Put together a portfolio of Muslims stories. You'll be booked out.

And people wonder why the state system is being abandoned!

The denial of our heritage and culture is essential for those in the Department of Education, as the Critical Theories it champions view the western tradition as instrinsically corrupt... marxist critiques call it bourgeoise, feminists call it patriarchal, post-colonialists call it imperialistic, and so on, and so forth. Instead of embracing the most complete, profound and magnificent tradition in the world, students are asked to explain why the system is opressive and exclusive. If anyone doubts me, go to the NSW Board of Studies website and look at the 2 unit English course... the recommended readings are all denials of the western tradition, and are described as "exciting" and "controversial".

The political correctness which drives curriculum change also drives the self-censorship on which the Departments of Education have thriven.

You were presenting yourself as an entertainer,displaying the story from your culture/background, in a presentable format so as to teach the children/audience a story of moral, cultural ,educational, and easy to recall, as to tell their friends and family {recommend}, entertainment. I do not see what part the Education Department had to complain, or disapprove, after all you were there to ‘entertain the students.

I too have past experiences of “you must go to Church, as you are living under our roof, abide by our rules.”This carried on many years after I married, especially when I visited my elder brother, who was, & still is With the Pentecostal faith, but that is getting away from your topic, and our Queensland Education Department would not approve.

The departments of education should turn their zeal on the efforts of the religious right to push their agenda into various levels of government.

In my most paranoid moods I suspect that secularism has become a covert force in our society that seeks to eliminate anything to do with the spiritual. “Spiritual” here does not mean spooky, unearthly, or ghostly, it means the kind of reality that cannot be proved in laboratories but which is essential for us to be human. Donna’s experience is one of many in which the voice of the spirit is removed from the public square. It is significant that the stories of other cultures are admissible as if the powers that be know that they will have less power to connect with us than our own stories. It is our stories that they are scared of because these stories paint a different picture to what being human means that is directly opposed to that of secularization. Robert Jenson has written an article called “How the World Lost its Story ( http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9310/articles/jenson.html) that explains the depth of the loss and how it came about.

I have listened to my children as they went through school and university and have been dumbfounded at the extent to which the West was blamed for all manner of evil. This has produced a hatred of the West and a romantic overestimate of other cultures that are deemed, in some way, to be natural. It seems to me that there was not even an attempt at balance, no attempt at recognizing the enormous good the West has produced as well as the bad. But you only have to look at the societies of the world to realize that the Judeo-Christian tradition has produced societies that attract people from all over the world. Sure we have our problems, but the levels of corruption, poverty, violence, neglect are insignificant compared to the societies produced by the countries whose stories we are allowed to tell in school. As I keep saying, if you get the theology wrong, you get everything wrong. If you begin with stories that do not reveal the truth you will get deranged communities that are the product of these stories

Leigh you have missed the point of the stories because many heads of education saw through the soft /religious/political propaganda disguised as a story, it is a pity you have to show your bigotry by mocking Muslims,

Nicely put article. I share your frustration. I don't think in Australia it's as bad as in America though, where the freedom of religious expression is used as a means of justifying reigious oppression. (Its like 'You're not allowed to discuss your religion in class- because we have freedom of religion').

I also agree with this quote:

"view the western tradition as instrinsically corrupt... marxist critiques call it bourgeoise, feminists call it patriarchal, post-colonialists call it imperialistic, and so on, and so forth. Instead of embracing... students are asked to explain why the system is opressive and exclusive."

I graduated high school in 2004 and after a gap year started uni this year (which is why I haven't been on OLO much lately... but I miss you guys!) and its TOTALLY like that.

Dear Donna
my heart goes out to you in your situation, because it is ours also (Christians).
We enjoy and learn from the same stories, and as you clearly underlined, at one time not so long ago "Christmas and Easter were an intrinsic part of every student’s life"

How far we have fallen. Now we have the ACT chief minister trying 'back door' tactics to legitimize unions which at one time would have resulted in a death sentence. (and still do in some places)

In spite of the severity of such punishments, when we look at the direction of society which has lost its moral anchor (I deliberately say 'direction' rather than 'condition' because it is worsening daily)
and note the OVERT (Sells) attacks on all things Judao Christian, perhaps God had a point about "severe punishments" for "abominable acts".
How long before we see horny men or 'in season' women copulating with animals in the street ? Is this intrinsically immoral/evil ? Not if you believe post modern thought.

But speaking as a Christian, the most I (we) can do is 'vote', and to share Christ with as many as God would lead us to. Christian reconstructionists may wish to return to the Law of Moses, but I prefer the Grace of Christ. (which was fulfillment of the Law anyway.. "I will write my law on their HEARTS" Jeremiah 30.31)

Social and moral conditions were similar to NOW just prior to the 2nd evangelical awakening, perhaps we will se a 3rd.. when mens hearts are wrent assunder by an awareness of eternity and the fearful prospect of facing it outside of Christ, stubbornly clinging to the "flesh".

One thing is for sure, hardened hearts and dulled spirits will not be awoken by namby pamby, softly softly, 'take it easy' Christianity.
Only Spirit filled, Christ empowered, Grace enabled, fearlessly bold and courageous proclamation of the Kingdom of God and its soon coming King will shake us our of our complacency.

Donna..time to go to the creek and gather some small smooth stones :)
Goliath awaits.

I find the story told here depressing.

The author seems to be a reasonably articulate adult. Why did she not tell the apparatchik exactly what to do with their critique?

Is the "advice" given to her by this faceless bureaucrat taken from some book of rules somewhere? If so, why is this not referred to in the article?

It is spineless reactions like this - weeping and wailing about "political correctness" - that will ensure that these moronic functionaries continue to believe that they can get away with such drivel.

Challenge them.

Take them on.

Defy them.

I'll wager my next week's salary that there is no written rule that says "no Jewish stories", or "all fables must be religion-free". This is just a sour old soul playing a solo game of "get the artist", simply because they have not got the imagination to tell colourful stories themselves.

Unless and until we take a stand and ask "show me where it says..." we will continue to experience the dead hand of pseudo-correctness, delivered by such mealy-mouthed servants of the State.

I put this in the same category as those illegal speeding fines recently uncovered in NSW. Only because “someone” stood up and said hey, this isn't right, did the whole sorry fiasco come to light. The government were not playing by their own rules, and were found out.

I suspect this is the same. The “rules” are being bent. Writing about it in drama-laden terms in order to garner sympathy for an artist's dilemma is not, however, the way to address it.

And Boaz, please put away your “making it up as you go along” mantra, just for a while. It doesn't help.

>>How long before we see horny men or 'in season' women copulating with animals in the street ? Is this intrinsically immoral/evil ? Not if you believe post modern thought. <<

Name me one person who believes that “copulating with animals in the street” is acceptable social behaviour.

You are just doing your “look-at-me” bit again, aren't you?

mangotreeone1,

What an arrogant ponce you are.

From my reading, I learn that Japan has for the years since the war, taught the Japanese school children that Japan has never done any wrong.
For the past three decades, Australians have been taught that the West and Australians have never done anything right.
Secularism is fine so long as it stays neutral but it has been used to attack us as racist,bigotted and cruel. And that God must be kept out of everything which includes our schools ,our festivals and our seasonal shops.
The politically correct have foisted their grey,matted,ugly ideology on everything they could get in their slimey hands .
We all need a little fantasy and we need the comfort of a loving God in our lives.

I started school in 1940 in England at 6 years old. I always enjoyed stories from the Old and New Testaments and they didn't do me any harm, possibly because I recognised them as "stories". I never, for example, accepted Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark as factual accounts, common sense told me otherwise. I also enjoyed Hans Christian Anderson and Aesop's Fables.

I think I must have been an unusually logical kid. I figured out for myself at the age of 3 that Father Christmas was impossible. At 8, I had consciously rejected the traditional English class system. I won a scholarship when I was 10 to a school which put great importance on Christian principles and immediately recognised the hypocrisy.

I was nominally Anglican, but at 15 had realised that much of the Apostles' Creed was, to me, incorrect or irrelevant.

But I still believe that a nice part of childhood is to hear the stories from ancient literature [and not just Biblical], told in a positive, non-judgemental, non-manipulative way. The Good Samaritan, for instance. We can relate the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, national/international aid and charity agencies and the wonderful responses to disaster appeals to an ancient man who unselfishly went to the aid of someone from another culture who he didn't even know.

