of state religion, and religious leaders understood the necessity.

Rusty

Dan... try this section:

"Beyond party politics, so necessary for the democratic running of our nation-state, the compass that sustains our supporters is the one that should strike a chord with all of us.

"Those of faith, and those of none, should understand what particular value “being secular” offers to us all in Australia, as we send our troops off to war to fight against the totalitarian and theocratic ambitions of others: the all-embracing security of a secular nation-state allows us to live together, peacefully, with those of different views, in our own neighbourhood."

They clearly do understand that 'people of faith' are part of the deal too.

As I read the letter, they have taken Gillard's first speech and reminded her of her own words, as she drew on her family upbringing, and her parents 'values', since Gillard's words are clearly stuck in there.

Of course, Gillard's values, and those of her parents, do not seem to align very well now she is in politics.

Gillard was happy to keep the scheme going, without any inspection or alteration of how it was run.

There is no doubt at all that Rudd loved everything the ACL did and said, and that his adoration of chaplains required Gillard to keep quiet about it, but her other actions as Education MInister also show us that she is quite happy to perform really badly just to appear to be a 'strong leader', the usual fallback desire of our dullest voters.

Remember those calls about Joh? No one liked him but they all happily parroted the line that he was 'a strong leader'. This was a theme used by Howard too, about himself.

It's a shame really, we went from Howard to Rudd, getting 'more of the same', and now we have a female version of the mixture 'Howard Rudd'.

Pathetic really, isn't it?

Rusty,
What is the legal status of secularity specifically? What am I or any Australian or Australian institution obliged to follow with regard to it?

Blue Cross,
You say that the secular lobby do understand that 'people of faith' are part of the deal too.

This would be nice. So this is why I asked, why are people of faith not mentioned in the list at the end of the secular lobby article.

This is what I am getting at. If secularism means anything of value, it means people of differing beliefs getting along with each other peaceably. Some in the comments above seem to think it is a battle between religionists and atheists. Should I sense this antagonism towards religion from within this open letter from the secular lobby?

I don’t think secular means separating all families of faith and those of non faith, sending those of religion to religious schools and the atheists to state schools. I don’t think that is the secular ideal.

"I don’t think secular means separating all families of faith and those of non faith, sending those of religion to religious schools and the atheists to state schools. I don’t think that is the secular ideal".. quite so... the idea of a secular public school is that it is open to all faiths and none, with no one group, either a faith or a non-faith mob having a special privilege.

I think I cutnpasted you a section that provides what you crave. Other than that, you would have to email the ASL yourself, since I can only go on what is written in that letter, like you.

The 'battle' you refer to, as I see it, is based on the imposition of Christianity into public schools, and the special deal afforded to the evangelical mobs who fill the schools with so many untrained and unqualified pretend 'religious' people.

There is no room for the special deal for Christianity, in what should be a secular space, any more than Islam or Judaism should get a special deal to impose beliefs on our students in public schools.

There are plenty of so-called 'faith' schools for those who do seek a divided society, all funded far too generously by the public purse, and open to those who elect to send their children to them.

Yes, all we can go on is what is written in the letter. From that we base our discussion.

I wish the letter was more tolerant towards religion. It doesn’t lack for sweeping statements, such as the world being fraught with religious inspired conflict, without noting the times of religious inspired peace or the non-religious inspired conflict; and for there now being no escape from raw, religious ambition in public schools.

It is difficult to find much of substance here against the schools’ chaplaincy program other than that the ASL doesn’t like Christianity.

I don’t believe the Christians are getting a special deal not available to others. It has been judged that the chaplaincy program offers a positive contribution to schools, and it finds support from parents and school communities. I don’t see evidence in this letter of the imposition of beliefs on students.

If the program is breaking rules, or skipping standards, or using untrained people, then those are issues that ought to be addressed. If the ASL wants to cut the program simply because the people running it are Christians, then that is a prejudice not in line with the ideals of secularism.

Given that "secular" is what you get when no particular religion runs the government, it follows that secular is the background, the baseline if you will, of agreed essentials.

There is likely a strong common law argument there.

Non-essentials, like any particular religion do not enjoy the same mandate.

