I keep gettin emails telling me there are more commments. So one last post:

Just for the record:

I don’t support covert or manipulative attempts to get people to believe something. When people have positions of influence and trust over minors, they need to be especially careful not to do this. My point was simply that people should be free to learn about Jesus if they so choose, and become a follower if they so choose.

I have read the Age for many years and trust it as a source of robust journalism. But he reporting in The Age has not been fair or balanced on the chaplaincy issue. It has been advocacy and lobbyng with the promotion of websites of anti-chaplaincy groups and stifled voices. For example, a cartoon from a SRI class was published with the headline “Teacher fury over God comic”. This is the same newspaper that (rightly) took an editorial decision to not publish certain cartoons in 2006 in order to not offend a religious group. I agreed with them then, and I only wonder why they moved away from that stance when it came to Christians groups.

I agree that religion, or any worldview for that matter should not be forced upon people, as this would contravene the teachings of Jesus. But I am not convinced that this is the heart of what chaplains and SRI are doing. Sure, there are rogue elements in every organisation. As I have said on my own blog, if providers have failed in their contractual obligations then the appropriate government departments will address it. And in this I completely respect the right of parents to withdraw their children from SRI.

Continued-

-continued

I understand the challenge it is for parents to opt-out their children from SRI, and I am not against an opt-in system, where parents choose for their children to do SRI. But I don’t see how this deals with claims of division and exclusion. Either way some students will opt in and some won’t. You will still have a situation where children are divided. I understand the concerns, however, I am not sure the solution of opt-in resolves it.

Finally, I know this will only invite further insults, but I am astounded at the nastiness and vitriol that has been evident in the comments, and on other blogs. I have no problem with people disagreeing and many have made some great points and helped to clarify my thinking. But is the best way to have a conversation by hurling insults, cheap shots, false accusations, and character slurs? For example, one comment called me a criminal. Does that person really think I should go to jail for publicly expressing an opinion? Then there was the person who decided I was some right-wing nutter due to my blog having a picture of Jesus on the cross. The image is from a work of modern art called “Crucifixion” (circa 1945) by 20th century English painter, Graham Sutherland (1903-1980), and is held in the Vatican. Is having art on your blog equal to being an extremist?

This is exactly why I think students need to be free to learn about Jesus. He showed such grace to his enemies, taught about being kind and compassionate, about forgiving and loving others. It is pretty obvious that even those who believe in him and seek to follow him have a hard time coming near his example. But is the answer to assign him to the scrap heap? Who would teach us such things and give us a worthy vision to follow? As infuriating as that may be to some, none of the replies from my post has attempted to refute the powerful and inspirational example of Jesus. So I say again: why remove him from society?

Sandpiper: "Darwin's theory of evolution is just that.. a THEORY."

I wish you folks would stop using words you have absolutely no idea about. This is what happens when scientific illiteracy becomes endemic in a society, caused mostly by nonsense such as Access CRE. Coherence ceases. Even 20 years ago, the averagely educated person would never use the term "theory" as cheaply and as tritely as you do, because basic high school science explains "theory" in terms well beyond your common pocket dictionary. This nonsensical misrepresentation is what is known as equivocation. You know that when someone like you misuses the word "theory" in this manner, any hope of having an equal and two way dialogue is simply impossible. You are dealing with a broken unit. Nothing to see here, move along.

Sandpiper: "God's signature is everywhere in creation so how can anyone say they can't see God or ask where is God?"

Indeed. This usually manifests as pareidolia (finding jesus in a piece of burnt toast) and apophenia (finding meaningful connection in completely unrelated data) - spooks love spontaneous cancer remissions that coincide with prayer, even though cancer remission happens all the time with or without spooks. You could draw an equally significant statistical link between remission and black cats given the time and the funding. Of course this kind of lateral observation is not likely to ever cross the mind of a "believer". Both of these phenomena indicate minds that are really not up to speed at interpreting observed data intelligently. Of course, religious types tend to call them "saints" or some similar nonsense.

And if you want to talk about god's love, maybe you should ask why Zahra Baker has had the phenomenal run of "love" that she has. It's kind of what I would label a "reverse miracle" were I into making up nonsense for stuff I was too lazy to think about. No I won't tell you who she is. Get thee to google.

But then again, you really shouldn't be allowed on the internet if you are this befuddled with nonsense and ill education.

At least if the children hear about Jesus they can then make an "informed" decision as to whether they believe in Him or not.
Anyhow, nobody can MAKE anyone else believe in God.
Jesus warned His disciples about stopping the children from hearing Jesus speak.
The disciples thought the children would be bothersome but Jesus clearly corrected the disciples. This is still true for today just look at this debate.

Sandpiper: "Jesus warned His disciples about stopping the children from hearing Jesus speak."

If hearing about jesus is as critical to your children as you are telling us it is,

and,

the only way that your children can hear about jesus is at school,

then,

>>>YOU are a derelict parent<<<.

Your logic, it burns me, oh yes it does. You are simply beyond belief. How can you be so intellectually vacuous? You are truly beyond repair.

For example, a cartoon from a SRI class was published with the headline “Teacher fury over God comic”. This is the same newspaper that (rightly) took an editorial decision to not publish certain cartoons in 2006 in order to not offend a religious group. I agreed with them then, and I only wonder why they moved away from that stance when it came to Christians groups.

Posted by Nickosjt, Thursday, 19 May 2011 10:58:33 PM

That is a very false analaogy.

One presumes you are referring to the Mohammed cartoons.

The cartoon you referred to vilified teachers, and was a cartoon produced by a Christian and published by a Christian organisation. The Age article was about the vilification of teachers by Christians, not about the vilification of Christians or to vilify Christians.

Double thinking producing 'special pleading'.

"I agree that religion, or any worldview for that matter should not be forced upon people, as this would contravene the teachings of Jesus." So why do you special plead for that in your article? -

"why shouldn’t children have the right to learn about Jesus"

"Fifthly, what about proselytising? Everyone does it."