My family, by birth and marriage includes [alphabetically] Balinese, French, German, Irish, Jewish, Portugese, Russian and Scottish. My lady friend is Japanese. Think I can't both tell and take a so-called racist joke? As long as it's a joke of course. But officially we're not allowed to.

But whilst political correctness has gone mad, the religious right is allowed to infiltrate society and government unchecked. Spot on, Bruce. And that's why, David, the ACT chief minister has to use "back door" tactics simply to give other Australians a fair go.

I smiled at Leigh's snappy comment. OK mangotreeone, I know I've never "walked a mile in your moccasins", but I believe that if I was a moderate Muslim, the kind that some of us have as friends, I would still have smiled.

mangotreeone1, Yes, I agree, you are correct. I would love to know what Bible story Leigh got his response from. And Jesus said: "You're a ponce, Peter. And a f#*king c#*t to boot".

I don't think this issue has anything to do with political correctness. It is about maintaining a secular school system. Religious folk can find plenty of opportunities to teach their children the Bible's lessons. The Bible is first and foremost a religious text. If you tell nice stories from the Bible, that is fine, but you must expect your public school children to be told nice stories from the Koran. (There is fair bit of x rated rubbish in all religious texts.) That is only fair.

My children have been told by religious instruction teachers that religions other than Christianity, indeed, even some Christian denominations other than the teacher's, are evil. Or, as the Catholics say, they are "lost souls". Sounds like the original sin of pride to Rancitas.

Once again let me say that I don't think it harmful if Bible-based stories are told but they must not be presented as The only valid way or religion. The more cultures children are exposed to the better. But it must be in a secular, non-preaching, non-coercive way and I don't think that is going to happen. Especially, with all the right-wing religious fanatics about. (Horizons)

My wife, who is a Baha'i, spent 3 years teaching Baha'i SRE (Special Religious Education) classes at the local state school (NSW). The level of hostility she encountered from the Christian (especially Anglican) scripture teachers had to be seen to be believed. They treated her as a heathern who was poaching souls. The classes my wife taught educated on all the world's major religions- from Zoroastrianism to Hinduism to Christianity and Islam.

The principal invited her classes to take part in the end of year school SRE extravaganza. The Anglicans objected and threatened not to participate, it was THEIR show and no namby-pamby Bahai's were going to be involved. The Catholic teachers had been warned off years ago and the principal had to back off. My wife's classes were crushed as they had been practicing

These narrow-minded so-called "Christians" behaved in an abominable fashion, but I guess you can't expect anything better from Sydney Anglicans, who believe they have a monopoly on truth. Thank God THEY don't have control of our state school system.

Are you people serious? Leigh was spot on, good on you.

If anybody really doubts the xenophobia from the majority of Muslims in our school system, you need to read into it, as I have.

Remember the easter hat parade? Well, I remember doing it at school in Kindergarten in 1983, but they had so many complaints they canned it, and the easter chocolate egg hunt.

What was overtly religious about these events?

It's the same in the local plaza's with Muslims regularly complaining about Nativity Scenes.

Never mind that I am actually totally outraged whenever I walk past a woman wearing a burqa, a woman who is nothing other than an object to her husband, not a person.

I feel offended at that as I subscribe to the enlightenment values of western Europe that my forefathers developed, you know, human rights?

I have the HREOC report from the Children In Detention fiasco, which stated that Muslims were so intolerant they wouldn't even sit at the same dining table or share cutlery with kaffir.

Don't doubt their xenophobia for a millisecond. I grew up in Fairfield and only moved to the coast five years ago.

Our country is fast going down the gurgler, but nobody seems to care. People ought to remember that without our Christian heritage, and no I'm not religious, where we got our values of tolerance of other cultures, acceptance, forgiveness, and so on, we would likely be as intolerant of Muslims as they are of us.

Anyone who doesn't see it are lying to themselves. You've been tricked by the 1984'esque teachings of our leftist education department, you know, that only whites can be racist, that sort of thing.

We are accomodating a culture that resorts to guns to solve disputes, on the whole, utterly barbaric.

I can see you love a good story, Donna, and you've obviously decided not to let the truth get in the way of this one.

As pointed out by Rancitas, ours is a secular society and our public education system must reflect that fact. The Education Department official was quite correct to question your inclusion of bible stories and references to God in an otherwise innocuous collection of folktales.

Bible stories and references to God should not be allowed to pop up willy-nilly all over the curriculum. They should only appear during religious education lessons when children can recognise them clearly for what they are.

You bemoan the demise of the Judeo-Christian influence in public schools. I wouldn't worry too much if I were you. Most public schools include a weekly dose of religious education and it is invariably delivered by a representative from a Christian church and often quite an extreme or fundamentalist one at that. Very few schools offer a truly critical and non-denominational religious education program which seeks to educate students about all the world's faiths and religions. Most of what's on offer is indoctrination rather than education.

I don't know why you're complaining anyway. If you don't like the idea of a secular and inclusive education, there are now any number of Christian schools to choose from - and all handsomely sudsidised by the taxpayer.

Our society is becoming a pagan society. Secularism has infiltrated every strata of society that the name God is becoming foul. I have had my own knocks but we must not shy off and keep our mouths shut. We must continue to voice what we believe just like the muslims and the homosexuals and other minority groups that are allowed to be heard because of their minority status. The rest of us are called to be tolerant and understanding. This is the way terrorism tends to make inroads and then we wonder why our children are rejecting everything that is good and noble. Morals go down the drain and what is best for me is what remains. God help us all.

Stories, well what about this one? Cres Eastman is a good example of humanitarianism with a dose of medical science that blows away prayers to fantasy teddies and spooky beliefs in teddy magic. Two decades ago, an eminent Australian Doctor went into the mountain villages of the Tibetan Plateau. What he saw confounded him. 13% of the population were born with cretinism. Cres Eastman knew that the problem in Tibet was iodine deficiency.

This is the story of a man who saved a million brains ..... a doctor’s crusade to save the brains of children in Tibet and Australia from iodine deficiency disorder. He will also say that the most important human right you've got is to realise the intelligence you've inherited from your parents. Here we have a brilliant story that happens to be true, overcomes serious political problems and cuts through religious issues to deliver health to a people steeped in superstition. One such irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear was how people were saying, ......" if you feed this salt to the animals, they won't get baby animals."

The point I'm making is that there are many great stories and not just Eurocentric ones, that come from the present and the past, that develop wisdom and curiosity for young and old. These need to be told and reflected upon.

e.g.
I always remember my mother loved telling me stories about the wisdom of north American Indians. I sometime remind her and thank her for her deep love. But do people know that Ben Franklin based much of American democracy on the Iroquois political system? There are many people who think that the democratic tradition evolved primarily from the Greeks and the English. but not so ...... The people of the Six Nations had the oldest living participatory democracy on Earth.

To Bronwyn and Keiran

Our society is the one we MAKE it by our democractic involvement in it. Given that 69% of Australians are believers in God and have some kind of Christian tradition,.. if u don't MIND... I hereby declare that Australia is a 'Christian flavored liberal democracy'.

Now.. if you believe in freedom and democracy, you could not find fault with my last statement. The existence of some creepy crawly secularists who think they run the show, does not a secular nation make.

The pre-amble to our constitution says "Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God".....

The point Donna was making is that she was not taken to task for OTHER religious content in her other stories.. but they are EQUALLY religious to those who adhere to them, she was taken to task in a blatantly and deliberately discriminatory manner over the Judao/Christian flavor of some of her stories.

So, our education department should catch up with where the people are 'at' and wake up to itself.

Haven't you noticed the little signs that our politicians are alerted to this situation by now emphasizing the "Christmas themes are good"
kind of comment.

Secularists whine and moan about things being IMPOSED on them.. well guess what.. me and the other 69% of Aussies ALSO don't like the idea of a minority of godless secularists telling us the Education of our children is a 'no God zone'.

Give urselves a pinch and actually THINK about this for a moment....

Bronwyn,
Of course you are quite correct, if we specificly want our children taught a particular religion, we have the choice of sending our children to specific Christian schools. It disturbs me as a Catholic {a poor one at that} that my child may be being taught by a Assembly of God lunatic right preacher. I will now look into this possible situation, thank you for the warning.