Following this, one can keep eliminating particular religions till none are given consideration, yet much of our culture still exists.

Not so many generations ago, religious leaders and national ones recognised that not only was religion pernicious to good government, but that it was plain that no particular religion should hold the reins.

Even sub-sects of chritianity cannot to this day get along.

*why* are religious leaders no longer behind secularity? Do they lack the courage to acknowledge that *their* sect will not be favoured one? Or the lack more fundamental...do they lack the capacity to see that their religion is "just another one" much like "yet another season of star trek".

Rusty

Good solid thinking Rusty.

I doubt Dan will understand/agree.

Dan... I am all ears/eyes:

"It has been judged that the chaplaincy program offers a positive contribution to schools, and it finds support from parents and school communities"... do post this information, right here, so we can all read it.

A url will do, of course, or the title of the research document, or the DEEWR investigation into its own handiwork.

I think I know what you will post, but let's play a little game.

You show me yours, and I'll show you mine.

I bet they are the same, discredited, self-interested, biased, politically motivated claptrap... off you go and get the info.

While Dan's in research mode, he might like to give us an example or two of the "religious inspired peace" that he referred to.

>>It doesn’t lack for sweeping statements, such as the world being fraught with religious inspired conflict, without noting the times of religious inspired peace<<

But I suspect that it is just a "sweeping statement".

Oh Pericles, you really are a doubter!

Since Jesus was nailed up, there has been 2000 years of Peace between Christians and Jews, for starters.

Why, there was Peace between the numerous Crusades, and the smiting of the Muslim has seen Peace between Christian and Muslim ever since.

The Tibetan Buddhists have made Peace with their Chinese brothers.

Why, Tony Blair, the Great PM and Good Catholic, brought Grace to the Six Counties, and all troubles fell away overnight.

He and St. George brought the Peace Invasion to Iraq, and were very keen to bring Peace to Iran, Nth. Korea, though strangely not Burma and China.

St. Tony is now solving the 'issues' of the invading Arabs forcing their way into the Holiest of all cities in the Universe.

Then there is the Peace brought to Australia's Indigenous peoples, by St. Howard and St. Kevin in their Invasion-of-Peace plans.

Note how the churches are all in there, continuing the Good Work they started years ago with the establishment of the beautiful Mission Stations.

The Peace-on-Drugs, and are you not following the Peace-in-Afghanistan?

Of course, 'the dark side' have had a few Peace attempts too, if you recall their major 9/11 Peace Activity.

Then there is the Vatican's perpetual Peace-on-children actions, for many years an undertaking straight from the Heart of God, delivered in a respectful and prayerful manner, and introducing 'the kiddies' to the evil ways of the world in a considered and loving manner, in a process of Godly inoculation.

Oh yes Pericles, you must open your eyes more.... God moves in such mysterious ways.... to waft Peace over all quarters of His world.

Dan's taking a while with his documents... must be a barrow load of them.

Quelle réaction! Obviously touched a nerve somewhere.

Blue Cross posts twice within hours of my last post and accuses me of being slow to respond. Quelle impatience!

Pericles and Blue Cross,
Sweeping statements are easy to make and easy to find. I’ve made plenty. They are not bad for showing where you stand. They do not constitute evidence within themselves.

This article contains plenty of sweeping statements (some of which I’ve pointed out). It was rather thin on the ground. Why don’t you ask its authors that they support their position with evidence rather than just rhetoric, just like you challenge me?

I know very little of the chaplaincy program. When I said it was a positive initiative with community support, that was supposition based on the idea that they wouldn’t have initiated it otherwise. I know there exists RE and chaplains in some of the schools in my neighbourhood (Melbourne) and I’ve never heard any complaints.

I’ve already said, if there are problems with the program, then they need to be dealt with. However, this article seems to be infuriated with the idea or concept of the program, not its practice.

Rusty,
I’ve asked several times for what is the legal or definitive basis surrounding this word ‘secularity’. Since we haven’t come up with anything yet, I will assume for the moment that there isn’t one.

However, as best as I can follow your last post, I can find a fair bit there to agree with. But to answer your question, why are religious leaders not behind secularity? I believe they do see the value in secularity. However, I’m guessing they won’t want to align with the ASL as they sense the antagonism towards religion in that article.

