Excellent article, Scott.

You'd think that universal values would be bleeding obvious....

Now watch the usual suspects squabble.

morality is the privilege of the 'successful' with a full stomach. There is no such thing in survival situations like Sudan among starving.

So first question, are we heading to a survival situation...bet we are, with energy sources depleting, powerful countries using flimsy but morally superior images to attack weaker for resources, eg currently Libya, to growing population needing more energy, to feminist doctrine of one world rule, which universally appeals to women, and keep producing children to control now...and on...

so only "no longer 'us and them'; it's all 'us' now!" do I agree with completely...and something else...

where ever you go in the world...'basic humanity' eg when hungry got to find food, safe place with roof when need to sleep, want to feel safe in your own body space...is 'universally' common...even in Sudan. And I find if I connect with the most uneducated tribal isolated person at this level...we already have a common ground to build a meaningful relationship on...now that is definitely worth something...

sam

Sorry, but there is a HUGE gap between 'exclusive claim to specific values' and 'universal values';

I note that most of the "Universal values" sprouted by the UN really don't correspond to what most in the world see as important.

The most obvious example is the religious defamation:
One large minority (mostly first-world and western countries) value freedom of speech above all others.
Another large minority consider it evil, and feel that anyone who says something negative about their theology must die or be thrown in jail.

Could somebody point out the universality in that?

And I'm not even mentioning all of the domestic moral contrasts between western and middle eastern countries yet.

'Thus 'mateship' is a nationalist-mythical variation on the Christian commandment to 'love thy neighbour', derived from the religious-mythical Old Testament;'

How ignorant can one be!

In an increasingly globalised and interdependent world, it's important to be clear about what we stand for. In Australia, we stand for rule by a government elected by the people; for the rule of law; for equality of all before the law; for freedom of speech, association and religion; for individual property rights; and for toleration in the sense that people can believe whatever they want provided they do not coerce others to hold those beliefs.

We hold these values because of a fundamental belief in the rights of individuals. "We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal." Our response to all international and domestic situations has to be tested against these values.

"How ignorant can one be! I dont know runner....alot:) See, when it comes to religion, the cats out of the bag and the human mind will never fall for such lies again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXzladhscMQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BaGHKe5oi0&feature=related

And around and around we go.

The bible has served its purpose! Yes it has taught man through the ages with the in-hanceings of our seperations from the nature-world, and seeing what man-kind is doing to the earth because of religion.....well...I think its now working against us all.

These dogmas now plague our world and whats the grandest point of them all is..........it all started when man when through the evolutionary processes and the wakening minds from the animal transitionals to us.

If religions just stopped at helping the poor and not helping themselves...I wouldn't have a problem. However, they have not done this, hence why they are a cult/club to were one must surrender one,s IQ just to join.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3_qelW5qp4&feature=related

Aussie, Christian or universal values?

Of course its universal values! The sharing of religious values started 50.000 plus years ago.......but is this religion right.....!

IMO.....not even close.

LEAP

Not one religion has made all

@ Senior Victorian, Wednesday, 27 April 2011 12:28:40 PM

I would concur, with some qualification: viz.

* for equality of all before fair equitable law;

* for freedom of speech, association and belief;

and for toleration for peoples beliefs provided they
* do not coerce others to hold those beliefs,
* do not use those beliefs to denigrate others,
* use those beliefs for rational altruism (eg. within the realm of current medical knowledge).

When you have a spare few hours, and are feeling at your most patient, sit down with a friend and try to find out i) what their non-negotiable values are (that's the first few minutes) and ii) where they got them from (that's the rest of the day). Very few of us think about that for ourselves and we certainly don't challenge others, unless it's to make the throw away generalisations that, sadly, often pervade such discussions ("You just think that because you're a Feminist/Green/Christian/work for the ABC/etc").

It's a hard slog, as people peel away the layers that cover where the thought/value/prejudice/etc actually came from in its original form. People will be surprised, and potentially disappointed, as they discover just who and what has shaped their ideas over their lives, and why.

I have had it done to me and have done it with friends over a quiet cuppa (yes, I am exciting company!) and it is an amazing experience.

Then re-read this article with fresh eyes.

Enjoy!

I was enjoying this article until it got to the gay marriage section near the end, where, contrary to earlier thoughts, a determination had been made about one right to autonomy trumping another's (fundamental or actual?)understanding of marriage.

The idea of finding the context of 'where' our own universal compass stems from is as important as to determining the 'why' of why we (and others) would follow it.

"What is Truth?" Is that the best question ever, that seems to have so many answers, yet, for logical consistency, can only have one?

"Who is truth?" Now there's a supplementary question!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11935#204974

Ammonite, a very clever "half truth" by the author & yourself. While many people/nations/churches/organisations lay claim to these "universal values", they "talk the talk, but don't walk the walk".