Religion should be kept out of public schools completely, if we as parents want to indoctronate our children into our particular churches, we have the option of home teaching, and our church on Sunday. Sadly though many of us will fall foul of Howard's IR laws and not be able to make church because we will be forced to work.

In conclision, we are being deprived of our family time, with our children, and thusly we are unable to pass our religions on to the next generation because we are far too busy making money for our employer, a much bigger problem, it seems without a solition.

It is not new discovery that all we know exists in the form of story. Scientific theories are a kind of story as are ethnic creation myths, faith in progress and technology and the free market. Nihilism is a story, so is atheism and theism. The crucial thing is to identify the true story that describes the human condition; who we are in the world. There are many stories that are not true stories. The novelist as well as the theologian are adept at telling which story is a true story. Try making a film or writing a book that does not rub close to human reality and you will meet failure. Bad stories are literally unbelievable, they do not ring true, and they bear the marks of the creator manipulating his or her audience, trying to please, trying to fit in with the fashion.

I heard Billy Connolly in Perth and he outrageously damned all religion. He made a mockery of Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Moses, scientologists etc. No one was spared. He ended by saying that it is all over, the time in which we are to live religiously under the authority of some freaky, supposedly supernatural event is over! I think he is right. These are just examples of bad stories that cripple the human spirit.

Of course, those who know my articles will know that I will make an exception for the Judeo/Christian tradition and have argued that, strictly, that tradition is not a religion but the end of all religions. Rather than being an authoritarian belief system with a supernatural base, it is properly, the recognition of truth, that Jesus is the one free and true man. There can be no compulsion here, it is up to each one of us to recognise this truth. Neither can there be a sacrifice of rationality, for that would lob us back into religion. It is simply a meeting with what the church has come to call “the crucified and risen one”.

Donna,
Do not be discouraged you are a free living spirit unlike the atheistic rationalists who wish to kill the adventerous spirit in children, as evidenced by their death to life and religion in the above posts.

They want all children indoctrinated in their fatalistic views.

Where I live we have pre-school children 3 - 5 year olds protesting that the Federal Government has not given sufficient funds. This is typical of the death to the mind that these PC left wing atheists want children to adopt. They fail to inspire greatness but indoctrinate infants to become a victim. Thank God for religious freedom that Christianity has given us! Atheists want it removed.

As a Muslim highly commited to interfaith relations, I was delighted when Donna Sife Jacobs generously agreed to offer this lively article for publication on the site I edit, Shalom Pax Salam (www.sps.org.au), which is hosted by the Canberra Islamic Centre and National Islamic Library. I am further delighted to see Donna's piece receive a wider readership on onlineopinion, and to see that it has been so well-received on this forum. I do not think that the problem she highlights relates only to one religion (although I am also disturbed that references to her gestures and accent seem racist as well as anti-religious). The attitude displayed by the education bureaucrats also seems demeaning to the "permitted" spiritual traditions such as Buddhism, since they seem to be allowed in because they are not "really" religion or spirituality - just fun stories for kids. Of course, they are much more than that.
I consider myself strongly commited to secular principles, but that should not mean shutting out all discussion of religion and spirituality. Whether we are believers or non-believers, we enrich our lives by learning about each other's faiths and the stories that have given meaning to the lives of generations of storytellers and listeners.
I think our children deserve to experience Donna's wonderful storytelling, Yiddish accent and all, for themselves, and I will certainly be watching Donna's performance schedule so as to be able to take my own daughter at the first possible opportunity.
Shakira Hussein
Editor, Shalom Pax Salam

Yes, we could possibly do with more religion in schools, but we could very much do with Socratic reasoning as well, which encourages a liberal Christian to think just a little, not to be atheistic, not to take sides, but wonder why historical events have been deliberately left out of primary and high school global history books, yet given significant importance in university history books.

One particular area of history only taught in the Humanities, in fact, is a very significant part of the background of St Thomas Aquinas, who though regarded as one of the greatest Christian thinkers is left out of many curriculums, both religous and secular, mainly because he was also the philosopher who lifted Western society out of the Dark Ages after accepting passages of Aristotlian thought brought into the barbarian West around 1100 AD by Islamic scholars.

Further it so frustrating, that those who try to discuss the above, even among our group, are regarded as either loonie left-wingers or full of old historical pap.

But the saddest truth of all, is that the Christian Church though having honoured Thomas Aquinas by making him a Saint, the Church still fails to mention that Aquinas broke part of the code of a rather misguided faith at the time, by using the gift of reason.

can someone please tell me why you don't see Mr Ifran making comments like these:

"My Faith As an Instrument of Butchery"

Yesterday the Washington Times ran an impassioned column by M. Zuhdi Jasser, chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, calling for a counter-movement within Islam: Cancer in its midst.

During the dark days of our Revolution, Thomas Paine wrote, “That these are the times, that try men’s souls.” As an American Muslim, I feel the sentiment of these words like a red-hot brand on my brain.

I have watched horrified as assassins have read out the words from my Holy Koran before slitting the throats of some poor innocent souls. To my non-comprehending eyes, I have seen mothers proudly support their sons’ accomplishment of blowing up innocent people as they eat or travel. It shatters some part of me, to see my faith as an instrument for butchery.

It makes me hope and pray for some counter-movement within my faith which will push back all this darkness. And I know that it must start with what is most basic — the common truth that binds all religions: “Do unto others, as you would have them do onto you.” The Golden Rule.

But that is not what I am seeing taught in a great deal of the Muslim world today, and, unfortunately, in America it’s just not much better.

Night after night, I see Muslim national organizations like the Council for American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, cry out over and over about anecdotal victimization while saying and doing absolutely nothing about the most vile hate-speak and actions toward Jews and Christians in the Muslim world. It is the most self-serving of outrage.

In response to all those who see in the Christian message a "destruction of the human spirit"...

The relationships to the development of art and culture and Europe and the spread of Christianity and its infusing with reason is widely accepted. The best ones to read on this are Christopher Dawson and Roger Scruton, in my opinion.

The fact is that European civilisation's highest points, the art which is relied upon to a large degree by the secularised west in order to maintain its spiritual capital, was to a large degree a rediscription of the Christian message. What I mean by that is that art and western culture flourished when the Christian message and other cultures, such as those of Ancient Greece and Rome, or the local Christianised tribes, were combined. Modernism was a response to a new theory of the world, one which placed many as the highest thing, and only was maintained as long as what was once ascribed to God could be ascribed to man. The disillusionment caused over the last two-hundred years by the horrors committed by man prepared the ground for our current post-modern culture, which rejects that man can reach any higher understanding of the world or truth, and that everything is just prejudice: that is, modernism failed to keep the moral capital of Christian Europe going, and the subsequent abandonment of that tradition has occured of late.

Yet, the Western tradition, before and after the Enlightenment, is the greatest and most true expression of the Truth of our condition and our nature, and it is (even if not explicitly saying so), a Christian tradition. Wagner's operas are full of Christian redeptive sacrifice, the Englightenment universalism of Beethovan was intriniscally relgious ("Freude, schöner Götterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium"), even surrealism, minimalism and other artistic movements first tried through obfuscation to preserve a Christian Ethos.

This is why such a large percentage of the young who now enter the churches do so via art, music, or the literature of the West, from Ancient Greece to Victorian England or Post-war Poland... they see in the western tradition a murmuring of the truth whose most near religion is that which gave it birth: the Christian religion.

It is easy to understand why the educational bureaucracy, which sees the Christian religion as a blinding, irrational and false thing, seeks to subvert the Western tradition with critical theories, because by doing so it subverts the Christian claim to a Truth about the human condition, our nature, and the means of our betterment salvation.

Atheism and agnosticism have been on the rise for 250 years, but the first movement away from this was not a movement away from the Christian worldview, but rather a lack of faith. Great agnostic artists and composers reaffirmed the Christian message because they saw it as the most true expression of our nature. The most potent example of this is Wagner's Parsifal, an opera which connects a near-Pagan consecrative religious sacrifice with the Christian vision of personal renewal and redemptive sacrifice. Wagner conceived it as "ein Bühnenweihfestspiel", not an opera... that is, "a Festival Play to Consecrate the Stage". This hints at the first birth of Tragedy in Greece, where tragedies consecrated a religious festival. Art was, from its birth, a religious expression of belief (or disbelief), and this is what the Christian tradition continued, and which post-modern "art" wishes to destroy.

