I for one would love to see this nation burning 'holy books' -- whatever those are: it would represent a stage of enlightenment and rationality that we are, unfortunately, still far away from.

As for the risk of children picking up weird religions from learning about them, does anyone really think they can't find enough weird beliefs and cults to join on the Internet in their own time? But the appropriate response is not a course in comparative religion -- it is a course in rational thinking, which can take in ALL the various means by which humans work to delude themselves.

Courses in rational thinking? This is heresy, Jon.

How are the poor god-botherers going to get more flock if people are taught how to think, how to rely on evidence to substantiate any beliefs they hold?

Religion is like cancer. Once it takes hold it is difficult to get rid of.

Better to prevent it getting started!

Well said, Cathy Byrne.

It is time for religion to enter the modern world by critically and consciously evaluating it and its components so we can create a more honest future. Starting with the history of their genesis as fiction would be a good start.

Comparative RE is now as important, or more important than maths or English. Kids need a BS detector far more then they need one particular set of dogmas.
The *only* way multiculturalism is going to work is if the exclusive rights of religions to brain-wash kids is removed in the early vulnerable years. Parents can still push their own agendas at home, but if we are to become one nation again we need at least some common ground.
Ever since politics descended into "Culture wars" there has been a risk that we would be paralysed as a nation: Clean power or not? Public transport or US style cartopia? Population growth or sustainability? Science or faith? Can we afford a global warming style "argument" on all these important issues?
It all starts by avoiding putting kids into political corners, by teaching that there *is* a common central position.
I consider teaching only one faith child abuse as it is like a straight-jacket for the mind. It is akin to the old Chinese foot binding of girls. Teaching about all faiths, both Theist, Deist, and Atheist is the only rational approach if we are serious about multi culture. the only alternative is to pick our "state religion"...anyone apart from runner keen on that?

@Jon J, “would love to see this nation burning 'holy books'”

And this is your example of rational thinking, is it?!? You should try listening to yourself espousing an act of provocation as “rational thinking”. I find that as scary as the religious fundamentalists. Grow up! Burning books is NOT an act of rationality, but of provocation fuelled by ignorance and hate. Next you will want the burning of Mein Kampf, The Catcher in The Rye, Gulliver’s Travels and the Communist Manifesto, and any book that portrays an idea that you disagree with.

Now, you may have been having a bad day and expressed yourself differently than you meant. But the advocating of book-burning is not a rational act, but an emotional and provocative one, and historically speaking, is representative of tyranny of thinking, ignorance and fear-mongering.

Tolerance however, is the free-flow of ideas with everyone allowed to pick and choose what they wish to subscribe to. As a non-theist myself, I have no problem with theists because the average theist is no different to the average non-theist except for a singular belief.

But fundamentalist atheists are just as ignorant and dangerous as fundamentalist theists, for both espouse ignorance and intolerance.

I agree, OzAndy, we need common ground for education, and valid information, and not just as a nation, but as a world. Teaching tenets of reality of maths, language, sciences and biology are increasingly important, and these should not be over-stated or understated, nor overshadowed by wacky ideas like creationism.

What is increasingly important is critical thinking, logic, philosophy and ethics, and our education departments and schools are doing that increasingly better, so then we can position comparative religion as an exercise in cognition.

Society has generally removed "the exclusive rights of religions to brain-wash kids .. in the early vulnerable years" for all but a small proportion of the population, but we do now need to try to engage that component, too, or at least rescue most of it.

Is abortion rational?

@Ozandy, I hope you don't throw your latte's at us when we refuse to submit to your Maoist pipe dream.

Stalin tried to eliminate religion and failed. What would you do differently to the Soviets? Bigger gullags?

"Burning books is NOT an act of rationality, but of provocation fuelled by ignorance and hate."

Burning books is an expression of opinion, and when everyone can express their opinions without fear of reprisals, the world will be a much better place. Knuckling under to the demands of religious (or other) extremists just encourages them to demand even more next time.

"As a non-theist myself, I have no problem with theists because the average theist is no different to the average non-theist except for a singular belief."

But that singular belief tells them they are entitled to impose their own standards of behaviour on others without any obligation to justify them rationally. I regard that behaviour as 'ignorant and dangerous'. Don't you?

"Stalin tried to eliminate religion and failed. What would you do differently to the Soviets? Bigger gullags?"
Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Friday, 24 September 2010 11:27:09 AM

Elimination of religion is not likely or desirable. Yet,the world has grown-up considerably since former church-school educated and seminarian Stalin was on the scene with his firm attitudes and approaches to humanity and varied attitudes and approaches to religion, including revisiting it in Leningrad in WW2 and personally.

There is no harm and a range of benefits in teaching comparative religion, not the least being a better appreciation of literature. The author's case is proved by some of the comments here.