A perfect example of this is the RED/green, getup, GAYLP, Socialist Alliance.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11935#204979

well said Sam.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11935#204980

also correct King Hazza, hopefully one day we will talk you out of the RED/greens.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11935#204982

Runner, there is no end to the capacity for self delusion training, among the RED/green, getup, GAYLP, Socialist Alliance.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11935#204988

Senior Victorian, globalisation has been a continual process of killing patriotism, in favour of the Big Sista, UN, NWO.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11935#204990

Quantumleap, & who taught you that drivel. Closet Communist/atheists who dogmatically preach, "religion is the opiate of the masses", have faith in the gospel according to Karl Marx, idolise the "dear leader".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

http://www.savethemales.ca/160303.html in this one you see they even had these treasonous, criminals infiltrating churches to poison them from within.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-covert-comrades-in-the-alp/story-e6frg6zo-1225887087909

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/radical-roots-seep-through-at-the-heart-of-greens-20100726-10sj0.html?skin=text-only

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=5vajlNhSzWYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mark+aarons+the+family+file&source=bl&ots=_JqnT4mkHv&sig=23tiin36Jjg84b7-Ttuxxp7L3gI&hl=en&ei=jKD0TOiQD8fzcfH_mMcE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/do-not-feel-afraid-gaia-is-with-us/story-e6frezz0-1225980594646

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

http://www.mailstar.net/xTrots.html

Are you an atheist or one of Lucifer's misguided fools?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11935#204991

McReal, every religious & secular "values" system in the world encourages their followers to attack evil doers. Christian, "tolerance" was never supposed to tolerate devil worship or child abuse.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11935#204992

rational-debate, i concur, most of the debate over the last half century or so has been dominated by the Politically Correct Thought Police from the RED/green, getup, GAYLP, Socialist Alliance.

see for yourself.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

“In an increasingly globalized and interdependent world, no one community....”

Groan.

This article was brought to by EuroDemolition Inc, proudly betraying our own kind since 1967.

There is no “world”. There are worlds, plural.

The “Australian World” is one of them.
“British World” is another. “European World” is another.
These worlds overlap since they are developed one from the other.

There is no “Global” world.

So our values are also others'? So what? They are expressed in our own ways.

“Mateship” is more male bonding than Good Samaritan.
Other cultures have male bonding too. But they express it in ways we don't and never would.

“so-called Aussie and Christian values... The danger is that they reinforce the discriminatory barriers that exist between 'us' and those defined as 'not us'. The only way to avoid this is to.....”

Not be “us”.

To not identify as a *particular* people.
A right Turks, Koreans, Mexicans and Samoans have.

But not white Australians.

We're not a people. No, they have no culture.
We cannot be distinct and “exclusive”.
We must be everybody and everything (i.e. nobody and nothing).

“there is no longer 'us and them'; it's all 'us' now! We are all in it together”

Sigh.

Being in the “world” together doesn't require the abdication of any people's distinctiveness/particularity.

There are French people and Japanese people and Moroccan people.
There are no World people.

Quantumleap

The self righteous dude on the video shows exactly the corrupt nature of man. Those denying the corrupt nature of man are in total denial. The High Priests of secularism think nothing of killing the unborn. Stalin and Mao certainly demonstrate the fruit of ungodly thinking. I would say that if secularist just stopped at helping the poor they would be rather harmless. Usually however they want to help the poor with other peoples money (usually taxpayers) and push their immoral dogmas on others. You seem very blinded by secular dogma and seem intent on using the ever changing pseudo science to justify your dogma.

"In an increasingly globalized and interdependent world, no one community – whether nationalist or religious – can claim exclusive or superior values."

Love the article - really, it's great! Problem is, the above hypothesis doesn't find universal application in our troubled world. I'm not one of "the chosen", or "a true believer" or one of the "God is with us" group - hence I am to be disregarded, despised, converted or eliminated. Truly, sanity must eventually prevail over all forms of fundamentalism if the expressed ideals are to be realised. Hence, wherefore comes universal sanity? Brute force? Coercion? Bribery?

Can it be that, as in the past, "enlightenment" and the adoption of "universal truths" may only be achieved through brute force? Hope not.

Afghanistan - surely saving the masses from repressive Taliban ideology was part of the reasoning for "invasion", as part of the fight against fundamentalism - and therefore against terrorism - for are these two terms not virtually interchangeable in their effect in so many quarters? (Iraq, though different, also had a repressive regime, as unfortunately also exists in many parts - Libya, Tibet?.....)

Boat People - we have compassion, but we also love our country and the lifestyle it affords us. We also have compassion for those left in turmoil who have not made it to our shores. But, we are not about to throw open the gates. Why? Or, why should we? So much unrest in the world, so much deprivation, we, the Samaritan, with our inexhaustible resources, should just take them into our fold, chuck away the key and let the chips fall where they may?