The importance of the Western tradition can only be accepted if we are willing to accept that for the large part, the Christian message is not only the cornerstone of our culture, but also our art, that they are inextricably intertwined. This involves an acceptance of our tradition as a Christian tradition, whether or not we choose to believe by faith, and a willingness to let be aspects of our culture lest we tear it from its foundations, leading our society to flounder in meaningless irrelevance.

Go read a year seven History Book, the ones we pay for, and then throw it in the Garbage where it belongs.
The absolute mindless brainwashing they are expected to be programmed with is astounding and an insult to their intelligence.
Remove your kids from the Education charter of this state, (probably all states) if you want them to have some chance in the future, they will certainly not get that from the current curriculum

Sells with great respect, a good dose of CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, NT Wright et al should inoculate you against that glorified humanism you want to call Christianity.

You know very well you're a heretic, Sellism and Spongism may be true but please don't call it Christianity. Its not fair. I'm just asking you to conform to the ordinary rules we have about the meaning of words.

John Meier 'A Marginal Jew', his response to the Jesus Seminar's muddle headedness, concluded it was impossible to remove the miracles of Jesus from his historical identity.

Paul and the Gospel writers didn't invent a leader to follow. The much simper explanation is that followers taught high levels of ethical behaviour by their leader passed on his teachings. Its much more difficult to argue the NT was invented. Which is what you must do if before reading the texts you believe supernaturalism false.

Donna,

I admire your courage to critique what you felt was an insult to what performance art is about.

If I want children to experience a story I would most definitely like it to be as authentically a production as can be.

Don't be disheartened – there is a definite new religious phobia in action at all cultural levels. A distinct fear of the unknown.

One point about story telling that I find disturbing is that the fertile mind of a child can easily oscillate between facts (truth) and fiction. The danger I observe is as adults they can decide that it's "all" untrue: Santa, the Easter bunny, Jesus, Noah, Moses or David - all fantasies!

In a world where the only place a child can hear the true story of life - the Judeo-Christian story - could be the classroom and the dedication of people like yourself - let's use this platform to tell them the difference between truth and myth.

Hi all, I am the writer of the article, and have been most interested in the comments made. I felt compelled to write, because Coach and a number of others make this distinction between facts and fiction, or truth and myth. I have been teaching religious studies for twenty years, and a professional storyteller for almost as long, and do so with the understanding that the 'story' of sacred text, and I include here all sacred text, is what holds Truth. For me it is irrelevant as to whether these stories actually happened - the literal interpretation is the least interesting and far and away the most dangerous. But if the stories are understood metaphorically, as poetry - they are endless in their Truths, they speak to us all as humanity - and therein lies the unifiying potential of a great story regardless of its source. The question to ask with regards to sacred text in my opinion, is not 'did this really happen' but rather 'what is the purpose of the story.'
If infact, I truly thought that the stories from the bible told some definitive truth about a cetain religion, I would be applauding the Department of Education for their constraints. I do not have any desire to convince my audience of anything, other than recognising that story, and possibly sacred text in particular, hold Truths that speak to the soul in the deepest possible way.

Good to see the feedback Donna.

You speak from the perspective of a "StoryTeller", and we (as Christians) are seeing the 'reaction' to your innocent approach for what it is, 'sinister'. (by the Education Dept). Because clearly, they are not interested in the truth of fiction of the stories, or your own motives, they are concerned that 'haram' information is leaking through their intellectual dykes, which could influence children in an ideologically unnacceptable way.

The story of David and Goliath, can be treated metaphorically or allegorically like "We all have Goliaths in our life experience" etc.. and explain how we need to gather up all our bravery and deal with such huge challenges.

But if all the story is included, the unmistakable 'theological' aspects emerge. The words of David

"All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give all of you into our hands."

To the "StoryTeller" this is an account of 'overcoming great odds'
but the reality of the story is about 'Is there a God in Israel'?

Lets not forget, that this moment in history was pivotal. The outcome meant the difference between slavery and freedom for the Israelites.
Had David lost, perhaps the Jews would have been subsumed by the Philistines and 'you' would not exist :)

We see the deliberate discrimination against any legitimate reference to God by the education department as morally reprehensible, spiritually bankrupt and socially dangerous. This is especially so considering the vast majority of people in Australia (69%) claim alliegance to some kind of Christian tradition.

None of us expect you to suddenly grab a few stones from the brook, and 'take them on' this is clearly not your sense of calling, but it definitely is ours.

'Evil triumphs when good men do nothing' and while most people are content to be cold blooded frogs in a social beaker slowly becoming hotter (I'm sure u know the illustration) we are more interested in turning off the source of heat.

BOAZ_David

Christianity does not have a monopoly on all that is good in this world. Love, honesty, fairness, generosity, empathy, prudence and many other positive qualities can be taught perfectly successfully and learned for life without any reference whatsoever to Christianity or indeed to any other religion.

Conversely, other religions, for example Islam, can also impart these values.

I agree, stories like David and Goliath, The Prodigal Son and The Good Samaritan are in themselves well worth the telling and still have something worthwhile to say to us today. The problem is they are rarely told as stand alone stories but are invariably associated with other more dubious aspects of Christianity.

If ever there was an example of why the teaching of Christianity should be kept at arm's length from mainstream education, it is your Christianity-based posts on this website. For example -

"How long before we see horny men or 'in season' women copulating with animals in the street ? Is this intrinsically immoral/evil ? Not if you believe post modern thought."

You've outdone yourself with this statement. And given atheism a huge free kick in the process.

Donna, it's good of you to pop by and give us some feedback on our feedback.

But while you are here, could you just confirm for me whether the reaction you got from the "Department" was a) official policy or b) just some petty functionary giving you the benefit of their prejudice?

The reason that this is an important component of your story is that it will illustrate how far this kind of behaviour has permeated our society.

If there are in fact laws that prevent you, or any other "class" of person, from telling stories of this kind, we ought to be aware of them.

If, on the other hand, it is simply a misapprehension or misinterpretation on the part of an individual, it would help us put your concerns into some form of perspective.

As I said before, the situation will only improve when we start to complain - not in a forum such as this, where we just sit and snipe at each other for fun, but to the blind lawmakers who continue to surround us with so many supposedly "politically correct" limitations on our freedom of speech, that very soon we will find that we have placed ourselves irretrievably inside the Orwellian nightmare of thought control.

mangotreeone1,

have a look at the story these photos tell - http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/would-you-let-your-daughter-go-to.html

In this report from The Daily Telegraph on the ongoing socialist tantrums in France, we learn that “Muslim youths” from the suburbs are preying on the demonstrators - http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/print/0,20285,18641620-1702,00.html

My children can't sing Christmas carols at school to protect the sensitivities of these Muslim thugs?

Who's going to protect my children from being shot or raped because they are Australian?

Are you going to protect them mangotreeone1?

Donna

Thank you for your article. And thank you for your feedback post. Both very interesting.

Cheers
Kay

Lyrebird says ..... "The question to ask with regards to sacred text in my opinion, is not 'did this really happen' but rather 'what is the purpose of the story.'

I feel we are at the core of the issue with this statement. The truth value with stories lies very much with both the purpose AND the fiction OR non fiction of the story. It isn't one unique to Lyrebird because even with grand narratives there exists a need to be criticised on this very issue. Stories do exist to mask the contradictions, subvert the degree of provisionality, cloak the instabilities, blind us to the fragmentary, and numb us to the incoherent, which exist in any social organization that asserts the superiority of “order.”

Why not celebrate fragmentation, provisionality, chaos, ambiguity, skepticism, conflict, vastness, disorientation, questions, confusion and incoherence? By all means challenge young minds with reason, free inquiry, dignity, participation and imagination.

e.g.
The story of Jacob and Esau comes to mind, unsurprisingly. First tell the captive audience if it is a true story or not, Then tell the story in your best story-telling manner. Then evaluate with some questions. e.g. Do you believe in teddy (god)? Do you think teddies should play favourites with peoples? Do you think parents should play favourites with their children? Do you believe in birthrights? Was this a dysfunctional family? Why? Did Jacob show brotherly love? Was Jacob clever to manipulate his hungry brother with a bowl of lentils to gain the birthright? Why did Jacob deceive his father, Isaac? Oh so many questions to challenge young minds.

