What I find is unbelievable is the way so many people now believe and accept so much irrational thought and instruction laid down in scriptures written by ignorant men hundreds of years ago to rationalise the era they lived in at the time, and now taken as “truth”. As a consequence their followers worship the scribes and the Deity they invented.

I agree with everything the author says in regards to children making their own minds up about religion in their own time.
I don't think its right to force religion on children.

However I must caution any nation to be mindful of what will happen in the vacuum when basic Christian values are taken away.

By default, you are now choosing "liberal and progressive" over conservative Christian values, and you are giving other religions an opening to get their foot further in the door.

Be mindful of that, because what you end up getting in the long run may be worse than what you originally had.

Dear Ngaire,

Just because someone does not happen to believe in a deity doesn't make them irreligious. You sound religious yourself, just not a Christian (neither am I).

What you are actually asking, is for the state to interfere with other religions while protecting your own on the pretext that "it is not a religion".

The demise of the Christian Churches has come about because of their association with the state and its powers. If you follow that path, then your traditions too would be regarded with contempt and ridicule and it would be your grand-children who would suffer from confusion and emptiness over their loss.

Religion has double crossed itself to many times to be of any use to anyone. To be born into a religion is as a matter of course is outdated. A crutch of the mind that can bend thoughts and persuade outcomes. The greatest fraud ever on human nature.

The world will never be free while such ignorant fallacies circulate the globe. Scripture that is wide open to interpretation, as the reader sees fit, or to fulfill rules or laws. Ancient scripture that is based in historic times, has little to no relevance of today

Most certainly, in a country like Australia with many different religious influences and forces, NO religious doctrine should be taught in publicly-funded schools, but just as certainly, a basic philosophy of right and wrong, human values, gender equality, peace over violence, and equality of all before the same law should be integrated into the curriculum, obviously becoming more sophisticated through the school years.

There is no place in the public school system for religious values having any precedence over those important and essential secular values.

Jut one niggle: the author, as an atheist, still seems to be advocating that Maori culture, based as it is so much on traditional Maori belief systems, should be promoted in public schools, in the name of 'culture'. Given the interweaving of culture and religion, could this advocacy conflict with her opposition to the teaching of religious, i.e. Christian beliefs, in schools ?

Something similar is occurring in some parts of Australia, along with the bizarre teaching of the equivalence of Aboriginal and western science, mathematics, astronomy, etc. - in fact, it seems to be routine in some parts to suggest that Indigenous science is vastly superior to western science. No, I'm not joking.

What effect might this have on impressionable children ? Certainly, knowledge of Indigenous maths (one, two, more than two) and astronomy ('we had a name for every star'), etc. should be taught with a sense of wonder at some of its ingenuity, but in its right context and without any suspension of disbelief - that the Indigenous focus on magic and secrecy should also be elaborated.

Just saying :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Paul said to pray without ceasing, so the removal of Christianity from public schools will mean the removal of Christian students from public schools which makes the schools no longer 'public' and will need of a new source of funding as a result. The education system itself will need to be re-organised more generally so that religious and non-religious people aren't paying for the others indoctrination which is fair enough.

I agree with those who point out that there is an overlap between religion and traditional culture. I do not agree that there are a significant number of folk in either NZ or Oz who "Pray without ceasing", Paul or no Paul. That is simply silly nonsense.

The inevitable future will include reduced reliance on learned practices such as prayer, karaki and, in the Australian context, observance of Aboriginal and Islander rituals.

They will progressively be replaced by humanist and rationally determined teachings and practices - of this there can be little doubt.

The primary question in all cases is not "If?", but "When and how fast will this happen?"

Special interest pleadings, such as we have just read in this article, are very interesting and clearly come from the heart. They must be respected, but also recognised for what they are.

There are way too many people claiming they know how to raise my child better then me.

I read this article from a reverse view point. In Australia, I avoid the public school system because it is too secular and has fallen for an irrational (IMO) "Rainbow Flag" view and resulting indoctrination. Fortunately I can send my child to another school nearby that suits my view point.

Not all religion is irrational. And there is no neutral view point (like secularism) that should be taught in schools; that's just another religion. Tolerance is the key, however it should be limited to views that are compatible with democratic freedom.