Temporary Protection - what's wrong with this as a stop-gap until turmoil at home can be rectified? No long legal process, no choice. We retain control, not the lawyers. Reunion rather than split detention, why not?

We can not play God and make it all right by decree, but The West needs to give salve to our ailing brothers, and to make restitution for past ill- and opportunistic misdeeds - but with conditions.

My point, obviously poorly expressed, is that mateship and compassion, important as they are for personal relationships and social cohesion, are not values on which domestic and international policy can be built. For us in Australia, democracy is not an end in itself but a means for achieving individual liberty within the framework of a system of government based on the values outlined in my earlier post.

Individual liberty within an agreed framework of law is, in our view, a universal human right, indeed the main universal human right. While we might argue among ourselves from time to time about whether particular laws or specific government actions are consistent with this ideal, it is this commitment to liberty that sustains and defines us.

Formersnag.....Thats a great collection of what your opposed to.....and I understand the teachings which is now questionable with the mind-sets of pass doctrine. Basically we are seeing two human tribes of thought battling for the same vacant space that evolution gives to all species.

But which one is right?

1...Is man to be ruled over by one train of thought?

2...Is man an indescribable force by his own hand?

3... Is there only room for those we can not beat?

Human-nature and belief is the most dangerous times in our development and history has proven this with-out doubt. All I ask, is for all peoples to have an open mind. We as humankind kind..."unfortunately" know very little when it comes to the words of why.

Question!

IF God put man on all different continents with different religions....why did he do so and what was the point, when we know fighting will be produced?

What type of GOD is this, that would do such a thing?

Iam sorry formersnag, but its seems our elders may not be quite on the ball, once analized. Did Christianity play all-important role in human development, yes it did and I would be telling a lie if it hadn't. But as you add corruption to the equation, the true sound of Jesus has now turned over, and now anyone for money can form a religion.

LEAP

Formersnag that is very nice of you but you will be happy to know I am not a socialist at all, and my preference for Greens is more my Major/secondary-preferred as opposed to specifically ideological.

My biggest priorities are censorship, government corruption, lobbying by religious groups, privatization and undemocratic development policy- and as the Greens have been reasonably consistently against all the above they get my vote. Their emphasis on infrastructure and improving public transport access is also desirable for me.

Immigration is a concern for me- but just not as much as the other things- and too many parties that are (or might) take a strict stance are doing it on the wrong grounds (when all it takes is to simply gauge criminality, mental stability, morals and values to see if they are in any way compatible to what we expect from ourselves- instead of some generalized, blanket form of discrimination).

I'd vote foremost for the "Save our Suburbs/State" party, if they were in my electorate- but they currently are not (but I vote for them in the Senate and urge everyone to do the same each election if the above is also important to them).

So I must either pick Greens, rather authoritarian wowser Christian parties, parties that focus too much on immigration (One Nation), or ones that actually support all the above actions (Liberal, Labor, Nationals and Democrats); and round off to the ones with the most to offer.

Formersnag that is very nice of you but you will be happy to know I am not a socialist at all, and my preference for Greens is more my Major/secondary-preferred as opposed to specifically ideological.

Yes I just love that fair go for all:) Can you ever see a world were if your not smart enough, you loose:) I just cant think of such a system:)

KINGS AND QUEENS!

LEAP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atTSwau9fwM&feature=related

Love the world, and love you.........peace:)

LEAP

Hi runner!

That would be the Stalin who went to a church school and trained for the priesthood in a seminary for five years, I take it? Not a terribly good advertisement for a religious education, was he?

I see we are already into the "blame God game" for the state of human behaviour. The situation is the attitudes of man who has been given a choice of behaviour. Make man accept the responsibility for bad behaviour; and must change.

Simple answer-"to hell with religion"!

Jon J,

Stalin certainly displays a similar pattern to other men when they reject the truth and are handed over to their own devices. That's why people who reject God find it so easy to sanction abortion.

There is no moral commonality between Islam and any other religion, Scott McInness. Islam is the only religion which I know in which their God and His prophet actively promote hostility and war between believers and non believers.

Your claim that the western liberation of Afghanistan from the world’s worst Islamofascists is somehow the west’s fault, indelibly marks you as just another chardonnay sucking trendy who is trying to dream up a moral scenario to justify your peculiar worldview.

As for you assertion that there is no superior culture, and that common values are passed on to generations of children by their parents and other community leaders, well you sure got that wrong. Storytellers, religious leaders, parents and community leaders may once have passed on to their children the tales, legends and myths of heroes. They did this to pass on to their kids the skills that they needed to ensure the continued survival of their people.