Keiran,
Your attitudes to God are so offensive and belittling of spiritual things you do not deserve a reading. The human condition you pose is fully explored in Christian teachings.

Obviously you know nothing of how Biblical stories are used or told. If you have ever listened to good story telling your cynicism would be totally unfounded. I do hope your children do not listen to your cynicisn as it will stunt their minds to aspire to higher and immaginative possibilities. Good story telling is done by leading psychologists who fully understand human behaviour. eg. Bill Cosby or Dr Paul White.


Quote, "The story of Jacob and Esau comes to mind, unsurprisingly. First tell the captive audience if it is a true story or not, Then tell the story in your best story-telling manner. Then evaluate with some questions. e.g. Do you believe in teddy (god)? Do you think teddies should play favourites with peoples? Do you think parents should play favourites with their children? Do you believe in birthrights? Was this a dysfunctional family? Why? Did Jacob show brotherly love? Was Jacob clever to manipulate his hungry brother with a bowl of lentils to gain the birthright? Why did Jacob deceive his father, Isaac? Oh so many questions to challenge young minds.

A major part of scientific reasoning in a modern sense includes not only the medical sciences, but also the social sciences, including political sciences et al and more et al, making the mind boggle at the endlessness of pure reasoning.

So on we go again as we do in Online Opinion, not really finding much new, only in a chemical or a mechanical sense as with the power of a nuclear blast and the means to trigger or propel it.

So it could be said that though reasoning has produced formulas which can easily destroy the world, our brain power to manufacture laws to prevent the destruction of the world has been miserably failing - those who study it called loony by many outsiders as well as by some of our group.

Actually Charles Darwin talked about such things before he died in 1882, very much complaining how his "survival of the fittest" formulation was being used by big business to justify colonial expansion and the genocidal acts that can go with it.

Part of Darwin's actual comment about man's moral qualities compared to animals.

"In my first chapter I wrote of a moral being as one who is capable of reflecting on their past actions ...................
and the fact that man is the one being who deserves this designation, is the greatest distinction between him and the lower animals. "

In short, Darwin goes on to intimate that human beings should now have reached the stage that they should not use his "survival of the fittest" concept for colonial expansion or even the further expansion of big business. But of course it was done, as well as the further expansion of British colonialism, and as now with the Brits siding with America in what so many are calling an immoral imperialist occupation of Iraq.

So we have the social scientists mostly very much concerned about the above, while those who back them are called loony. So has man changed much since the Roman days?

baraka,
Thanks so much for those blog sites, they demonstrate your beliefs, quite soundly. Senator Joyce would title you a "lunatic right" and he would be quite correct.

Perhaps if Donna had told stories based on aboriginal beliefs she would have received more praise; the Dreamtime appears to have strong support from secularists.

SHONGA,

do some research... who do you think was in Australian courts for raping young Australisn girls and stating, 'you deserve to be rpaed because you are Australian'... who do you think killed two Muslims in a double murder drive-by shooting - well the Mufti at Lakemba Mosque stated , "Muslim brothers should not be killing Muslims brotheres" (so its cool if they are infidels) but is the Islamic Mufti racist for stating that it was Muslims who killed the boxer and the other Muslim... no, I have never heard of an Islamophobic racist Mufti - if you are suggesting this, then I put it to you that you are the "lunatic [Leftist]"!! hahahahahahaha and I [posted a link to the Telegraph which openly prints corrections where it mis-sttes facts... I have yet to see it correct this or any other arti le about MIDDLE EASTER CRIMEW -m why do you think there is a STATE CRIM COMMAND SQUAD SET UP TO TARGET NOTHING BUT MIDDLE EASTER CRIME - TASK FORCE AGIN... it must be bnecasue of the racists who made all the Middle Eastern crime up and "tricked" the NSW police... YOU are the "lunatic leftist" SHONGA!! hahahahahahaha

FYI to back up something BD said:
Peter Singer (who spoke on philosophy at my high school) has argued that beastiality is OK so long as you don't hurt the animal, and that killing one's children is morally OK up until the age of 2.

Braka, Leigh benjamin et al; give us a rest - you keep injecting every string on this site with some anti muslim gobble dee gook!

I dare say you would see the dark hand of Islamism casting its
shadow in the text of some story written about cake decorating or lion taming.

This was a parable on byoorokratcik stupity and political correctness;

get a hobby and leave this hobby horse alone; its as boring as bat droppings this muslim thing. I know obsessive compulsive disorders are very hard to treat but there may still be hope - for our sake I sincerely pray (whooops) there is; give it a go. Call some one. Call some one now. Please. If not for yourselves for the rest of humanity.

Baraka is correct.

For there still to be some who can't see the obvious racism, no, that's a euphemism, xenophobia, of a great proportion of Australia's Islamic community, they musn't be able to join the dots.

Studies into marriage practises in the Islamic community reveal shocking levels of what they call "in-marriage", where the community rarely marries outside itself. Almost 75% of Lebanese Muslim males return to Lebanon to find a wife.

When a Muslim wants to marry an infidel, their own family often disowns them. Be serious Shonga, Muslims are people too. Some of them need our support, especially those who leave Islam.

Islam is so backward that it decries those who do this must die, this is no weird interpretation, this is Islam, plain and simple.

Homosexuals must be stoned to death is another teaching you won't hear Muslims denounce. If we don't stand up to these people what chance have those in their community who are gay, or who do want to leave Islam.

You can't even imagine the oppression. Girls who don't want to wear the veils often are threatened, bashed, and have their heads shaved by their brothers so they have to wear it.

Mamdouh Habib's son was convicted of this crime not long ago.

The issue of racially motivated gang rapes is another issue of concern. Never before have we seen such barbarism outside of wartime, yet the fanilies of those convicted, even the females, were attacking the court staff, victims families, calling their daughters sluts.

An SBS crew that went to Lakemba mosque on the day the 14 rapists were sentenced were bashed by mosque-goers. Before this happened though they got footage of Muslims calling the girls sluts, and laughing about it, in the mosque.

Islamic values are nothing like those of Christianity, where forgiveness is all. How many times have you heard of a preacher arrested for wanting to kill people? It goes against Jesus fundamental values.

Don't be so naive.

YngNLuvnIt, Boaz doesn't need your support, especially when it is so weak.

>>to back up something BD said: Peter Singer ... has argued that beastiality is OK ... and that killing one's children is morally OK<<

Peter Singer has been much quoted whenever the topic of bestiality comes up, but very few people (including you, I suspect) ever check the context.

Peter's article "Heavy Petting" was a review of a book called "Dearest Pet: On Bestiality".

Peter Singer's observation on the topic is:

"But not every taboo has crumbled. Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog? Probably not. Sex with animals is still definitely taboo."

Being Peter, he goes on to muse over why this might be, but still manages to end with the thought "This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean", which hardly supports your claim that he "has argued that beastiality is OK"

You go on to say that he thinks that "killing one's children is morally OK up until the age of 2", which is nothing less than a gross distortion of a fascinating Socratic approach to the pro-life/pro-choice argument.

What he (approximately) argues is, that unless you believe that all forms of contraception are intrinsically wrong, you should also accept that parents have the right to terminate unwanted lives at any point.

It is of course too difficult for you to see how this is, in fact, a reductio ad absurdum, designed to make you think through very carefully how you build an argument for a pro-abortion position.

Note that Singer's end-point in this argument is essentially pro-life. Does not that strike you as interesting? Of course, he does have some way-points in the same argument that cause pain, but only with people who fail to grasp that actually engaging with a topic, and applying some rational thought to it, is a beneficial exercise.

Just the sound-bites for you, YngNLuvnIt.

Off you go. Turn on the Channel Nine News.

Leigh ,I too smiled at your quod, it says a lot about your religious mindset, I see you are having a problem putting a label on mangotree, thats to be expected you and your mates have lots of experiance putting wrong labels on religious groups you all back each other up. maybe you are one and the same, The Holy Profanity. your meaningless profanities add flavour/stench to the swill you stir. wouldn't it be nice to write about good things for a change, your mates seem to have a short list of crimes [six or so ] committed by Muslims, shame on you, If you continue to dance to the same tune do us all a favour dig up some new facts, I for one am sick and tired of the same old record[ of criminal events] being played at every opportunity, your bag of dirty tricks must be empty.