@Jon J, “Burning books is an expression of opinion, and when everyone can express their opinions without fear of reprisals, the world will be a much better place. Knuckling under to the demands of religious (or other) extremists just encourages them to demand even more next time.”

A statement of words is an expression of opinion, the burning books is a physical act of aggression, intolerance and provocation. It’s not “opinion”, it’s demonstrative of lack of control of emotions with the desire to provoke.

“But that singular belief tells them they are entitled to impose their own standards of behaviour on others without any obligation to justify them rationally. I regard that behaviour as 'ignorant and dangerous'. Don't you?”

No, that’s only the view of some fundamentalists, just as the burning of religious books is an act of fundamentalist atheists. There is no requisite of imposing anything, other than those individuals that wish to impose any form of thinking or opinion. You cannot brand the many for the views and actions of a few. What you’re saying is tantamount to “all atheists want to burn religious books”, which clearly is not the case. So why brand all theists with the same brush, and imply that they all wish to impose their belief? Most that have a belief, merely wish to share their experience in the hope that their audience will find similar “rewards”. There’s no harm in that, and no difference than someone making recommendation of a good restaurant or car…it’s all subjective and relative to the person(s) involved. If you don’t have that belief, or taste, then fine. But to suggest shutting the restaurant because you don’t like the food is puerile. Burning books because you don’t like what is within them, is just as infantile.

In short, can’t you see that the burning of books is identical to imposing one’s belief? You’re actually advocating to do the very thing that you are saying you despise. By the burning of books, you are attempting to impose a belief of non-belief by the depravation of information…imposing your belief of non-theism.

The author’s claim that “Our religious prejudice (particularly against Muslims) has increased” surely has something to do with the fact that Muslims are the prejudiced ones, who actively seek separation from non-Muslims and damnation for them.

Cathy Byrne epitomises white, liberal self-hatred in the criticism of her own culture’s ‘prejudice’ against Muslims, who adhere to a religion still in the Dark Ages, bereft of democracy, against human rights, and with a hatred of Western Culture, which they have vowed to overthrow.

Byrne also refers to a “recent study’ that revealed (no footnotes) “…that public school graduates are less socially liberal and more intolerant and fearful of immigrants than their religious school peers.”

Byrne, of course, blames it on untrained religious instruction, but it is much more likely to be a simple reaction to years of brainwashing from left wing teachers who thump something far more dangerous that religion – left wing politics and attitudes which denigrate our own culture in favour of the ‘exotic’. Keep telling kids or anyone else that they ‘must’ be tolerant of other cultures etc. while those cultures demonstrate intolerance of the host culture, and you will get the reaction described by Byrne. And they don’t ‘fear’ other cultures; they simply don’t like them.

Then Byrne tells us that practitioners of minority religions themselves are prejudiced: the Buddhists don’t want non-Buddhists in their classes, ditto the Jews. So, that’s three non-Christian, bigoted religions including Islam.

If Byrne was a worldly woman, she would, perhaps, start to think that it is only religious Australians who are bigoted, and not the atheist, agnostic and just plain don’t-care Australians. She might even wonder if religion in schools or anywhere else is worth the candle.

But, in the utopias of the UK, Europe, Canada and parts of Asia and Africa (which parts?) there is a “multi-tradition” approach. In these places, childrenare taught to “to respect and engage with differences”.

......

.....

What? A Christian kid or non-believing kid is supposed to respect Islam when he or she knows that Muslims don’t respect their (non-Muslim) beliefs, and that they stone people, kill people, hate infidels and all the other nasties they know about? Muslim girls are not able to wear the same clothes and the other girls because Dad says so?

These kids are not ‘taught’; they are forced to accept something they don’t want to believe, and probably don’t believe what the enforcers think they do.

And, there is no argument for ‘ethics classes’ instead of religious classes. Despite the views of people like Cathy Byrne, who want to control people and what they think and do, there is no need for either. People teaching ethics are just as mad and bad as people teaching religion.

The move to the left and the ‘feminisation’ of Western society, plus inappropriate immigration to the West and multiculturalism has seen an increase in finger waggers and holier than thou do-gooders who have appointed themselves as our moral guardians.

Bugger off and leave us alone.

@MindlessCruelty: I'm not advocating a national campaign, with our atheist PM at the head; I'm saying that anyone who wants to burn a book they own should be allowed to do so without running the risk of threats, injury or murder. Or do you disagree?

Bear in mind, by the way, that it wasn't an atheist at the centre of the recent kerfuffle in the US, but a fundamentalist Christian who wanted to burn the Koran. His OWN Koran, which he had bought. Why not let him burn it? And at the same time any Muslim who wants to can burn as many Bibles as he or she can afford. As an equal-opportunity book-burner I am happy to burn the Bhavad-gita, the Buddhist scriptures, the Old Testament, the Torah, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf and the IPCC Climate Report too, if someone will buy them for me.