But today, that has all changed. Today’s mass media is no longer just a means of transmitting information, or just a medium of entertainment. It is now so influential, that it has almost completely displaced the traditional institutions which have long created and disseminated the cultural values that once guided people’s behaviour.

These new universal, media created cultural include movies which show children that criminals are heroes, who live exciting lives, with lots of money, and have very sexy girlfriends. Other Movies show the young that Real Men are violent men, who mass murder their enemies for personnel reasons. We have pop stars who sing about the joys of raping their mothers, killing other kids at school, smacking around “bitches”,and the joys of taking illegal drugs. Then we have computer games which teach young men just how much fun it is to shoot people.

Personally Scott, I don’t think that these new “international” values are going to do much for the continued existence of the human race, and I don’t think that they measure up to our former Christian ones. Many of them may appeal to Muslims, though.

runner,
Stalin remained religious all his life, especially having a moment with God while on a retreat. He re-opened churches and theology colleges in WW2, and continued to worship personally until he died.

LEGO,
"prophet(s) [who] actively promote hostility and war between believers and non believers" include Jim Wallace a few days ago, Sydney's Bishop Anthony Fraser last Easter, Melbourne's Archbishops, the Pope on his arrival in the UK six months ago, and constant sniping elsewhere.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, LEGO.

>>Islam is the only religion which I know in which their God and His prophet actively promote hostility and war between believers and non believers<<

On the other hand, of course, Christians have constantly and consistently promoted love and peace to all men, believers and non-believers alike.

Is that what you are suggesting?

One of my cousins served a few years in Northern Ireland, and tells some interesting tales of the love and compassion with which two versions of Christianity shot off each others' kneecaps.

It is also true, of course, that Sunni and Shia do not exactly cohabit in permanent amity, despite their apparent adherence to the same religion. But all that proves is that there is no difference, religious-tolerance-wise, between the two sets of "believers".

The reality is of course that human beings have great powers of imagination. Confronted with the conundrum of life, it is easy to see how the concept of an abstract parent, complete with both love and punishment, took root.

But it has always been limited to the extent of our imaginings. Consider for a moment the image that Northern Europeans gave their concept of Jesus. For hundreds of years, they pictured him as a blond and bearded Aryan. The fact that it is far more likely that he was a dark-haired, dark-complexioned Semite didn't enter the equation.

Our values are the values of our society. The ones that prevent us from regressing into kill-or-be-killed tribes of hunters. It's called "civilization", and is a condition that grows at different speeds and in different timeframes, dependent - largely - upon geography.

Pericles,

Interesting point about the limits of the human imagination.

I have a picture of an engraving of someones's idea of UFO's that was executed before flying machines were invented - and there, sailing through the skies are "galleons" - the only vast distance travelling vessels of the time.

"Aussie, Christian or universal values?"

Just what are the true universal values? Survival and propagation? (Everything else is surely subservient.) Food, shelter, security, a mate, weapons/implements, stories, entertainment, means to identify friend and enemy, knowledge. On top of this we layer excess - material accumulation - to attract a "better" mate, to increase our "tribe", to increase comfort, knowledge, entertainment .....

In the world today are hunter/gatherers, jungle people, subsistence farmers, .....all the way up to Donald Trump.

Religion, and universal values? Pre-internet communication? (First and continued "best seller", the Bible.) What has exemplified the grand cultures of the past? Greek, Roman, Islamic. Surely it is communication and knowledge. Conquest? To extend the image of "self"? More of and for "us".

"Values" and "Religion" depends on where you sit in the pyramid.

Religious belief has been an excuse for discrimination, domination, slavery, ... Doctrine and propaganda have been used similarly - Nazism, Communism, ..... Such continue today, in our "civilised" society.

The thirst for communication and knowledge continues, expanded in TV, video, internet, "live" news, "games". But, for all this, "Man" proves himself still to be driven by "base" instincts. Conquest, extension of "self".

Religion as a communication for the common good has improved civilisation, but has also been "abused" for non-religious purposes. We must all see past "belief systems" in the search for truth and humanity. Love thy brother, but allow him freedom.

To Pericles

No, I am suggesting that if Christians are being hostile to people of other faiths, and if they are making war upon them because they are of a different faith, then they are not following the teachings of their prophet, Jesus Christ. On the other hand, if Muslims are hostile towards people of other faiths, and are making war upon them because they are of a different faith, they are faithfully following the teachings of both their God and His prophet.

8:39: “And fight them until there is no more disbelief in Islam and the religion will all be for Allâh Alone...”

9:123: “O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the pious.”

Koran 8:12
Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them."

Koran 9:5

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

Koran 9:73

Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their Home: an evil fate.

Koran 4:144

Believers, do not choose the unbelievers rather than the faithful as your friends. Would you give Allah a clear proof against yourselves ?