There is a language of love that Jesus wrote about, Barraca you need to learn that language, then you may understand what people are saying, every God Club can lay claim to having commited some of the worst crimes against humanity, the God Clubs have many, many, stories to tell, all of them can be pigeon holed under propaganda, those stories never came from the Prophets , more likely the doctors of spin, the greatest God Club exuse is, "the devil made me do it", or "I am doing Gods work" what a load of crap.
God blames no one, so why do we pray for forgiveness, to forgive you must first blame, if God had wanted human beings to spend a lifetime on their knees , why did God allow human beings to stand up, if God had wanted human beings to kill their neighbours he would have given us ,claws and fangs, lets see some intelligent comments, do God a favour edit your posts for a change,

mangotreeone1

It says a lot about you mangotreeone1, when you are more interested in the people who post about the "bag of dirty tricks" and LESS interested in the racist Muslims who filled the "bag of dirty tricks" for people to post about -

islamofacist leftist backwards-thinking where mere POSTS about racist islamic culture rape is worse than the actuall rape itself does not surprise me anymore///

///it is a long time now that mere posting about a racist hate-crime is taken by the islamofacists and leftists to be worse than the racist hate-crime itself... perplexing - until you realise the motives to protect racist criminals and not to protect the victims of those criminals - morally deficient indeed... SHAME

Interesting article. It does sound like the Education department might be being a little oversensitive here - provided the stories are told as stories and not revealed truth, then I can't see much of a problem. Judeo-christian culture is as valid as any other.

On the other hand, one only has to look at the posts from Boaz David and the like to realise that we need more religion like we need our arms cut off. Religion orders social behaviour through faith, not reason. We do not all share the same faith, so religion should not be used to order social behaviour. Reason should be used to order social behaviour. WE DO NOT NEED RELIGION TO WORK OUT WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG. It is people who need religion to distinguish right from wrong that have a problem. I challenge any poster on this site to propose a moral problem that cannot be dealt with by applying reason.

Is it morally right to centre one's life around Jesus as true God and true Man?

Is it reasonable to sacrifice one's life for the God of Abraham?

Faith informs reason. For if one aspires to smoke drugs or scratch an itch forever then when your behaviour conforms to that you're being reasonable. Reason = whatever is in one's self interest.

And uniting with God in Love is eminently rational. Our whole tradition teaches this.

Whence comes reason anyway?

Don't confuse fideism with Christianity.

Read Fides et Ratio - a wonderful letter written by the Catholic Church about faith and reason.

Euthyphro dilemma, which I'm sure someone will bring up, forgets God is not in 3D space time. The moral law and God are one. God is not a person in the human sense.

In fact this leads nicely onto what Heaven will be like. CS Lewis is very good here.

P.s. BOAZ is right pretty much all the time. If you tell the truth often enough no one will believe it.

Familiarity breeds contempt - we've had the Gospels for 2000 years, many of us don't think there is anything interesting there anymore.

A psychological pattern that we overcome with great reward when it comes to Jesus ! :)

Pericles! what would we do without you ? I do appreciate your searching analysis of various contributions, including mine. On the YungNluvinit rebuttal you made, I think you did not give enough weight to what Singer may have said when he actually spoke in person at YnL's school.

I note all kind and unkind words from various posters, and have equal appreciation for them all.

Hellothere,

I need to clarify something to you if you don't mind.
You claim that reason is enough to work out right and wrong. Well, yes, to a point. This works as long as 'your' version is not in conflict with 'Joe Bloggs' version.
I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but there is only ONE divine commandment on which all human behavior should be determined by,

"Love your neighbour as yourself" or, putting it another way "Do for others as you would have them do for you"
What we also say (As Christians) is that this is not only good common sense, but also has a divine mandate "Love God with all your heart"
Without that one, we are kind of like a rudderless ship in the sea of ideas.

But putting aside the Divine call to relationship and reconciliation, and just using the 'love your neighbour' bit. Would you like the world to see your daughter having sex with some man ? Would you have a few million eyes surveying your every move when you make love to your wife ? Make a movie using someone elses daughter ? Me.. no thanx, so, for me, I don't support the idea of showing sexual intimacy in movies. I prefer to 'allude' to it.

Perhaps this shows the area of contention between the secular and the religious ? Im using my letter writing and vote to rid Australia of xxx rated porn available by mail order from ACT. You might enjoy that kind of thing..I don't know, but my approach is that I don't believe people should be objectified, so I object to it :) and in a democracy, I can.

Boaz, from his writings, and from his interviews - Denton's was good, but there was also one from a rabid ultra-vegetarian dude which was quite enlightening - I think the chances of Singer actually saying, baldly, what is ascribed to him by YngNluvinit are extremely close to zero.

I suspect that if Singer did cover that territory, it was only the 120pt headline that YngNluvinit "understood", and none of the carefully constructed logic either side of it.

Singer occasionally - and these were good examples - argues from a classic Socratic position, essentially turning his audience's half-baked ideas into logical thought-sequences that turn out quite differently to that which was at first anticipated. No one expects that a discussion on bestiality can turn out the way his did, but it is very difficult to challenge the steps that took it there.

It may be a painful journey for someone to argue net benefit when talking of allowing - "encouraging" - a severely ill child to die, but the logical increments are carefully alignned to permit the conclusion. We may not want to get there, because all our emotions say stop!, as soon as we see where we are being led, but it is a worthwhile journey nonetheless.

The thought-route from contraception to euthenasia is admittedly one of the more challenging, but that isn't an acceptable excuse not to take it. You are free, of course, to disagree with the conclusion, but that is not the fault of logic, it is simply the intervetion of your emotions.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Incidentally, where does "love thy neighbour" fit in during a time of war? Is christianity suspended for the duration, like Test matches? Or perhaps merely rationed, like butter?

"Your attitudes to God are so offensive and belittling of spiritual things ........." was posted by Philo who goes on to acknowledge my apparent cynicism. The problem with this is that I regard myself as a free living spirit but atheistic if one wishes to use that term.

I know someone here has been concerned for a while about playpens, teddies, anthropocentric mindsets, teddy mind viruses and other exclusivities with their characteristic products of fatalism and solipsism? This same person has also been concerned about science where there is a need to shift from closed systems to more inclusive world views and broader environments including the infinite environment.

This same person will say there is mystery but not magic. There is strangeness beyond our wildest imagining but it isn't capricious, nor whimsical, nor frivolous. The infinite environment is an orderly place where one can only feel privileged with eyes to see where we are and brains to wonder why. Teddies, poltergeists, angels, fairies or funny spirits don't intervene and hurl things about for reasons of mischief or caprice.

Contributions that I have put forward to the best of my ability emphasise an open inclusive environment as opposed to a closed exclusive system. It's not hard to see all forms of global influences challenging once held exclusivities and closed systems. From what I've seen of science there is a need to shift from closed systems to inclusive world views and broader environments including the infinite environment.

i.e. No fashionable teddies nor cosmologies please.

Now how is that for a good news story?

While we are in the story mode let me tell this "David and Goliath" version for Boaz. And yes it is true with real truths.

My brother worked at a Sydney hospital many years ago and tells this story about Kerry Packer.

KP was in having some chest scans or something and when it was done he sat up on the bed and pulled out a fag, lit up and started having a good old smoke. A couple of nurses and a young trainee came out and mentioned to my brother how they were too afraid to say anything. My brother went in and said "hey you, PUT the FAG OUT or you will blow the place up."

KP said something like .... "Don't worry I'll pay for all the damage." My brother said ..." That won't happen because you will not be here to do it."

My brother said that KP then put out his fag and looked at him with a serious expression and pointing ...... said " You know what? .... I like you ..... I like your type".

Donna's story indicates that the department of education is controlled by another religious order (or cult), that uses its position to fight off rival religions.

Apart from rival religions, this religious order considers the following as evil: "discipline", "homework", "culture", "intelligence" and is set to keep Australia mediocre and weed out tall poppies at all costs.