"Burning books because you don’t like what is within them, is just as infantile."

Yes. So is protesting because someone else has burnt a book. So is mutilating the genitalia of baby boys and young women. So is flying planes into the buildings of nations who have done you no harm. So is using your moral authority to get access to children for sex. So are a great many practices associated with religion. The difference is that they hurt many people: burning books hurts nobody. And if it can remove the protective mystique around religion, then it may even curtail some of these vile and destructive activities. Save your outrage for them.

SRE does not teach children about religion. It proselytizes to them. It seeks to gain new adherents while they are too young to rationally think for themselves.

When I was at school we "learned" about other religions and cultures in a course called (politically incorrect) Man and society. Nothing to do with following any religion and taught by a teacher not a priest. That is proper learning. As compared to the indoctrination of SRE.

Mikk, at least the children in school are safe from Rabbis. If you don't have the right genetic makeup, they simply won't talk to you!

Isn't that discrimination (albeit a fortunate version)?

The teaching of religions has absolutely no place in the curriculum of a modern education system, in a liberal democratic state.

I really can't see how religions can be discussed logically and how any discussions can improve a child's critical thinking capacities since religions are intrinsically illogical. And what is the effect of religions, but to segregate people into tribal groups. I'd be really interested to learn how religious parents regard their children being exposed to other religions.

If the students of religious schools are more tolerant than those of secular schools the following report seems rather contradictory, yes of course, there's the problem of determining cause from correlation, still, it's very interesting.

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-are-more-peaceful.html

mikk,

Agreed,the only way to teach religion is from an anthropological/sociological perspective,this will educate children in the psychological and evolutionary reasons for belief.

David G,

yes, I prefer non-proselytising religions as their believers leave the infidels alone, by far the most dangerous loonies are those that insist that others share their delusions.

For the last 40 years I have been watching as certain types of Christians in Australia have been scheming to get religion, or more religion, taught in schools. It shouldn't be there and most parents don't want it for their kids. There is the strong risk of indoctrination.

Philosophy (how to think) would cover logic, ethics, and belief systems in a proper educational way. Religious people will continue to try and get at our kids minds before they can think rationally for themselves and should be resisted strongly.

[Deleted for toilet language.]

runner, Origin of Species is more a historic text now we have moved beyond the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, developed in the 1940s from information put together from Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel's seminal work on genetics, work defining chromosomes, and Darwins ideas.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

Reflection on Mendel's work further facilitated development of a *gene-centric view of evolution* in the 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centric_view_of_evolution

The next development flowing out of Eden was determination of "God's utility function"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God's_utility_function

@Jon J, “I'm saying that anyone who wants to burn a book they own should be allowed to do so without running the risk of threats, injury or murder. Or do you disagree?”

As an individual in private, then yes. I agree. As an individual in public, no, for it now becomes a political act of provocation.

“Yes. So is protesting because someone else has burnt a book.”

Well…if it’s a protest only, with no other demonstrative acts, then actually, that’s fine, for it remains nothing more than the expression of a group that agrees upon an issue. It’s a verbal response to someone doing a demonstrative act. Let’s face it, someone burning a book publicly is looking for a public response…otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it publicly.

“So is mutilating the genitalia of baby boys and young women…”

Totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, and is nothing more than citing your own prejudices. It is not the practice of all Muslims, and is more a cultural tradition than a religious one. It’s not something that I agree with, but it’s got nothing to do with the burning of books.

“And if it can remove the protective mystique around religion, then it may even curtail some of these vile and destructive activities. Save your outrage for them.”

I appreciate the political manipulation of religion, but you must also appreciate that if it wasn’t religion that was used to manipulate people, it would be something else….like the economy. It’s only a tool, not the cause. If there was never such a thing as religion, there still would have been the wars and atrocities…they would have just been fought under different causes. The elimination of religion does not mean the elimination of manipulation, disinformation or propaganda.

Leigh,

Your posts exude so much ignorance about Muslims that they are a perfect example of why comparative religion should be included in the school curriculum. You are proving the author's point, that is we need our children to understand and appreciate different religions and cultures and traditions so that they aren't completely ignorant about other groups in their community; so we don't have idiots casting stupidly wild accusations against a whole group of people based on ignorance and fear.

Basically, by eliminating ignorance in coming generations, we won't have completely misinformed people like yourself in society stirring up trouble.

Please, don't talk about Muslims like you know anything about them, because everything in your posts illustrates that clearly you have no idea whatsoever. There is a big difference between terrorists and violent religious extremists (who could have also done with some comparative religion studies, like yourself) when compared to most Muslims

Jon J,

If the government were to start burning Bibles, Korans and Talmuds, we'd have to deal with Christians, Muslims AND Jewish extremists wanting to blow people and buildings up! In fact, the Muslim terrorists would probably be the least of our problems.