//Not all religion is irrational.//

Yeah it is. Faith, by definition, is irrational and religions are based on faith.

//that's just another religion//

Secularism is not a religious position like atheism or monotheism; it is simply the principle that religion and the state should be separate. This protects religions from state interference and states from religious interference and I think it's a jolly good idea.

Hi Peter,

Nobody here has yet advocated 'secularism', however that might be taught (although they seem to keep trying it in France), but most certainly secular ideas, which affect and include everybody, should be promoted (see above).

Karl Popper writes that we all have both 'reason' and 'faith' - he himself spoke of his faith in reason, in the scientific method, of trial and error, of the importance of making mistakes and learning from them. Clearly, he also had faith (but not an uncritical faith) in humanity.

In his view, reason and faith operated on different planes, and each could not really be defended or refuted from one plane or the other.

Sounds good enough to me.

Joe

Herein is but another rant against Christainity, accompanied by the cacophony of shrill anti-Christain conga liners!

Maybe if a Jew had written this article, it would make sense!

So, now we know that a certain Ms. McCarthy, tucked away in little New Zealand, is against the teaching of anything to do with Christianity in State schools there. Why do we need to know this? It is not uncommon among humanists

Around 200 convicted Kiwi criminals waiting to be deported from Australia might have benefited from a little Christian teaching. The "dogma" could have kept them on the straightand narrow.

The benefits of Western culture 'imposed' on the Maori are actually based on Christianity. Maoris, like all other New Zealanders, are free to make what they will of Christianity, but whether they know it or not, you cannot have the benefits if Western culture without its influence. Just likevAustralia. And, just like Australia, New Zealand could not have the "cultural diversity" Ms. McCarthy seems to accept, without Christianity.

The best thing that could happen for both NZ and Australia is not the removal of a Christian grounding (it's hardly anything else) from State scools, but the removal of education from the State.

And, when railing against "imposed religious beliefs" (Christian ones only, it seems), the lady should remember that we have had 'multiculturalism' imposed on us, not always for the good. Without Christianity, and the freedoms it gives, we would have Islam imposed on us by now.

Secularism, and atheism for that matter, is a religion the way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

We sent our daughter to a state school at age 6, and one day she came home and said someone taught them a whole lot of silly tales about this Jesus person doing magic and said he was real. "But you don't have to worry about me, Mummy" she said. "I stuck my fingers in my ears.". We switched her to a superstition-free independent school where she never had to stick her fingers in her ears again. A human right that every child in the land should have.

Maoris were known cannibals while secularism has an atrocious violent record. The author should not let his Christophobic nature shine so dimly. I would think any rational person would be grateful for Christian values. Then again rationalist believe the gw myth.

JohnBennets wrote:

"They will progressively be replaced by humanist and rationally determined teachings and practices - of this there can be little doubt."

To which Peter L. replied: "Not all religion is irrational."

*

I would like to point out that none of what we do in life is rational, that there are no rational practices - neither religious nor humanist.

Nature does not dictate any "should"s or "ought"s, so adopting these cannot be a rational conclusion, but is an irrational act.
Once we adopted a particular value, then of course we can proceed rationally to try to live accordingly, but the basis of doing so is necessarily irrational.

For example, many take it for granted that it is better to live than to die, but in fact there is nothing rational about it - it's only a subjective preference.
Once one decides that they want to continue living, only then they may take rational steps to stay alive.

*

Toni Lavis then adds:

"Faith, by definition, is irrational"

Very true - and so is faith in humanity. Both are irrational.

It's not wrong to be irrational - we all are!

>> To take the mind of a child and teach them about religion as if it were an established fact, …<<

What else is religion (as a social and psychological phenomenon, in distinction to a set of beliefs about e.g. the “Supernatural”) other than an “established fact”? The same as science (whether at its present or pre-Newton and pre-Darwin stages), or for that matter other human endeavour, are established (social) facts.

Doesn’t the teacher tell children that it is a “fact” that nothing is faster than light without herself understanding Einstein’s theory, not to speak being able to explain it to them; or what a GPS is for, without herself understanding how its working is based on relativity theory?

Or are the children to be denied any access to achievements of the human intellect accumulated over centuries which for a small child can only be explained as “facts”, a term a philosopher (e.g. of science} ora theologian would not use that easily?