Isn't it an insult to the aboriginal religions and cultures that the department of education does not consider them as rivals?

Thanks for the reply BD & Martin. Martin, reason is not doing whatever is in your self-interest. The ability to reason includes the ability to understand that others also have interests, and that their interests are to them meaningful and valid, as yours are to you.

Which is probably what you mean BD by "love your neighbour as yourself". I agree that this recognition of the rights of others is the most fundamental human norm, but I totally reject that this is a religous concept. "Love God with all your heart" has nothing to do with recognising the validity of other human viewpoints. It is a human concept. Some religions and/or religous people aren't even very good at applying it - for example, fundamentalist christians tend not to recognise that the rights of gay people are meaningful or valid.

To take the example of pornography, you argue that pornography should be banned because it objectifies people (and presumably therefore causes harm to human relationships) This is an argument based on reason, and one I have some sympathy with. You have every right to make that argument, and I would listen to and consider it. On the other hand, arguing that pornography is bad because God says so means absolutely nothing to me because I do not believe in God.

hellothere,
The love and worship of God is not focused in a being up in the sky. It means to meditate in absolute purity of character, attitudes, acts, behaviour and wisdom. The love of God helps us reflect on the image we were designed to express.

Love of neighbour can only be fully realised as we recognise what values we place upon ourselves as we worship perfection and purity of character, acts, attitudes and values we place upon another as demonstrated by God in whose image we were designed.

With regard a view of disoriented male sexuality and purpose, Christians recognise that disoriented sexuality does not fulfil a purposed role. Go to Google and type in "Homosexual health" and you will realise why it is socially abnormal. Read the research

Philo, arguments based on religous beliefs will never convince me because I don't share those beliefs. I am perfectly capable of understanding what are positive human traits and what are negative ones, I don't need some kind of god template to measure myself against to understand right and wrong. I can decide what is right or wrong by thinking about my actions and the effect they have on others, and I bet you can too. And as for God being perfect etc, and us being made in his image, isn't it correct that according to this perfect God, if we do not believe in him we will suffer the most severe punishment imaginable? Not believing is in God's eyes worse than murder and rape? Am I the only one who thinks this is sick and twisted? Is that your moral template, your "perfection and purity of character"? Believe in me or suffer forever, charming.

As for disorientated sexuality, what about lesbians? I think you will find that their health is pretty good. As is the case for gay men who take precautions. And even if their health is bad, why does that matter to you? Smoking kills more people than HIV/AIDS, which is morally worse?

hellothere,
Hell [the final curse that results in death and seperation from God] comes as a consequence of unforgiven bad behaviour and not as a Divine edict. Your attitudes and behaviour results in the curses of hell. There is a hell over there!

You still perceive God as a created human with a sinister mind. God is Spirit. God is expressed in created reality, God is perfection of spirit. The character of God is to be [ought to be] declared through the lives of his true worshippers.

In 1 Corinthians 13 the true nature of the love of God is defined and is encouraged so that we live in the love of God. Conscience is the tool of understanding the consciousness of God in our thoughts and actions.

Conscience however must be educated, abuse of the body that results in lung cancer or AIDS is violation of the purposes for the body. Merely finding cures for diseases does not stop the diseases, a change in behaviour or not being involved in such behaviour is the best way of avoiding these curses.

You are like a child who denies he has a father simply because he hasn't seen him. You obviously have an image of god and by that image you will live and behave. However your personal god is based in sensuality and does not alert you to the consequences of your own bad behaviour.

Pericles and Hellothere...

"Love Thy Neighbour (during wartime)"

Lets set the framework first.

War is an activity carried out for a number of reasons.
1/ Defensive to protect lives and property.
2/ Offensive to gain territory and wealth.

Of course there are offensive actions in a defensive war, to overcome a tyrant like Hitler etc. But aggressive offense to gain territory can never be condoned under God. Iraq is a place where it remains to be seen which mode is being carried out, though the hype would have us believe it was altruistic, my view of human nature tells me its a mixed bag.

In a defensive framework, Romans 13 is our reference point.

Christian or otherwise, The emperor/king/president still has the Romans 13 state responsibility to enforce social order and justice and to 'deter the evildoer' with the 'sword' as deterrant.

We all know the difference between brutality for its own sake, and fighting to win against evil. I think the goal is to overcome the would be oppressor, and then show kindness as we did to the Germans and Japanese. Perhaps it was the 'absense' of such a value which saw the horrific brutality and lack of mercy by the Japanese who looked on their captives as beneath contempt ?

HelloThere, the concept of 'objectifying' people is persuasive, yes, but I suggest it is so, because of our Judao Christian heritage.
In the Old Testament pagan days (including Israels trysts with paganism) they had 'cult prostitutes, male and female'.... very objectifying I'd say..but God condemned this. Alienation from God, can lead to the cult of Dionysius, with its frenzied blood feasts, or to anywhere....Your own view has been conditioned by our cultural/religious value system inherited, but you elect to take God out of the picture yet retain the values...that mate is a house built on sand :) ..

'27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash." Mat 7.27

barake,
thanks for the confirmation, your last post confirms your status.

Forgive them father they know not what they do, I did expect some intelligent discussion from this site, its a pity a handfull of bigots are entrenched on every thread , more so if the thread opens a window of opportunity to spread their religious hatred crap. I am sure they get a lot of satisfaction out of reading each others posts, you are sick ,sick people I better move on before I am infected, mango tree

Boaz, I sense you are struggling a little under the weight of argument over "love thy neighbour", so I will add another feather or two.

>>But aggressive offense to gain territory can never be condoned under God.<<

So where exactly does this place the actions in the First World War? Were both sides being un-Christian, perhaps? I am having an interesting chat on another thread on the topic of the role of the regimental padre in such situations. Is he being un-Christian, too?

Let's go back to the root of this particular diversion. You said:

>>I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but there is only ONE divine commandment on which all human behavior should be determined by, "Love your neighbour as yourself"<<

In your world of absolute values, this would seem to be the most absolute of them all. But despite having "set the framework", you fail to return and address the specifics: who are the sinners here? Who are the folk who are failing to love their neighbour, but do not have the excuse that they are being defensive? Who have suspended their beliefs for the duration?

And what of the aftermath? You give it an undeserved rosy tint with "I think the goal is to overcome the would be oppressor, and then show kindness as we did to the Germans". The Treaty of Versailles was not particularly "kind" to the Germans, and allowed all sorts of political shenanigans (no Godwin's Law for this kid) to erupt a few years later.

War is an extreme situation. However, all hypotheses deserve to be put under some stress, for no better reason than to find out whether they hold up under pressure. Your philosophy would appear to prefer calm seas, fair weather and a following wind.

Of course, I do understand the real reason you are hedging, which is that you live in morbid fear of making a statement that would show up the postmodern, relativistic fault-lines that exist in any human endeavour.

mangotree 1,
Please do not get downhearted, look at the calibre of the loonies you refer to. Please understand we all have an opinion I have enjoyed yours, as I do David Boaz, sneekypete, tubley and many others, we need not agree on everything, however we can all learn from one another, and as David says "Love thy neighbour"

Look forward to your further contributions....

Pericles WWII and the American Civil War are the best examples of a just war. Good vs Evil.

People sacrificed alot to defend themselves against the armies of darkness. Slavery under the Nazi's would be worse than death.

This is sacrificial love. This ultimately is love of neighbour, to take on the role of bad guy for the sake of others rather than pamper their weaknesses.

Eg a dentist. Either take the pain of the dentist chair to remove the infected tooth or die of septicaemia. The tooth extraction is painful and aggressive.

SHONGA and mangotreeone1,

You do not engage the content of other's posts whatsoever... you continue to say we are 'racist' for merely posting about a racist Islam... it is more than clear that you are islamofacists -

I post that up to 20 Middle Eastern Muslim men raped a young Australian girl and stated, "you deserve to be raped because you are Australian", and you say that I am 'racist'... it is an unbeleivable response!! What the hell is wrong with you people!!?!

If someone posts about a racist KKK targeting Blacks, then I suppose you will also protect the KKK and state that the post is 'racist' to Whites... What the hell is wrong with you people!!?!