I agree with you that most religious leaders currently feel that it is not the place of the church to run the government or to be too closely aligned. That kind of political situation came about (putting a simplistic spin on history) when the Roman Empire fell and the dominant religion (Christianity) filled the void of leadership. That kind of arrangement was seen as unsustainable as the centuries progressed, especially as society has become more pluralistic.

The church is supposed to serve and encourage but not dominate. Theologically, some have looked at the conversation between Jesus and Roman governor Pontius Pilate as a guide (John 18). Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world. Otherwise his followers would fight to avoid his arrest. Jesus more or less declared he didn’t want to be a political leader. Yet Christians are called to action in this world, to promote good deeds and good example.

Dan

I post because I am.... and was at the computer doing a range of tasks, is all.

"I know very little of the chaplaincy program. When I said it was a positive initiative with community support, that was supposition based on the idea that they wouldn’t have initiated it otherwise"... yes, well that seems to be the status of most people when it comes to this topic, ill informed, uninterested in questioning, assuming that because it involves 'good people' they will be honest and respectful in their actions.

I suggest you ask a few questions then.... particularly about where the Feds ideas came from.... and who, how, when and where the 'community support' came from at your local schools.

Ask to view the DEEWR documentation that spells out the consultation process, they are always good for a laugh.

The mixing of RI/RE/SRE/SRI into the chaplaincy bag is a Furphy.

Two quite different beasts.

Also, foolishly, Victoria has actually had chaplains in legislation for quite some years, so their long presence in public schools has dulled Victorians to the proper role of secular public schooling, rather like the lobster that goes into the cold pot and gets warmed up doesn't seem to notice the change that comes over him/her as the water superheats all around.

Scan the Access Ministry (for Victoria) sites on chaplaincy, and you will see just how openly connected it all is to evangelising and proselytising, unashamedly so, in fact.

Rotary is "called upon" to do good works too.

Like the church they use altering ethics in differing times to justify this, though far less shifty in my opinion. Rotary never had witch hunts.

The common law is what is regarded as reasonable by the common man, and all other law is regarded as being informed by this, with the possible exception of statute law.

I know that a certain type of "christian" will want just the letter of the law, complies with said letter, to the letter, and expects the pretense from others.

Others just act reasonably.

So, a literary tradition with zealous fans wants more legal status? On what grounds? Truth?

Rusty

Th

Frankly, Rusty, I’m not convinced you understand what common law is. I’m less convinced you have much knowledge of Christian Scripture and its literary tradition.

When you mention some specifics, we may be able to have a more objective conversation.

Common law:
Yeah, whatever. go check.
In the meantime, thanks for confirming the stereotype.

Literary tradition:
And you probably aren't up to date on star trek? so what?

Some of what you believe is optional, get over it.

Rusty

Rusty,
I may not up to date on Star Trek. But I’m not aiming to debate Star Trek.

You critique what I believe. I don’t think you know all that well what I believe. And the core of my faith is not really the subject of the discussion. I came here to discuss the issue of secularism.

But while we’re on accompanying issues, why would an atheist like you be concerned with what is core and what is optional for the Christian faith? For an atheist, isn’t everything with regard to faith pretty periferal? Why should you care?

Because the continuance of our civilisation depends upon our rational response, as a population, to challenges.

Religious fundamentalism and bilical literalism (not christians) do not permit other than adherence to a merely literary tradition, as interpreted by their particular sects cultural traditions (biblical or not). This cannot be rational.

The faithful so often conflate the necessary traditions of service, and spiritual and self-improvement with the just-so stories that (may) have been the limit of our predecessors capacity to explain the world. To the severe detriment of their capacity to deal with real problems.

Imagine an infections diseases expert who was not aware that resistance genes can evolve from almost any catalytic sequence? I guess he's still using plain penicillin on front-line diseases. Imagine and STD expert constrained by purely religious reasons from distributing condoms in a known promiscuous population in which his religion is not recognised anyway. I guess he just advises restraint.

Secularism is mainstream. The term "secular" has become a perjorative used mainly by insulated fundies, as if secularism was not what protected them from other christians and vice-versa.