Koran 5:51

Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrong-doers.

Koran 98:1-8

The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.

LEGO,

Your last post was quite enlightening, and very sad. I have no response, except to say I can only hope that sanity and reason may reach beyond the depths of such dark provocations.

Yeah yeah, LEGO, I've heard it all before.

>>...if Christians are being hostile to people of other faiths... they are not following the teachings of their prophet, Jesus Christ... if Muslims are hostile towards people of other faiths... they are faithfully following the teachings of both their God and His prophet.<<

All so very familiar.

It is the standard mantra of the "Christians" who have taken it upon themselves to hate Muslims, and use a few carefully selected snippets as justification for their hatred. I hear it so often, I wonder whether they actually teach it at Sunday School these days.

What escapes their notice, every time, is the paradox involved.

"Christians" who hate the way you do - as well as those who make war, shoot each other in the kneecaps etc. - are by your definition, not Christian.

"Muslims", who choose to live their lives peaceably and in harmony with their fellow human beings, are by your definition not Muslims.

That leaves us with a tiny, almost infinitesimal, number of each category in the world.

Which, when you think about it, makes the whole religion vs religion palaver all rather stupid, doesn't it?

You really should take a long hard look at your values, LEGO. And I mean that most sincerely - hatred has a way of showing itself in ones facial features after a while, and you don't want to become ugly, do you.

Or uglier, whichever applies.

Ah yes, the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

AJ Philips wrote "Ah yes, the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy."

wiki says(for what its worth):"No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it."

WHAT it Should say; Logic and Reason, two different approach to assess any situation one finds themselves. 'Reason' primarily uses past experiences similar to current situation to assess, and 'Logic' seeks to find as much knowledge of current situation ONLY to assess(so why 'science' is called logical field)...and amazingly, yeah true, 'logic' is left brain activity, and 'reason' is right brain activity...

So simple example: How do planes fly?...'Reason' say wings, and Ive seen it...
'Logic' says upper wing surface curved to lower wing flat gives differential wind velocities which produces a net force upwards...

AND they say, in any situation one has to respond to...equal measure of 'logic and reason'(right and left brain both assessing current situation at same time) awareness to it gives one the most information to use to determine action to situation...and we know more information one has available in situation, better their decision making process is...

So I wonder how the above is going to effect the discussion of this topic...

sam

SamSaid,

Reasoning is more like 'formal argument' and critical discussionas a means of discerning truth, as also logic can be.

Statements (like "planes fly [by their] wings") and explanations (like "upper wing surface curved to lower wing flat gives differential wind velocities which produces a net force upwards") are different.

McReal, Not quite there, so let me put this another way...

Current situation: In discussion with another the question 'How do planes fly?' is addressed at you...

So you reply;'wings, and Ive seen it..."

or you reply;'upper wing surface curved to lower wing flat gives differential wind velocities which produces a net force upwards...'

OR you say: 'wings, and Ive seen it...+upper wing surface curved to lower wing flat gives differential wind velocities which produces a net force upwards...'

and yes there is common grounds between both approaches depending on situation and details can be debated among other things, but the third answer is definitely better than the first two which is the point...dont think there is a debate on that in this example context...and so using both sides of the brain together produces better results than one side dominantly...
regards
sam

Well Pericles, if you have “heard it all before”, how come it is taking so long for the facts to percolate through your overly thick cranium?

To start of with, I am an atheist, so that is another assumption which you got wrong.

Christians not only kill other Christians, they lie, cheat, steal, fornicate, and do a lot of other naughty things which their God forbade. But if they do these things, they are not doing what their God instructed them to do.

Muslims are different. When they make war on other people “near to them” to spread their religion, when they “strike terror” into non believers, when they beat their wives, when they marry 11 year old girls, when they kill people who criticize Islam, when they stone women to death for “fornication”, or when they maintain a total social separation from other people, they are doing either exactly what their Prophet instructed them to do, or they are following His example.

That some Muslims choose not to do everything that their Prophet tells them, and may even disagree with some of His policies or his personnel example, does not detract from the fact that this is an evil religion which teaches its adherents to hate and be violent.

A person such as you is supposed to be opposed to such an ideology. But by some process of Doublethink, you refuse to see the self evident truth, because you are so committed to defending minorities, that you never ask yourself if the hostility directed by the people that you despise (people like me) is entirely appropriate when it comes to Muslims.

While all Christians may sin, only a tiny minority of Christians may be termed “the religious right” who are totally intolerant of anyone not a Christian, and such a belief is contrary to their God’s wishes. This is not the case in the Islamic world. The majority of Muslims in most Muslim countries could be termed “fundamentalist” who believe every hatred promoting and misogynist endorsing instruction in the Koran.

