Dear Spencer,

Regarding religious educators, I was referring to the "Recruiting" paragraphs in the article's two PDF attachments. It was therefore my impression that the governments' strategy is to hit at that level, rather than at individual children.

I understand that you have further evidence.

Of course the whole thing is very disturbing, yet it's a war: I find it hard to understand why would any parent send their tender children behind enemy lines. Nevertheless, if a child is indeed well prepared and armed by their parents, I can't see how a child who knows which side they are on could be "disciplined" - in some countries they would be physically beaten or even killed, but in Australia? What if the child in response turns the other cheek? What if they defiantly march around the schoolyard shouting "Jesus lives!"? With the parents behind, what is there to be afraid of?

AJ Philips,

Here you go again with your denial: <<No, it was not the argument from ignorance because I did not appeal to your inability to point out a fallacy on my behalf as evidence that I had committed one. I was simply stating that I had not yet committed a fallacy>>.

You appealed to my ignorance in not knowing the meaning of certain fallacies, but you gave no examples. You definitely committed the Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy.

Why don't we get back to the topic of this article? Is it right under Human Rights Conventions to discriminate against children who speak the name of Jesus? Bill O'Chee wrote:

"The real problem is that the Education Department is on a dunderheaded crusade that puts it in breach of at least two international human rights treaties. At the core is the idea the Department will tell pupils what they can and cannot say or think. This is contrary to every tenet of Australian political freedom.... restrictions on freedom of speech are generally kept to an absolute minimum.

"This is in line with the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18 of which provides: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom… to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching."

"Article 19 goes even further. It states: 'Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference'"

Therefore the censorship of Christian talk on Qld school campuses is not only against Civil and Political Rights, but also in contravention of international human rights' treaties. The Qld govt should support these conventions and not allow the promotion of Christian censorship on the school grounds.

So now I'm in denial, OzSpen?

<<You appealed to my ignorance in not knowing the meaning of certain fallacies, but you gave no examples.>>

No I didn’t. I simply pointed out that your understanding of, and ability to identify, the common fallacies was atrocious. At no point did I appeal to it as evidence of anything.

To support your claim, you need to explain how I relied on your ignorance. Simply applying your own subjective interpretation of why I noted your scatter-gun approach to identifying fallacies isn't enough. Worse still, it's dishonest.

According to your loose understanding of the Argument from Ignorance, anyone who simply points out another's the lack of knowledge on a topic is guilty of the fallacy. Such a broad scope would render the fallacy meaningless.

<<Why don't we get back to the topic of this article?>>

You’re welcome to, and I can see why you’d be eager to. Personally, I think it’s been adequately addressed. So, unless you want to provide me with some evidence for your god, I’m done here.

Just an observation, so far the conversation stems along the lines of

1). The actual article defending the religous right to speak. (Defended quite well since none of the original article is actually quoted to critique or counterpoint. That should be noted in it's merit)
2). Those who disagree with religion in general, and think of it as a con job, poison, or otherwise thing it should be shunned and removed from schools and society.
3). And the commenters who defend the rights for religion, as well as those who hold and share their beliefs in their religion as part of the discussion.

With that in mind, if this article is true that Australia is considering changing it's policies with religion and schools, then there is one more point to address. It's whether such a change holds any merrit and is worth restricting the children from their freedom of speach or the community around the school from observing their faiths.

This goes into more then just an umbrella approach of clustering all religions together, because if there is a merited reason for this change and the harm it proposes then there has to be a greater harm among those religions. A danger to society to people in general or something of a nefarious nature. Though I can not speak for other religions, I can say that my experience as a Christian does not meet the type of censorship that could be reserved for dangourous orginizations, removing gangs, or national security.

Again there could be an argument for a different religion, but in my experience churches do what they can to help their community. For the poor, the widowed, the homeless, the sick, the imprisoned, and those who are in a bad place in their life. In fact there are bible teachings to act in such ways.

For such a community builder to be scrunitinized in a school setting where children should be free to speak freely, there needs to be a counter threat worth removing that freedom in the school Systems.

One last observation. People are taking sides for religion or against religion. Instead of seeing rights and liberties taken because you are unhappy with the people, or their beliefs. The only reason to volunteerily remove our rights and liberties are if there is a harm or a danger, such as gang activity, terrorists and national security or something else on that nature. As far as I'm aware religion does not meet that standard.

' but in my experience churches do what they can to help their community. For the poor, the widowed, the homeless, the sick, the imprisoned, and those who are in a bad place in their life. In fact there are bible teachings to act in such ways. '

I suspect that is most people's experience Not_Now.Soon.

Compare that with the bullies whose world is one of self absorption, sexual perversion and wanting those opposed to their sick world view silenced and even taken to court. This has been the experience of many in countries that have gone down this sick path. The slogan 'love wins'is just another perversion of language.