It is terribly sad for the future well-being and freedom of today's children, not only in New Zealand, but all across the West, that the foundation-stone of what the West was built on is being steadily demolished by people who have absolutely no understanding of what they are talking about.
Anyone who disagrees that the West - and all its many benefits for humankind - came about because Christianity was used as the 'guide' for a safe and progressive freedom of all humans is simply ignorant of the truth.
While it is a fact that there were - and still are - downsides to the imposition of Christian values, the reality is that Christianity has proved itself to be by far the best 'system' for human wellness.
Using as a yardstick human freedom, wellness and opportunity for individuals to reach their maximum personal potential, Christianity stands far above any other system.
When one honestly considers the 'backwardness' of people who were previously living under any other culture - especially Australian Aborigine and NZ Maori - then there is no doubt that Christianity brought them enormous benefits, even if, as was not uncommon, it had to be 'forced' upon them.
And now they abuse the uniquely Christian principle of freedom of speech in seeking to destroy the hand that still so bountifully feeds them.

G'day Peter,

Here's a brilliant suggestion from Huntington for all of us to think about:

'The great political ideologies of the twentieth century include liberalism socialism, anarchism, corporatism, Marxism, communism, social democracy, conservatism, nationalism, fascism, and Christian democracy.

'They all share one thing in common: they are products of western civilization. No other civilization has generated significant political ideology. The West, however, has never generated a major religion.

'The great religions of the world are all products of non-Western civilizations and, in most cases, pre-date Western civilization. As the world moves out of its Western phase, the ideologies which typified late Western civilization decline, and their place is taken by religions and other culturally based forms of identity and commitment.' [Clash of Civilizations, pp. 53-54]

One could add that all those Western-derived ideologies had, indirectly, at least some of their roots in Christianity, modified in turn from its Judaic roots by the philosophies of Greece, Rome and the Middle East of two thousand years ago. In some ways, Christianity was, after all, a grab-bag of ideologies as well as a grab-bag of fractious religious sects.

As an atheist, I have no problem with tracing some of the origins of those 'western' ideologies ultimately back to one of those grab-bags, and I'm ever thankful for it :)

Cheers,

Joe
www.firztsources.info

PeterForde

While I agree with much of what you say about Christianity being a basis for our culture and while not perfect, it's a good code by which to live. I have always considered this to be true. My argument is that of what I call the the three basic tenets of religion, namely philosophy, mythology and superstition, the latter two seem to have an undue influence that are controlled by faith which makes claims and rules that are not consistent with modern acceptance.

Joe, while your response appears to be 'learned', there is much inaccuracy – or deliberate deception.
You write, "the great political ideologies of the twentieth century include liberalism socialism, anarchism, corporatism, Marxism, communism, social democracy and fascism.”
Each of those has resulted in social disaster. In fact, they are all different shades of the same (anti-Christian) thing. After decades as a supposed paragon of social democracy, Sweden is now the latest to prove that fact.
Therefore, describing those ideologies as 'great' - in comparison to Christianity – is plainly wrong and misleading.
Furthermore, you incorrectly include conservatism and nationalism in the group. These are branches of the primary ideologies and are either 'good' or 'evil' according to their primary base.
Nationalism - as in 'Nazi' - was infinitely 'evil.'
Nationalism - as in American Patriotism - was the 'good' force that destroyed the Nazi evil
You state that those ‘other’ ideologies are all “products of Western Civilisation.”
Nope. They were ‘rebellions against Christian-based WestCiv’ invented by people who – within their Christian societies – were free to rebel. Marx would have been quickly killed had he been living in an Islam-controlled society.
You correctly state that “'The … religions of the world are all products of non-Western civilizations and, in most cases, pre-date Western civilization…”
That's an irrelevant attempt at smoke-screening; Christianity became the foundation of societies that, over the past 300 years, progressed and developed in a manner vastly superior to those societies that did not have a Christian base. Only this fact is relevant.
The same for your words… “Christianity was, after all, a grab-bag of ideologies as well as a grab-bag of fractious religious sects.”
So what?
It worked – and will always work - better than all others, much like a Mercedes is a “grab-bag of plastic, glass and metal” and also perfectly serves its purpose.
Some atheists present very persuasively – until one digs and realises that their intent is only always to destroy Christianity – and yet offer in its place nothing EVER proved to be more beneficial to human wellness.