As to the legal status of secularism, it is largely automatic. In criminal matters, the decision is based on what action a jury of peers finds "reasonable" or "unreasonable". In the greater world, likewise, sooner or later.

However "reasonable" depends on more than what you believe. The thought experiment of "what if our positions were reversed" comes in too. The removal of state religion from our governmental system, and the subsequent wind-down of church involvent in public affairs has it's heart in the catholic/anglican issues of the 16/17th centuries. Neither was good enough for the other, and as a result, neither is good enough for the rest of us.

All other religions have a similar problem - are they even true?
Oops, religion tripped at the first hurdle, still stumbling.
religion, all of it, is optional.

Rusty

correction, parentheses on second line should read "(not *just* christians), in order to include fundies and "scripture" literalists of all kinds.

Rusty

Rusty... doesn't your doctor use leaches?

My, I am sure they are mentioned in Luke, or was it Matthew?

Once we move beyond the words that are writ, we play with the unknown.

That's what people like Dan, and many others on OLO, those who so cling to 'the Bible', never see doctors, or make use of any technology, like TV or The Googles, or even The Internets.

Science brought those evil doings about, and not God, so they must be wrongheaded and dangerous.

How do they post here though?

TBC,

Many hypocritical christians like their doctors to apply the products of modern understanding while covering it with a veneer of christianity. I recall a yank televangelist welcoming the wife of the previous pastor back from the mayo, while of course recommending faith healing to the congregation. Actual expensive treatment might interfere with tithes, after all. Tithes are for *pastor's* wife's treatment, not yours.

Suffice to say, presented with any medical condition whatsoever, you would not want it treated by Paul the roman doctor who supposedly accompanied "joshua". You might reasonably prefer even myself (in an absolute emergency, of course).

Some cling so hard to the literal interpretation of their literary tradition as to insist on the "flood", or Six-day creation, even so recently as 6 thousand years ago. Why not discuss which woods hansl and gretl walked in?

That being said, you will find excellent instructions for a home-made enema and crop-rotation in there too. This only says that the pervading wisdom of the time included some good ideas that the writers of the bible could not leave out without being laughed out of town.

Distinguishing between the necessary (not fouling your well) and the crap (say, not cooking a goat foetus in it's own mother's milk) is a job for adult humans with judgement, not fundies.

I wonder why christians sre so worried about policing others, rather than their own ranks?

Rusty

Yes Rusty.

Why do any cling to the lies, obfuscation and trickery, not just fundies?

Here is why some do, the ability to live the high life as parasites on the backs of others:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/taxpayers-support-lavish-hillsong-lifestyle/story-e6frewt0-1225896526584

http://www.perthnow..com.au/news/national/hillsong-why-people-sign-up-for-a-lifetime-deal/story-e6frg15u-1225896551731

The 'news' here is not new, but has come out again because of Xenophon's Senate hearings into the dodgy nature of religion and their taxfree bludging.

Everyone loves to hate Houston's Hillsong, and Xenophon's silly filmstar's religion, but the truth is, they are all at this lark, ripping us all off in exchange for 'magic potions', like Lourdes, the Shroud, slivers of 'the cross', bones, and of course the 'it can never change' position of never-ever allowing women in as priests or bishops.... never mind as Popes.

Read the defences posted here... 'I live in hope that it will change', 'it is better to be inside than outside', 'the church provides a sense of belonging' and so on.

My son flogs phones, and suffers the less-than-adult wage rate while paying full commercial rates for rent, food, petrol and car costs, earning considerably less than $60k a year, while paying tax.

I see no reason why the halfwit pastor down the road, who says he can grow amputated limbs back, and pluck the Devil's serpents from the chest of people who stray into Indigenous lands where they are cursed by 'evil spirits', should be given a tax free wage for that 'fantastic' public service.

But posters here will flock to his defence, some quoting 'freedom of religion' lines.

The 'joke' has a grip that is hard to be free from, even when you are not a supporter of it.

The cancer it spreads through our society is not fully mapped, or understood, and sadly, most people have no desire to start the task, even though if the mapping produced clear evidence of the benefit of having charlatan's placed throughout society, like the Kings Jester at Court, they could be proven correct in their claims.