It's not the books that are the problem, there is more to be gained from them than most theists AND non-theists appreciate (although we could probably stand to remove a few select chapters).

In the centuries to come, (if the human race survives that long) our descendants will look back at the early second millennium as we now look back at the dark ages.

They will wonder in amazement how a society that built the Hubble telescope and launched it into orbit could ever entertain the thought that books like the Torah, Koran or Bible actually had any value to society.

IMHO, the sooner religion is removed from the minds of children and from the public arena, the better.

Misfits like runner can keep his bag of rotting prawns that he sees as his religion, as long as he doesn’t force others to eat them. I have no wish to control his mind. I just don't want him trying to control mine.

Mindless Cruelty wrote, “But fundamentalist atheists are just as ignorant and dangerous as fundamentalist theists, for both espouse ignorance and intolerance.”

What are fundamentalist atheists? “”Fundamentalist” is mostly understood to mean a person who accepts without question the correctness of a position or stance. A fundamentalist theist is a person who accepts without question everything written in his or her preferred ancient sacred text — the Bible or Koran or whatever. To be a fundamentalist atheist, one would presumably have to accept without question everything written in the ancient sacred text of atheism. But atheists are characterized not so much by what they believe as by what they refuse to believe and there is no sacred atheist text whose every word is available for them to unthinkingly accept.

So please, Mindless Cruelty, what is a fundamentalist atheist and what is it that they are all ignorant and/or intolerant of? It might help to remember that atheism is not a religion; it is an intellectual position.

@SecularGuy, you should really listen to what you’re saying, for it is tantamount to…I want a ban on all fiction, for it has no value. For the ignorant, books like the Bible and Quran are books of both philosophy and sociology…they are recommendations on how people would peacefully coexist with each other, based upon a simple premise of there being an omnipresent power, to enforce such rules. They were written in times and cultures where there was little in the way of social order other than "might is right", and under the then new idea of monotheism, created a powerfully unifying concept and authority for those respective societies, which were all still steeped in mysticism.

IMO, one of the flaws of these documents is that they are not reviewed for their appropriateness to current society, due to their supposed authoring by supernatural powers. But the fundamental message in all of these documents is how to live in peace with each other. Where that idea falls down in current world terms, is that we are not isolated anymore, and can freely roam the planet, creating a mixing of ideas and philosophies, and of course, conflict by those that adhere to the more fictional and fundamentalist ideas. Though they teach how to live peaceably with each other within the same culture and belief systems, they are poor at teaching tolerance of other ideas from other cultures, thus creating a breeding-ground of fundamentalism over time due to this perceived authority of omnipresence.

TBC...

The books have value, as all books and ideas do. And as in all books, it’s up to the readers to take from them what they will. It’s just unfortunate that so many people take the information so literally, rather than philosophically, and have little to no understanding of how to view the documents with perspective upon human history. Nor do they appreciate the heavy editing that those documents underwent by those cultures, to assist in controlling the masses and enforcing local dogma and authority at those times of editing. The Bible and the Quran both were heavily edited, about 60 years apart, around 500-550AD. For social authorities, unfortunately, religion has been used as crowd control, and as the tool to incite revolt, war or revenge. Its misuse by people does not mean that it has no use, nor any positive ideas or concepts to contribute to society.

GlenC,

I guess by a fundamentalist atheist they mean over-zealous atheists, or atheist extremists, i.e. someone who believes, without question or proof, that there is no possibility of a god or gods, afterlife etc, to the point where they'll get angry and abusive in forums like this, or elsewehere. Atheists can be as ignorantly zealous as theists. Believe me, I've met some pretty extreme atheists.

There is no way to prove there is no god, just like there is no way to prove there is. So to argue for atheism is (almost) as stupid as arguing for some particular religious belief.

There is a difference between someone who is a non-believer (no belief) to an atheist (belief in the negative).

Viva l'agnosticisme!

Many people do not accept the theory of evolution
because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
They find it difficult to reconcile their views
that life on earth has evolved through natural
processes.

However, many people accept the basic principles of
evolution within the framework of their religious
beliefs. For example, some Biblical scholars interpret
the story of the Creation as a symbolic, rather than
a literal account of the origin of human beings and other
living things.

They don't find this symbolic interpretation incompatible
with the findings of evolutionary biologists. For many
people, the idea that human beings evolved from lower
forms of life does not diminish the uniqueness of human
capabilities and the accomplishments of human
civilisations.

Richard Dawkins tells us in his book,
"The God Delusion," that children should not be
indoctrinated with the religious beliefs of their
parents. In his book he says:

"...All right, you may want to say, so it's tough
on a child of the Amish, or the Hasidim, or the
gypsies to be shaped up by their parents in the
ways they are - but at least the result is that
these fascinating cultural traditions continue.
Would not our whole civilisation be impoverished
if they were to go? It's a shame, maybe, when
individuals have to be sacrificed to maintain such
diversity. But there it is: it's the price we pay as
a society. Except, I would feel bound to remind you,
we do not pay it. THEY do."