You know people, the word 'Christian" was a slang word used to harrass anyone who followed Jesus Christ.the 'real' Christians are kind,giving,serving,not imposing,not judgmental. Don't lump religious people in with them.read about Jesus before you judge what you think he did and did not do.
Values? if we are descendant from animals then it will always be survival of the fittest, this makes school bullying acceptable and rape natural;neglect of the elderly, stealing, deception acceptable.
What is it that changed that?lets see.don't steal, don't kill, obey authority, love one another as you would love yourself,dont gossip, oh the list goes on and where are these values found? In Christians? No! the Bible. If there is no moral standard or measuring rod then we can do what we want because that is the nature of the beast.This is a mans fight against a man because one of you think you know better than the other.Well guess what men, you are all right, people have done atrocious things under the banner of Christianity yet so have those under the banner of atheism. You are no different, you are human, you think you know better, that is why you are on here and you think your logic is better than that that has been established for thousands of years.all I can say is shame on you! remove the moral standard and the measuring rod and the problems we have now will only get worse - those who put money before people;our government, councils,workplaces, utilities, banks even parents - Money is the root of all evil, you cannot serve money and God, the love of money is the beginning of evil. where does it say that? oh that's right.IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE.and what does it mean to serve God - love your neighbor as yourself!why are you on here? apply yourself to something that counts - when was the last time you fed the homeless or went into a nursing home to give quality of life? or gave money to someone who was struggling? Stop judging those who do and go do yourself!

No-one is assuming anything, LEGO.

>>To start of with, I am an atheist, so that is another assumption which you got wrong.<<

Of course you are. And I haven't suggested to the contrary.

You do however have a habit of trotting out exactly the same specious arguments that "born again" Christians do, when it comes to their idea of comparative religion.

So my position stands. Whatever your personal religion might be, your argument falls at the first fence:

"Christians" who hate the way you do - as well as those who make war, shoot each other in the kneecaps etc. - are by your definition, not Christian.

"Muslims", who choose to live their lives peaceably and in harmony with their fellow human beings, are by your definition not Muslims.

This is the part that doesn't fit a typical atheist profile:

>>Muslims are different... they are doing either exactly what their Prophet instructed them to do, or they are following His example.<<

To support this, you select, very carefully and deliberately, those sentences from their scriptures that reflect your view. You skip over the bits about love and charity and care and compassion, and focus only on those that meet your personal selection criteria: do they look bad - ok, they must be the important bits.

You fail - as do those hard-line Christians - to see how self-defeating that is. And as an atheist, you should see that more clearly than most.

Do you also reject the idea that the Bible holds similarly barbaric passages? "They aren't meant to be taken literally", is what I usually hear.

>>The majority of Muslims in most Muslim countries could be termed “fundamentalist” who believe every hatred promoting and misogynist endorsing instruction in the Koran<<

I think that is where your argument falls down. Do you have evidence? Or is it just the way you feel?

Rebecca6,

I don't know if you believe in evolution, or if you are one of those who believes the world was created 6 thousand years ago replete with all current species intact as they exist today - which of course denies the validity of carbon dating and of the fossils of so many extinct species.

Anyhow, natural selection doesn't mean dog-eat-dog, it means who is fittest to survive and pass on their individual genes. In mankind's case it was and remains brain power. It often also means which male is the best leader, provider, and kindest and most caring of females and young and/or best protector. Ditto for the females.

What happens to rapists, abusers, murderers and antisocial males is they usually end up dead or incarcerated, with limited opportunity to pass on their defective genes.

As for religion generally, whether bible or kor'an or whatever, these have firstly been written by man (whether by divine inspiration or not), and have been translated perhaps many times over a long period of time from ancient languages. The translations are done by man. Were they also inspired? Stuff has been changed, whether to deceive or to correct is questionable. What is not questionable is that these writings have been translated differently by different scholars, and have been "updated". I am satisfied that those who take such writings "literally" are misguided. All should be looking for consistency of message and intent. I am also satisfied that the majority of the contained "messages" are, as Rebecca6 has pointed out, "love thy neighbour as thyself" or "do unto others...". Though some "followers" may dislike the limitations of interpretation this demands, it is nonetheless the only "truthful" way to employ such texts. Any contrary interpretations are therefore necessarily "bogus" and biased.

All need to read the consistent message, and not go placing their own "interpretations" on bits here and there for their own misguided purposes.

"natural selection doesn't mean dog-eat-dog, it means who is fittest to survive and pass on their individual genes."

Saltpetre, Sunday, 1 May 2011 7:43:47 PM

It means which *groups* are fittest to survive best in a niche and procreate the most.

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

"In mankind's case it [natural selection] was and remains brain power. It often also means which male is the best leader, provider, and kindest and most caring of females and young and/or best protector. Ditto for the females."

