continued

As far as chaplains in the schools it is a direct violation of S. 116 of the Australian Constitution:

S. 116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Scripture Union and Access Ministries which hire almost all chaplains require the chaplains to subscribe to various Christian creeds. That is certainly a religious test for office. The court has allowed it by weaseling that the government does not directly hire the chaplains but they are hired by Scripture Union and Access Ministries. As far as I can see the chaplaincy is a clear violation of the Australian Constitution which is allowed because the court does not want to challenge the power of the Christian churches in Australia.

Furthermore we live in a multicultural society and our public schools should be a place where children of all religious backgrounds and none should feel comfortable with all the personnel employed by the school. At 87 I have no children of school age but, if I had, I should not like them to go to Australian public schools where fundamentalist chaplains are involved in many activities. I also think that government financing of religious schools is also a violation of s. 116 and a judgment of a government which was not under the thumb of the churches would not allow it.

Christianity and all other religions are unnecessary anachronisms which serve to divide us and cause conflict. We can see it by some of the postings on this thread. People are so blinded by their particular mumbojumbo that they cannot see how similar it is to the other mumbojumbos. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are far more alike than they are different.

You're right, David F., down with ALL archaic mumbo-jumbos !

Joe

Antiseptic,

Just how young are we talking here?

<<...children aren't up to complex moral reasoning. The model I discussed is intended to teach them how to do just as you say.>>

We're not asking that they solve the trolley dilemma. Any child, who is old enough to "know full well" that there would still be consequences for their actions in your absence, is old enough to at least understand the golden rule.

More to the point, how is this then relevant to people in general, who generally ARE capable of moral reasoning? Hasn't what you've just clarified here rendered your analogy between your preferred parenting method, and our alleged need for a religious moral framework, false?

<<One of the things [Kohlberg] points out is that many people [are locked] into a particular way of thinking that is focussed intently on their own outcomes and ignores the effects on others.>>

Are you now suggesting that it’s just this small percentage of people who need the religious framework? Because that wouldn’t explain your doom-and-gloom prediction earlier, with talk of anarchy and police states.

I think you’re shifting the goal posts here just a little.

<<I would say that every religion is intended to try to inculcate a more sophisticated moral sense.>>

So what is this “more sophisticated moral sense” you’re now referring to? And what relevance does it have to the people you were just talking about, who don't even consider the impact of their action on others?

You're all over the place here.

<<If we remove the religion without replacing it...>>

You still haven’t justified this assertion.

<<The holy books are intended to provide metaphors to help understanding.>>

Understanding of what, exactly? And how can you know this?

<<Your interpretation is that [holy books] are literalist instruction books...>>

I didn’t make any assumptions about the message they’re supposed to convey. But if it’s only the fundies who get their moral guidance from them, then you’re faced with the even bigger problem of explaining how the non-fundies achieve an objective understanding of this religious moral framework that you think is so reliable.

David, you're still talking straight past what I'm saying. Please go back and read what I wrote. You've just spent two posts on your soapbox ranting at me about things that aren't relevant.

My whole point (to state it yet again) is that some form of moral educative process has to exist. If you throw out the religious means of doing that, then you have to replace it with something.

Would you like to discuss that, or are you going to do some more ranting?

Joe, "mumbo jumbo" is often used to refer to things we simply don't have the capacity to understand. You seem to use the term a lot.

AJ, read the link. I don't have time to rephrase it all for you. Kohlberg's theories cover every stage of life.

Don't be lazy, I've already done the research and given you the Wikipedia pre-digested version. Read it before you reply to this and we'll both know what we're talking about.

Yes, Antiseptic, I read it all.

<<…read the link. I don't have time to rephrase it all for you.>>

And it doesn’t answer any of the questions I asked you. Indeed, most of it is entirely irrelevant.

<<Kohlberg's theories cover every stage of life.>>

So are you now saying that the extent to which we need this religious moral framework - or whether or not we need it at all - depends on what stage of life we’re at? This would have been better declared at the outset.

Help me out here, because you started out claiming that we need a religious moral framework to avoid chaos:

"My point was simply that religion and especially a concept of a disengaged but very much aware God that won't intervene in our misbehaviour but will punish us later for having been bad is not unlike the parental model I personally favour ... As a result [my kids] have learnt to be self-responsible...

"Unless you have some model to replace that means of inculcating personal responsibility then removing religion is simply going to lead to a need for more draconian regulative frameworks and less personal freedom." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15315#264800)

You later reinforce the simplicity of this moral framework that you’re referring to:

"The model I discussed is intended to teach them how to do just as you say." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15315#264831)

You even go on to give an example of just how basic what you're talking about is:

"...many people never progress beyond ... thinking that is focussed intently on their own outcomes and ignores the effects on others." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15315#264831)

Then all of a sudden, in the very next paragraph, without any warning, you’re talking about a “more sophisticated moral sense”:

"I would say that every religion is intended to try to inculcate a more sophisticated moral sense." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15315#264831)

So what was the point in everything you had said prior to that?

We can get to my other questions later, but I think this discrepancy needs resolving first.

AJ Philips, youve taken on a Herculean task, Antiseptic is one those hit and run posters.He makes wild statements and when someone calls him to account he goes to water. He made the claim above "Islam was the most enlightened religion in the world for a very long time" and when I challenged him he went to water.I suspect hes learned most of his history from the local Imam, he might even be the local Imam