[Deleted for abuse.]

: )

@GlenC, “So please, Mindless Cruelty, what is a fundamentalist atheist and what is it that they are all ignorant and/or intolerant of? It might help to remember that atheism is not a religion; it is an intellectual position”

I use religious terms to describe some fellow atheists as they adopt a religion-like attitude towards their non-belief. The term “zealot” has been appropriately used by others, as well.

IMHO, a fundamentalist atheist is one that is intolerant to theism, such as some posters here advocating the burning of The Bible and/or Quran. The burning of a book is NOT an intellectual position. Atheism is NOT an intellectual position, but rather, it is the non-existence of belief, which requires no intellect at all. Just because there are atheists that are intellectuals, does not make it an intellectual position, just as being a theist intellectual doesn’t prove there’s a God. It is merely the absence of belief, or the presence of belief. Being unable to disprove a concept is no more intellectual than the inability to prove it. Both are systems of belief or non-belief, but neither belief nor non-belief requires intellect. But with intellect, we are able to substantiate our positions.

Attempting to state that it’s an “intellectual position” is as spurious as stating that the authors of the documents were inspired by God. It seeks authority in intellect when there is NO authority in intellect. Intellect is only the potential to reason, problem-solve and absorb information, it is not a guarantee of certainty, correctness nor is it devoid of its own fantasies, misconceptions and personal bias.

You gotta come up with a better argument than, “I think I’m pretty smart, so you are best to listen to me.” Because that’s what “intellectual position” directly implies. And so in conclusion, and with all due respect, this phrase can exist as one of conceit, but certainly not one of authority.

@MindlessCruelty

Well yes, I could have qualified that statement a bit better, but I wasn't actually saying that I was the one who thought they had no value. I was looking forward to a future world of reason and rationality where fiction and fantasy are recognised as such and not presented as fact.

As an atheist, it doesn't concern me at all that some people need to believe in some invisible god, but I strongly object to these same people influencing the UN and most governments to pander to their fantasies as if they were true, and making it a crime to criticise their religion.

So, addressing the purpose of this post:
"Fuller exposure to religious education would benefit all Australian students"

Governments have no moral right to support religious indoctrination at public schools OR to financially support church schools.

We in the western world are facing a global crisis with Islam. Not Islam the religion necessarily, but Islam, the fascist-like ideology that is intent on taking over the world and installing sharia law everywhere.

THIS is what has mobilised so many non-believers to action, like never before. Moslems (as a group) are the only people who openly reject the Australian culture, customs and standards of Human Rights and who demand that we Australians change to suit them. This is simply absurd!

This is why school children need to be taught open-minded COMPARITIVE Religion together with a suitable ethics program, before it's too late.

quote ""Atheism is NOT an intellectual position, but rather, it is the non-existence of belief, which requires no intellect at all.

"Attempting to state that it’s an “intellectual position” is as spurious as stating that the authors of the documents were inspired by God. It seeks authority in intellect when there is NO authority in intellect. Intellect is only the potential to reason, problem-solve and absorb information, it is not a guarantee of certainty, correctness nor is it devoid of its own fantasies, misconceptions and personal bias.

"You gotta come up with a better argument than, “I think I’m pretty smart, so you are best to listen to me.” ... “intellectual position” directly implies ... conceit, but certainly not one of authority." /quote
MindlessCruelty (Sat 25 Sept 2010 6:50:51pm)

Atheism is simply explained as absence of belief in God (or gods) in the absence of evidence
i.e. it a reasoned position.

It can be further reasoned succinctly that the supernatural and other claims of the various religious texts and stories are best explained by those stories being fiction.

Your post is a series of strawman statements - setting up an alternative and attacking that made-up position.

Anti-theism is a different position.

@MindlessCruelty and @McReal
The irony of this point of the discussion is that IMHO you are both right.

As an atheist, I agree with McReal's definition: "...absence of belief in God (or gods) in the absence of evidence", but nowadays, the common meaning for "atheist" is "...someone who asserts there is no such being as God...". I suspect that it suits the religious right to have this definition appear in most american dictionaries.

The definition(s) of atheism (by atheists) can be found here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

As atheists, all we can really say about the existence of any god(s) or the flying spagetti monster for that matter, is that, in the absense of any reliable evidence, it is highly improbable that either actually exist. Highly improbable. That's all.

I reject the "proof" offered by religions because it is full of omissions and contradictions. Some sections are meant to be taken literally while others are meant to be symbolic. Who determines that? The infallible pope? Yeah right!