That is far too adamant and narrow. It might have applied to small groups or tribes millenia ago, but probably has little relevance in the last 5,000 years.

McReal,

You are right, much has turned Topsy Turvy in the last 5 thou years or so. The intention of my post was to offer a more accurate idea of natural selection to Rebecca6, and to make a few other observations about the ill use some have made, and continue to make, in my humble opinion, of various religious texts - in response to various earlier postings relating more directly to the subject of the article.

As you and I seem, perhaps, to agree, evolution is a long and perhaps hit-and-miss process, with any significant progression dependent on many factors and generally within a large population group over a very long period of time. I don't think evolution has progressed much in homo sapiens in recent history (maybe 5 Thou years or so, as you mention, and maybe much longer), and perhaps some regression may have occurred per the influence of modern medicine, war, epidemics, etc. Only another million years or so will provide an answer - for those who believe in the real time-frame which has been operating - as I do. But then again, the occasional Copernicus, Da Vinci, Newton or Einstein may indicate something has been happening, but then the lottery of passing on any beneficial genes, and whether any of these or other "promising" individuals even had offspring, I don't know, and again only time will tell of any continuing developments.

On the subject of the article, I feel it is well past time that some real "evolution" was made in religion generally. For a relatively informed society it is truly troubling that some intelligent sectors of our global society seem to be staying doggedly "in the dark ages" regarding the interpretation and application of "religious" messages. My hope would be that it will be "enlightenment" rather than conflict which will bring about this evolution.

Saltpetre,
Thankyou for your reply, I appreciate your views. On further reading to McReal, you mentioned it would be good if 'there was some real "evolution" in religion generally'. Let me address Christianity as I do not have authority to comment on other religions(though I do feel you mean all religions in general), and I am going to ask you to elaborate on what you mean by 'evolve' for the Christians.
The God described in the Christian Bible says "I am the Lord, I do not change", ( Malachi 3:6) and Hebrews 13:8 He is the same yesterday, today and forever.. His commandments are about love and acceptance, about serving and giving, about not thinking too highly of your self (Romans 12:3), not judging others lest you be judged and treating children and women with respect, about loving the stranger and not loving money etc.
I simply can't understand why these attributes are a threat to society. I do not understand why you think they should evolve. Thousands of years ago people could not live by them and still today people struggle to live by them.
Perhaps a Christians view on same sex relationships is an issue for some but evolution there would be Hypocritical yet again in mans eyes and disobedient in Gods so a no win situation.
TO evolve to think like whom? As I see it, the evolution on those who are out of the 'dark ages' (atheists), seem to be heading towards depravity.. selfishness is on the rise, none of us are unaffected by affairs born out of lust born out of lack of self control; stealing goes further than just items now-it is your identity, your reputation; people are hurt at every turn by a selfish person. I do not understand why you would call this living the 'dark-ages', what was appropriate then in the human race is still very much appropriate.In fact,Jesus liberated people.
And by the way, I do not believe we evolved, I believe in intelligent design..Creation.
Thank you, and I look forward to your conversation and appreciate your thoughtful answers. Rebecca6

@ Saltpetre, Mon, 2 May, 1:59am

Thanks for your elaborate discussion of the short retort I fired off this am.

It is easy to try to describe evolution in individual terms, but as you say it happens over a long, long time.

@Rebecca6 - the Bible is a narrative written by men that contains lots of violence toward children and women. Religion treats women poorly.
There is nothing intelligent about the theory of UD

We inherited these gifts from God. All good gifts come from above, from the Father of lights. http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

Rebecca6,

I too am a Christian, and it hurts me to see conflict in Ireland, with individual groups marching in "celebration" of some past "victory" - partly political, partly some reference to heritage - which maintains and glorifies a "them and us" attitude. Whether because of, or in spite of such attitudes, individuals maintain antagonism towards the "others", and some embark on violence. The retention of these tensions and celebrations is a form of terrorism - keeping people in both groups in fear. Both groups are supposedly "Christian". These "celebrations" are not dissimilar to neo-Nazis celebrating Hitler, or if parts of Europe were to celebrate the pogroms and expulsion of Jews, or Christians celebrating the Crusades.

Too much conflict in the world today is characterised as in the name of religion - conflict from some Islamic groups preaching violence against "non-believers", conflicts in Israel and Palestine over sacred sites and land, and with Koptic Christians caught up in this also. Christians have retaliated and burned mosques, etc, etc.

I am aware of "Christians" who preach that "Allah" is a false god, that Mohamed, Buddha and other non-Christian prophets are false-prophets or "demons" and foot-soldiers of the Devil. Where is love thy neighbour in this?

Some Christian "breakaway" movements teach that theirs is "the only true way" (to heaven), some take the bible so literally they still teach that black and non-pure-white races are sub-human - and given their way would impose eugenics to purify the "human" race.