Hi Peter,

I was quoting Huntington, and certainly don't believe that all of those ideologies were 'great' or positive, certainly not - merely that, out of the multitudinous interactions of various off-shoots of various Christian strands, serendipitously or inadvertently or, anyway, indirectly, there was some 'permission' for an opening-up of freer thought, good and bad, particularly - in conjunction with the rampant development of capitalism, and of democracy - over the last 200 years.

The multiple and uncontrolled development of ideologies over the last few hundred years in the West, is a bit like Edison's search for a working light-bulb filament - two thousand experiments which didn't work, but perhaps one which did.

Very cautiously, and bearing in mind that no ideology can be, or will ever be, 'perfect' - that quest is itself foolish, Utopian and frankly smells too much like a retreat to religious certainty and the yearning for the strong hand of a God here on Earth - I might tentatively suggest that some ideology, a sort of blend of social democracy and liberalism [my god, as a lefty, what am I saying ?!] might be the most workable. And perhaps, eventually, even in the non-West as well.

Certainly, we should dip our lids to Christianity but move on.

Joe

Loudmouth, to you the article author & all other commenter's.

Q, is this yet another attempt by loyal members of radical, extreme religious cults to replace moderate, rational Christianity with either atheistic, left wing religion or Polynesian Paganism?

The following statement will be 'heresy' to most Australians - deserving of the most aggressive abuse and vilification.
Yet it is nevertheless correct.
The best form of social management has been been proved by an age-old principle practised without exception across all societies.
A ship must only have one captain if it is to have the best chance of safely reaching port.
A 'true' Christian-moral based, benevolent dictatorship is the "least worst" solution to ensure the society does not lose its way and collapse into anarchy.
Singapore, while not 'Christian-based' does evidence that the principle is as best as is possible, given human failings.
The risk of the 'dictatorship' falling into the wrong hands can be minimised by, as was done in some societies, including Buddhists, 'grooming' (brainwashing) the future leader(s) from infancy into being a truly moral, non-greedy, non-self-serving benevolent adult.
That said, even such an approach has risks - just like all others, only less so.
For example, few know (here comes more burn-him-at-the-stake 'heresy') that the Dalai Lama is the biggest fraud on the planet. But that's another story.
The bottom line is to devise a system that has the least potential for extensive human harm and least potential to be corrupted and abused. Even the 'great' American experiment - the best ever undertaken - is now being destroyed by those who found evil ways to get around the often unwritten 'rules.'
This is my final post - I just don;t have the time.And anyway, as I wrote in an essay some five years ago, all everybody has been doing is 'Blah, blah, blah, while ever our society relentlessly heads for disaster occasioned by.... yep .. the total loss of Christian-based moral values in our leaders.

Hi Peter,

Welcome back to the eighteenth century :) or to the world of present-day dictators. Can you name a single present-day dictator who you would be happy to live under, and for the rest of us to live under ? Or do you have an 'ideal dictator' in mind from the past ?

No system is perfect, and no system ever will be, nothing is o swill be. Democracy is always going to be a work-in-progress, and it will depend on us, the populace, to try to keep it working as well as possible. Everything else is either rubbish or, yet again, (in the spirit of the perfect being the enemy of the good) a striving for some Utopia, which inevitably leads to fascism of one sort or another.

Joe

Joe,

"
Certainly, we should dip our lids to Christianity but move on."

We have already moved on, and that's been one of our biggest mistakes.

The way that I see it, the biggest problem between the Maori and Christians, or the Australian Aboriginals and the first settlers is simple. One did not extinguish the other.

We talk of "religion" as if it were a preferred shop. I might prefer coles to woolies, or kmart to target, or athiesm to christianity. Religion is much more a culture than a shop and should be recognised as such. The 10 commandments were not given to the Israelites while they were under Egyptian rule, but rather after they had fled to be used as a foundation of a new nation.

Christianity is designed to run independent of government. If lived properly, and I repeat properly, it would create amongst the believers a new nation, a new society that would look totally different to what we have today.