The cry, 'don't rock the boat' can be heard, lest it all comes tumbling down like a deflated Hindenburg.

You’ve said that, for the sake of civilisation, you’ll it take it upon yourself to give us all a rational response. And you give us insults, leaches, and condoms. That, Rusty, is an emotional response.

You’ve continually said our ‘secular’ nation has a legal basis. When asked what that legal basis is you can’t give us anything specific. You try and distinguish between what’s optional and what’s not. A lot of what we all discuss here is optional. That’s comes with the territory on an ‘opinion’ website. But until you give us something specific, then everything you say is optional.

We could discuss all myriad of things concerning religion and the history of science, from Biblical hermeneutics to Hillsong personalities and the ongoing development of Western medicine, but I thought I came here to discuss secularism.

I’ll summarise my position again, and then if you guys want to continue rubbishing religion, then you’re welcome to yourselves. But I don’t think religion will die anytime soon under your insults. The point of the secular ideal is that it helps facilitate us all getting along.

The ASL article was large on rhetoric but lacking in basis. It’s antagonism towards all things religion was well on display, although that in itself ought not be the basis for a secular principle. The word secular has not revealed itself to have any legal basis. But the constitution does guarantee freedom of religion and specifies that the government will not adopt or prescribe any one particular religion. Most Christians support the idea of secularism because we don’t want the government prescribing what is orthodox belief or precluding belief. Secular does not mean the banishment of all religion, for that would imply a prescription of atheism. It isn’t surprising that some schools’ programs may entail a church or religious element considering the history of our nation and the current levels of association and identification with churches. I support any school program that promotes the wellbeing of kids and their development, that are well run, and find a level of support within the local school community

Dan, The Treaty of Westphalia set up the secular state, 1648, and all flows from that treatment of the end of Papal wars that had brought havoc to Europe, and elsewhere, for centuries past.

The chaplaincy programme that you seem to support, supports Christianity above all other religions.

It is run by fruitcakes who speak in tongues, pluck serpents from chests, and have no qualifications to do anything at all.

They evangelise for Christianity, and abuse their position in schools.

Clearly, you see no reason to wonder about all of this, and you seem to be unaware that freedom 'from' religion is tied in to freedom 'of' religion these days.

Like many Christians, you seem to think you have a right-to-impose, and resent any objections to this world view.

You have already told us you know nothing at all about the chaplaincy programme, so why bother defending what you know nothing about?

Blue Cross,
I do wonder about it. And I don’t resent your worldview. I just disagree with you.

I said I know little about the particular chaplaincy program. I do not defend the particular program. I defend the right in principle for Christians or any other group not to be discriminated against because of their beliefs.

If you or other critics could say something constructive rather than use slander and emotive language, e.g. ‘fruitcakes’ and serpent pluckers, than I and others might give you more of an ear.

Dan

Try this for a rational critique:
http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/APS-Submission-School-Chaplains-July2010.pdf

I see you defend their 'honour' when I call them fruitcakes, not what they do.

Up to you of course.

My objection to them in schools is not an objection to 'religion'.

There should be no public funding of religion, in public schools, in this manner, and certainly not if we are to live in a secular state.

Religion is funded, publicly, in many other areas, including in faith schools. Whether it should be or not is another matter.

Try this one from the UK, which is not a secular state, but a Christian theocracy, like the Taliban want to create in Afghanistan:
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Let-s-talk-8211-route-divided-city/article-2447165-detail/article.html

If you think someone who says they can grow amputated limbs back is not a fruitcake, do tell.... ditto with the serpent pluckers.

I suspect they are either total charlatans, who should be exposed for their dangerous silliness, or mentally ill, and should be treated, although preferably not by one of their own serpent pluckers.

Sure Dan,

Bring in a real religion. Just one will do.

Betting it's not yours.

In the meantime, secularism is what we have, which includes and encompasses a *lot* of people who are awfully touchy about how priveleged their particular favourite piece of fiction and it's marketing department may be.

Get over it Dan, or cough up a real miracle, not just a story written long ago purporting to describe one.

Rusty

Life's a gamble. Take those odds.