There are other examples. "Christians" is a broad church, and parts thereof are imperfect and use narrow interpretation of the scriptures to impose what I would call non-Christian values.

As for Creation, believe as you will, but that approach places "Man" in a category above and beyond God's broad and miraculous brush of life on earth. As we are of the same DNA as all other life on earth, and share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, this "categorisation" of "Man Apart" is a deviation, denies science, and is a source of some conflict in the world today.

McReal, what is UD?

Downtown Dave,well done and never be discouraged.
Saltpetre, the topic of your article is on Aussie, Christian or Universal values. I therefore entered the discussion based on that. You have neglected to answer my question why the values of the Christian Bible are in the "dark ages" and why it needs to evolve. One who calls himself a Christian is one who (is forgiven) follows Christ's example and chooses to walk according to the written word and Believes in it, creation is just a basic. You have made mention to violence done under the banner of 'religion', but fail to explain the cause - not religion sir, but the heart, of which there is no divide; male female, young or old, dark or light skin, any culture. I agree with you that some religious people use the Bible to justify their actions as wrong as they are, but mostly it is a text out of context. Though it seems to me that you are off topic and want to have a stab at Theology, that is another forum. But for this one - our Australian values have been established by the Christians who founded this country (some good some not),and the Christian laws bought to it by the English invaders; integrated with the immigrants who bought diversities to us that influenced our culture and attitudes in positive ways and broadened what it means to love thy neighbor,the acceptance of the original land owners has cemented in our minds what we value - life in general without definition of differences!We are a great nation and love our culture.If you take the Christian values out of society you may as well go and live in Afghanistan.. take your wife and children and see what life is like without the Christian Bible. Though our morality is on the decline, it is our morals that make us respect one another's rights. I respect your right to voice your opinion and believe what you believe though I have the same rights to disagree with you. Rebecca6

Saltpetre,
sorry meant ID.

Rebecca6,

I can only respond in my own way. By "dark ages" I mean the opposite to "true" enlightenment.

By "enlightenment" I mean the search for values which may be applied universally to the common good.

My intention in addressing this topic has been to relate Christian values to "Universal" values, and to relate these to what I see operating in Oz. Oz is now multicultural, as stated, and is therefore now multi-theistic. To me this means we have to seek universally applicable values if we are going to be able to maintain stability, security, civility and harmony, and this means some give and take on all sides. If Christianity is going to maintain that it must be the foundation and source of all faith, then we have no solution. We all will have to embrace tolerance, and respect for other cultures and religious beliefs - but with an overriding adherence to values we may all share and maintain. This must also be global if there is to be any chance of universal and lasting peace on earth.

I acknowledge the place and role of Christian belief in the development of Oz (as also with a large part of the rest of the developed world), and I believe in the infinite virtue contained in the foundational messages as conveyed by Christ's conduct and teachings, and I try to live by following His example.

I also have to acknowledge the developments achieved in the Muslim world through the teachings of Mohamed - though in recent history I believe his teachings have been corrupted in their application.

I have also to acknowledge all the world's other faiths which embrace similar universal values to our own, but reject any values which would pit man against man.

In my previous post I put forward some examples which I believe represented corruptions of Christianity. These are no better and no worse than those corruptions of the foundational teachings of other faiths demonstrated in so many current, recent and historical conflicts.

I propose to you a universal value: "Am I my brother's keeper? Yes, I am."

Shall we be enlightened? or, Do we think, rightly or wrongly, that we are already enlightened?

And God created "Man" in his own image. As African, Nordic, Inuit, Germanic, Arabic, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Melanesian, Indonesian, Aztec, New Guinean, Aborigine .....

As Adam and Eve had transgressed, and taken a wrong path, "Jehovah" shed light on a better path, and some took heed.

And God sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to Palestine, to be amongst the Jews who had been suppressed by the Romans, who had annexed Egypt.

To the darkness of Arabia came a voice for progress, loving "Allah" and urging Rules and Law and pursuit of knowledge. Mohamed.

In Greece there was philosophy, democracy and literacy, whilst the Romans built roads, bridges and aqueducts, and cities with sewage systems.

In the East a voice came for love and benevolence and the sanctity of life. Buddha.

Still in the East a voice for philosophy and learning. Confucius.

For some others truth lay in the earth, in nature and the cycles of life.

We are "Man" in His image - Inside.

"I" am not more than "He" or "Them".

"We" are not entitled or allowed to force change on "Them" to "Our" image, we may only ask for harmony within the breadth of God's creation of Life. We may only respect and preserve the abundance and profusion of HIS creation, in harmony and absence of conflict, in love and kindness and sharing. To be true to Him.

Brothers all, in the name of peace, and His Will.