I accept the atheist position because there are no contradictions and no omissions. Every argument is literal. There is no symbolism that is open to to be interpreted as you wish. Its accuracy is being constantly checked and updated with new information that supports all previous assertions. If contradictions are found, then it would be discarded.

This is why Comparitive Religion should be taught to ALL school children, so that they can make up their own minds, in their own time.

It simply is not right to feed young minds with fiction and fantasy presented as fact. They deserve better.

Well yes, I could have qualified that statement a bit better, but I wasn't actually saying that I was the one who thought they had no value. I was looking forward to a future world of reason and rationality where fiction and fantasy are recognised as such and not presented as fact.

As an atheist, it doesn't concern me at all that some people need to believe in some invisible god, but I strongly object to these same people influencing the UN and most governments to pander to their fantasies as if they were true, and making it a crime to criticise their religion.

So, addressing the purpose of this post:
"Fuller exposure to religious education would benefit all Australian students"

Governments have no moral right to support religious indoctrination at public schools OR to financially support church schools.

We in the western world are facing a global crisis with Islam. Not Islam the religion necessarily, but Islam, the fascist-like ideology that is intent on taking over the world and installing sharia law everywhere.

THIS is what has mobilised so many non-believers to action, like never before. Moslems (as a group) are the only people who openly reject the Australian culture, customs and standards of Human Rights and who demand that we Australians change to suit them. This is simply absurd!

This is why school children need to be taught open-minded COMPARITIVE Religion together with a suitable ethics program, before it's too late.

TBC...

“Not Islam the religion necessarily, but Islam, the fascist-like ideology ....... and installing sharia law everywhere. “

Firstly, look-up “fascist” and you will find that it was coined by Mussolini, leading the Fascist Party to power in Italy prior to WWII, and who was touted by American Industrialists as a genius until the start of the war. It means an industry/military based government, basically martial law, and that society merely exists as the workforce for those three components, and their leaders’ aspirations. It directly implies a regimented society, with the only “rights” being for the privileged. Uhm, which Islamic State does that remind you of, since it’s the West that’s industrialized and militarized, and not Third World Islamic nations?

Secondly, “imposing Sharia law everywhere”, is like saying, “Baptists are imposing their law everywhere” of Christians…both are merely sects of a larger group. And GWB was heavily supported by the fundamentalist Christians of the “Bible Belt” of Middle America. And amongst some of these extremists, is the belief that it is their duty to bring about Armageddon. Two points here…one, it could be said that because it was GWB and his supporters that declared war, that it’s “Christains imposing Western law everywhere”. And secondly, what am I to be in greater fear of, the Middle-Aged Islamic culture wanting to impose some of its precepts, or the modern Christian one with its finger on the button of nuclear destruction, and thus able to enact its bizarre sense of duty?

The idiot with the financial, technological and military means, that’s who I fear.

“Moslems (as a group) are the only people who openly reject the Australian culture, customs and standards of Human Rights and who demand that we Australians change to suit them. This is simply absurd!”

It’s a storm in a teacup, and merely again, a few extremists voicing an extreme view. Refer back to point one; then don’t incite such reaction, for what is there to gain from it, other than vilification and to feed the fire that’s burning? Don’t fuel the fire, and strangely, it dies down.

OOPS! I somwhow posted the wrong post initially, of my two above posts, and have lost what should be there. Sorry.

“Moslems (as a group) are the only people who openly reject the Australian culture, customs and standards of Human Rights and who demand that we Australians change to suit them. This is simply absurd!”

You're correct, this is an absurd statement.

Plenty of Australians (whatever their background) openly reject Austalian culture. Emos, punks, hippies etc. They all have a disdain for mainstream Australian culture, in their own way.

And there plenty of Christian groups who decry the so-called degradation of their perceived values in modern Western society, this is not limited to the minds of hard-line Muslims.

The fact is, those Muslims that disagree or reject Australian culture are far out-numbered by those that embrace it. (A recent 4 week visit I had to Sulawesi in Indonesia only reinforces my opinion of this).

Your problem is, you are blind to the existence of such Muslims because they ARE embracing Australian / Western culture, so you are totally unaware that these people are Muslim. So you can only see the minority who are being given a louder voice than they should thanks to the media who are feeding off your ignorance.

@MindlessCruelty
Thank you for the lesson on fascism. However, you missed mentioning that Mussolini's fascist tenets changed to suit him as he gained more political power. The same thing happens as Muslims gain more political power. Look around you, for goodness sake. Are you blind to what has happened in Europe and elsewhere?

Mussolini's own description: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State".

The catch cries of Islamic leaders: "Everything in Islam, nothing outside Islam, nothing against Islam".

They sound very much alike, don't they?

Right now, school children are being taught to hate, or feel superior to those of different faiths or no faith. This is wrong!

They deserve better.

Australia deserves better.

Humanity deserves better.