This is not to say that one is better that the other, but to simply say that they would be, and are supposed to be, different. It is in the big picture, the macro-societal results of those differences that would show, in the short-medium and long term which was "better".

Two cultures are not supposed to be able to dwell in the same land united in all things. Because, obviously, if they were united in all things they would be one culture not two. Thus when there are differences there will be conflict. Where there is conflict there is hate. Where there is hate there is rejection.

A good example is the Jews. For thousands of years they lived without land to call home, yet they were still Jewish. Even those who live in modern day Israel that are not very religious are still Jews and recognise how their nation came to be.

Dear Joe,

<<Can you name a single present-day dictator who you would be happy to live under, and for the rest of us to live under?>>

What an unfair question, akin to "Whom do you love more - Mom or Dad?".

For the individual at the receiving end of the stick, it matters not whether the dictator is a single person or a democratic majority.

Had I been an Arab/Muslim, then I would certainly want to live under King Abdullah of Jordan, well over any Arab democracy. Morocco under King Mohammed VI would also be a good option.

The fact that I personally wouldn't fit in the Arab culture has nothing to do with the type of regime. Assuming I HAD to live in an Arab country, then Jordan would be my first choice, followed by Morocco.

---

Well said, Prebs:

"Two cultures are not supposed to be able to dwell in the same land united in all things."

Yet this does not preclude people of different cultures from living in the same land while NOT united in all things. When each has their autonomy, where's the need for conflict and hate?

Interestingly that's where government and law come into effect. For anything that the two [any number] of cultures are united in then there is no need for laws. Every law that has been put into place since the dawn of Australia as we know it has been because of a difference in culture, a difference in opinion in what is acceptable and what is not.

PeterForde, spot on, conservative christianity is the best system in world history by a country mile. the left just hate the workers getting a fair deal.

Loudmouth, poor Joe, democracy is not & never ever has been a work in progress. the basics are written in stone, have been for centuries, every time you members of the ruling, left wing elites work on it the workers get poorer.

ttbn, correct again.

Prebs, perfect assessment but the Aboriginals & Polynesians don't need to be destroyed just learn from us. Add the best of conservative christianity to the best of their culture & we all move on together, as we were before Multi Culti was invented.

Yuyutsu, Multi Culti was invented by Trotskyists at the height of the cold war to create conflict & hate so our society would fail.

Prebs again, we brought a complete set of laws with us when we arrived. all changes in law over the last century were designed by communists to create poverty.

Dear Imacentristmoderate,

I didn't mention "Multi Culti" or this Trotsky of yours, nor do I want conflict and hate, but if in order for your society to prosper it must force itself on other people who live on the land who are not interested in its ways, then I look forward to the downfall of that society (that of course includes Trostky's own communist society, which already collapsed, thanks be to God).

Hi Iamacentristmoderatewanker,

Democracy 'set in stone' ? I'm not sure what you mean. When was it set in stone ? When has it ever worked perfectly, yet ? I'll stick to what I wrote:

'No system is perfect, and no system ever will be, nothing is or will be. Democracy is always going to be a work-in-progress, and it will depend on us, the populace, to try to keep it working as well as possible.

'Everything else is either rubbish or, yet again, (in the spirit of the perfect being the enemy of the good) a striving for some Utopia, which inevitably leads to fascism of one sort or another.'

Genuine democracy needs constant work, with the participation of as many of the populace as possible. I'd better repeat that: with the participation of as many of the populace as possible. So much for your strange notions of 'elite'.

I have to agree with Churchill that it's a miserable system, but better than any other yet devised. But you may know better, so like Barnsfather, I'd advise you that

"Well, If you knows of the better 'ole, go to it."

Joe

Yuyutsu, the British Empire is the kindest, gentlest colonizer in world history. All former British African colonies want them to come back since the Chinese took over.

Loudmouth, i hear where you are coming from but you are misinterpreting history. Democracy is NOT "a work in progress". Like the laws of the Universe & Physics. The Democratic ground rules never change. Constant work refers to the people doing their job of being involved, NOT changing the ground rules & then wondering why the system does not work any more.

Dear Imacentristmoderate,

<<All former British African colonies want them to come back since the Chinese took over.>>

A colony (or a former colony) has no wants - only individuals do.