TrashcanMan:> Your problem is, you are blind to the existence of such Muslims because they ARE embracing Australian / Western culture, so you are totally unaware that these people are Muslim. So you can only see the minority who are being given a louder voice than they should thanks to the media who are feeding off your ignorance.<<

TcM, your problem is that you do not understand that it does not make us feel better knowing that all these issues are coming from a small minority that makes it worse, just knowing that there are heaps of moderate recruits waiting to be introduced to radical Islam is a concern. The reason we perceive it this way rather than heaps of moderate Muslims ready to be our mates is that the silence about the radicals from the moderates is and has been overwhelming. We don't go to where the radicals go, we do not know if they are radical or not, but the moderates do and they do nothing about cleaning their own house so it does not help our perception of the moderate majority. They don't dob their mates in, radical or not. Your view is not unreasonable, but it is not correct because you use the moderate majority as a marker to detente, but they are not committed to ending the radical influence and that is as good as siding in principal with their views to a certain extent.

Sonofgloin,

I understand your point, it is a valid concern. But I disagree that too many moderates are extremists in hibernation. Just like many Catholics have kept quiet (mainly out of embarrassment or shame)as the Catholic church has tried to protect pedophiles in their ranks, most Muslims are disgusted and angry at the actions of these extremists, but are trying to keep their distance from it.

Yes it's true, some of them, given personal circumstances (e.g. poverty, mental issues, racial vilification), could turn to extremist groups. But it is these circumstances mentioned that would make that occur, not their religion. They just use their religion as common ground. Islam doesn't make them do it, they misuse Islam to justify to themselves that what they are doing is right. In most cases, they are acting in complete contradiction to the teachings of Islam.

We see the same with young Australian men joining Neo-Nazi groups, or bashing people because of their colour in Cronulla or somewhere. In these cases, they have used their "Australian-ness" as their common ground. Doesn't mean all Australians are to be tarred with the same brush as a bunch of morons because of this, nor does it mean that those Australians who remained silent are ready to be recruited to violent action against immigrants. Nor are the silent majority of Catholics ready to be recruited to supply priests with little boys for their pleasure.

People are assuming the worst in Muslims, but the best of their own people.

This is xenophobia, a product of fear and ignorance. Xenophobic behaviour (be it action or words) from us is only going to increase the likelihood of any possible extremist recruitment from the Muslim community.

Well, I hope that those who argue that the majority of Moslems don't accept the totalitarian doctrine of the "extremists" are correct. However, the 'moderate Moslem majority' has been extremely silent in denouncing Islamic human rights violations,all we usually hear is bleating about fears that the Islamic community will suffer 'retaliation' from the kuffar majority.
There's also the sinister reality that there are few, if any, liberal democratic Moslem majority nations where religious minorities are safe to practise their beliefs. Can anyone name any?
So, I'm extremely sceptical that the same Islamic 'no-go' enclaves that already exist in Europe won't appear in Australia.

Mac,

Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation in the world, has freedom of religion in the 'Panca Sila', its constitution. Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, whatever religion live together with the Muslim majority without persecution (no more than in Australia at any rate).

Admittedly, there are only a handful of Jews in Indonesia, but they ARE free to live there and practice their religion.

Turkey, Bosnia, Syria, Jordan etc also Muslim majority countries that constitutionally allow freedom of religion (although in varying degrees of practice).

Iran also recognises Judaism and Christianity, as is dictated by Islam. That is, according to Islam, followers of these religions are considered "people of the book", and their religion is considered legitimate. Approximately 20-30k Jewish people live in Iran, and 300k Christians. A small proportion of seats in government are reserved for Christian and Jewish representatives.

Yes, I know. Iran isn't a liberal democracy. But in reality it could be argued that either is the USA. Whether or not a country is a liberal democracy is beside the point anyway.

I can't recall the last time I saw a Muslim teenager get blind drunk and pick a fight with some stranger in a pub, or a Muslim girl flash her breasts at the car races.

Come to think of I've never even seen one lift her skirts and urinate on the street on a Saturday night.

Why won't these people integrate?

Comparing the best of one with the worst of another is the worst generalisation you can make.

TrashcanMan,

Your comments are naive, there is great difference between the noble sentiments in those nations' constitutions and the actual day to day reality,after all the Soviet constitution was 'democratic'. My point was that a democratic constitution is only effective in a liberal democratic state. The following sites have reported oppression of religious minorities in all the nations you have mentioned, often with the compliance of the local law enforcement authorities.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

http://freethinker.co.uk/

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/

These are only a fraction of the total resources available

[Deleted for arguing moderation decisions on the forum. Commenter suspended.]

Mac,

I am well aware that in the real world it's not so perfect, but are you saying we haven't seen oppression of religious / racial minorities in Australia, the US, or other liberal democracies, with law enforcement looking on? It's been a continuous feature in Australia since white man arrived. First (and still) the indigenous, the Irish (Ned Kelly being the most famous I guess), European migrants, Vietnamese and so on. Now it's the Sudanese and Muslims' turn.

Here we have it again, pots and kettles.

There are websites that contain similar accusations pointed at Western countries as found in your links. I won't bother posting any of these links because they are just as worthless as yours.

And, again, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world. Despite a very small minority of hard-line Muslim extremists who are given a voice only because it sells newspapers, freedom of religion is very much the norm, and Western culture is very much embraced. The overwhelming majority of Indonesians despise the actions of the terrorists (Bali-bombers etc).

Leigh,

the "smirk" appeared before the deletion. I read your floundering response and it quite literally made me laugh.

[Deleted for arguing moderation and user suspended.]

[Deleted for arguing about moderation decisions on the forum.]

TrashcanMan,

Of course no society is perfect, however my argument is of degree, not of kind. How many mosques have been destroyed here? Any forced conversions to Christianity, how many kuffars attempted to murder their daughters because they wanted to marry a Moslem? So your PC 'pot and kettle' argument is specious and so is your attempt to equate prejudice in Australia with the oppression of minorities in Islamic nations.
A thought experiment for you,who would you rather be, a Moslem in Australia or a Coptic Christian in
Egypt,a Christian in Pakistan, an atheist in Iran or a communist in Indonesia,oh I forgot, they were all massacred in the 1960s by Moslem fanatics.

As to Indonesia,I'll bet that in 20 years that nation will resemble Iran.

So continue with your PC wishful thinking that Islam is not a dangerous authoritarian ideology.

Mac,

"...there are few, if any, liberal democratic Moslem majority nations where religious minorities are safe to practise their beliefs. Can anyone name any?"

I named some, didn't I?

"Any forced conversions to Christianity (in Australia?)" you now ask.... Ummm.... yep, with child rape as an additional bonus to those early birds who got in before the 21st century. Have you not heard of the "stolen generation"? Are you a holocaust denier too?

Yes, many of the Muslim countries are backward, we have indeed progressed ahead of them in terms of human rights etc. Yes, the "degree" of oppression is an important factor. Yes, I'd rather be ANYONE living in Australia than, say, a non-Muslim in Saudi Arabia, or a Palestinian living in Palestine. Oh, sorry, that wasn't one of your examples. Australia turns a blind eye to the oppression and offences from Israel though, so does that mean we are all secretly wanting to join in too?

I don't disagree that these countries have growth ahead of them. But they are not behind because of their religion, they are behind because of economics, politics, geographics, history etc.

And we are not so far ahead, to be honest. It hasn't been so great being an indigenous Australian for the past 200+ years.

The point is, just because those countries are clearly behind in some areas, do we go backwards ourselves in the way we treat people, do we treat them as less than us? OR do we take the higher ground? Treat others as we would have ourselves treated...? etc. Do we lead by example or let them lead by example?

BTW, In Indonesia the communists were killed in '65 as part of a political coup, which had nothing to do with Muslim fanaticism and everything to do with Soeharto's desire for political power..

And your supposition that Indonesia will be like Iran in 20 years purely because they are majority Muslim is just ridiculous and illustrates a complete lack of familiarity with Indonesian politics and culture.

To me the value of ethics classes lies less in their providing a forum for comparative religious studies than an environment in which learning through dialogical reasoning can be practiced.

Religions ground their moral claims in metaphysical claims that cannot be verified but depend on faith. But ‘inter-faith’ dialogue presupposes a prior ‘faith’ in the dialogical process itself.

Humans naturally ask ethical and existential questions, so it would seem less fitting to this questioning to approach it from the perspective of providing answers (metaphysics), than of providing a space in which such questions themselves are welcomed, indeed encouraged, in an open ‘Community of Inquiry’. Only when answers are subject to further questions can they even be in a position to acquire any force.

A community of inquiry into ethical problems would not only provide a diversity of answers to any given question, but more importantly through this a better opportunity for any answer to gain or lose force according to the degree to which it can endure further questions.

Ethics classes adopt the model of P4C classes (Philosophy for Children), which not only provide a space in which ethics can be discussed theoretically, but in the process cultivate the ethics required in order for the logic of such discussion to function productively in practice.

In this way ethics classes have the capacity to avoid the very ‘moral relativism’ that worries those opposed to ethics classes. The ethos of a community of inquiry both operates on and cultivate values of tolerance and respect for others, taking all ideas seriously, and caring for the procedures that govern collaborative inquiry. In becoming accustomed to asking each other for reasons, and for building on each others ideas, students develop skills in thinking critically, creatively, caringly and collaboratively. Although students may be required to make up their own minds, through dialogue with others, the rigorous nature of the inquiry, and the emphasis on assessing reasons for positions means that, in practice, a community is very unlikely to come to the conclusion that 'anything goes'.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001822/182207e.pdf