Let me tell you somthing Mr. SHONGA - early this year I was travelling on a train in Sydney on the Bankstown line. Five Middle Eastern men boarded the train at Lakemba station and moved through the carriage toward me where they held a knife to my throat and threatened to kill me because I was Australian - refering to me as a "f@#king Dog Aussie" and that "this is not your country anymore" - but apparently I am 'racist' for stating what happened to me...What the hell is wrong with you people!!?!

You must be Muslims to so unreasonably protect racist Muslims... Very well then, by your precednet all white people have the right to protect the KKK as this conforms to your twisted logic!! Just think about the young Australin girls who were, as stated in court documents, 'shocked" to be "double-penetrated" by Middle Eastern Muslim mne who raped her... and then try to say that that rape-victim is 'racist' and that other people who find it offensive that she was raped because she was an 'Aussie slut' racist... good luck convincing your twisted logic of that...

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/would-you-let-your-daughter-go-to.html

hey mangotreeone,

Two of your Muslim rapist cliche just got their jail sentences INCREASED!!
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/04/05/1143916569877.html

By the way, you stated I was 'racist' for suggesting a Muslim rape culture, well, the Muslim rapists suggested such culture in their defence- as stated by the Justice in the article "Justice Hidden rejected evidence from MSK, who is now 27, that his cultural background influenced his actions."

It looks like the Justice didnt buy into the defence that a Muslim cutlure made him rape, likely to be because of the legal practicalities of the judgment, you couldnt well have people claiming a culture, especially one that is not ASustralina, as a defence for gang rape - but it shows that it is not racist to say so, unless you say they are islamophobic muslim raicsts,,hahahaha

anyway, the victim stated, "This wasn't about culture, this was about abuse against women and the fact that they had the nerve to bring in culture to begin with just astounds me.""

so ADVANCE AUSTRALIA!! mangotreeone1, your Muslim rapist friends will be in jail for some more years yet - get lost!!

hey mangotreeone,

Two of your Muslim rapist cliche just got their jail sentences INCREASED!!
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/04/05/1143916569877.html

By the way, you stated I was 'racist' for suggesting a Muslim rape culture, well, the Muslim rapists suggested such culture in their defense- as stated by the Justice in the article "Justice Hidden rejected evidence from MSK, who is now 27, that his cultural background influenced his actions."

It looks like the Justice didn’t buy into the defense that a Muslim culture made him rape, likely to be because of the legal practicalities of the judgment, you couldn’t well have people claiming a culture, especially one that is not Australian, as a defense for gang rape - but it shows that it is not racist to say so, unless you say they are Islam phobic Muslim raicsts,,hahahaha

anyway, the victim stated, "This wasn't about culture, this was about abuse against women and the fact that they had the nerve to bring in culture to begin with just astounds me.""

so ADVANCE AUSTRALIA!! mangotreeone1, your Muslim rapist friends will be in jail for some more years yet - get lost!

oh my god, dont look now but i think there is a muslim behind you....

baraka, the reason people dont engage with the content of your posts is that you (and others) have essentialy posted the same thing everyday for at least 6 months. your just not worth listening to.

what was this about again.......

ah yes,

what we have is a personal account, the veracity of which we are asked to take on face value, which criticaly misses any reference to departmental policy, making it hard to judge the scope of the incident. it may be a one off, perhaps the beaurocrat was sick of dealing with storytellers, we are being asked to guess their motivation from one persons point of view.

anyway, if in this case the jewish/christian stories were not approved because they were jewish/christian, then that is certainly unfair,and i see no reason for their dissaproval, but i have trouble connecting this to a larger conspiracy.

but dont let that stop you...nothing wrong with a little paranoia.

but then the little devil (on my left shoulder of course) pops up and says 'well if the politicains are gonna cosy up to the religious right, then your kids aint gonna hear about it in school'.

awww, and just when i was trying to be all reasonable i go and say something like that.

hehehe...

Nice one, Baraka. You're clearly Australian - no ESL student would ever mangle punctuation like you do!!??!?

Philo

Finding cures for diseases does stop them - try antibiotics for example. Using a condom works pretty well for avoiding HIV too. I have no personal god. I judge my actions by my understanding of their effects on me and others. I don't entirely understand the rest of your post. You describe god as perfection of spirit, but surely that depends on what you define as perfection of spirit? Your perfection of spirit is unlikely to be the same as mine.

Boaz

Beliefs and morals based on reason and understanding are far from a "house of sand", and they are not particular to one particular cultural/religous system either, although I acknowledge that I have been lucky to inherit a reasonably "advanced" one (for want of a better word). A house of sand is unquestioning acceptance of a bunch of ancient doctrines in an old book. Answer me this: I know two gay people. They work in respectable jobs, pay taxes, don't sleep around, don't take drugs or drink etc etc. They don't dance in the street in G-strings, they don't try and convert anyone to homosexuality (even assuming such a thing could be done). They are exactly like anybody else, in fact they are fairly dull. They do not harm anyone. Why is the way they live wrong?

hellothere,
Antibiotics are to cure diseases once you have the disease. Two males will not a child make. They are a dead species in one generation. A healthy society has a future based in healthy children, and not based in self-centered sexuality. No children to tell stories too - their life must be dull.

Childrens stories tell the lessons of the past generations, and excite the next generation to retell and to add their own. Storytelling is a great legacy from the past that we transferr to future generations. They build family identity, culture and community

Hi DFXK

Kevin Donnelly here. I am researching an article about curriculum and religion. Love to know more about the NSW unit 2 course and its reading list. Can you please email me with more details? What are the books you suggest are anti-religious?

Best wishes,
Kevin

Thanks for reminding me, its not easy being

We never did get a response to my earlier question on whether the treatment the author received was a reflection of government policy, legal mandate, or just the whim of an uptight apparatchik.

Before this thread disintegrates into the usual suspects having a go at each other, it might be good to find out.

Anyone?

Pericles,
What an excellent idea, anyone?

Must say that this whole milieu of teddy (god) worship looks depraved and idiotic to most freethinkers. These teddies merely represent phallic like extensions of their followers own egos and psyches with which they often violently attempt to penetrate and spread noxiousness over the entire earth ........ enslaving the souls and the minds of as many people as possible. Some like to become a teddy cheerleader where finagling is endemic and a necessary requirement.

Just wish people would grow up quickly and realise there is something erroneous with this particular game ..... there has never been a true teddy, nor a default one (i.e. spirit only) and nor will there be a future one.

Religion should be kept out of school education full stop. Religious indoctrination is the logical use of fear among other things, as a very powerful inducement used on captive young minds. There is no thought of reason, free inquiry, dignity, participatory democracy, in this systematic manipulation. The end product of this process is simply one of damaged goods rather than the true achievement of human potential.

Surely we can progress from the notion that you only do what's right because someone bigger than you will slap you around if you don't.

Must say this whole (big foreign word) of human worship looks inane and irrational to most solid thinkers. These Freudian, Lenin/Marxian and Nietzshian teddies represent an extension of their followers own egos and psyches which they often violently attempt to penetrate and spread noxiousness of the entire earth . . . . enslaving souls in a Freudian penis envy/phallic, Nazi, Bolshevik and Khmer prison. Some like to be a teddy cheerleader where all manner of crimes are endemic and state sponsored.

Just wish people would grow up and realize there is something erroneous with this particular game . . . there never has been a true teddy, nor a default one (oneself only) and nor will there be a future Third Reich, Year one, or Proletarian revolution.

Totalitarian ideologies should be kept out of school education full stop. Secular humanistic indoctrination is the logical use of fear of the true creaturely nature of human beings, as a very powerful inducement to self worship and relativism. There is the perversion of reason, free inquiry, participatory democracy (when all creeds except traditional Christianity are allowed public expression), in this systematic manipulation. The end product is a fearful flight from the sacrifice and hence promises of Christ and the consequent true achievement of human potential.

Surely we can progress from the silly ideas that the universe is self existent, that right and wrong is created by humans and the belief that reward and punishment are the motivations of Christians rather than a delight in the intrinsic beauty of the good.

When you right that nonsense Kieran you only make yourself into a tool, a dumb instrument. The only good that comes from it is that you turn marginal Christians into true ones, encourage the explication of Christianity and reveal the fanaticism of many who hate Jesus and his Church.

Tell us what you believe mate. Lets have some fun.

You are just as dogmatic, Keiran, as those who come on here pushing their own religious beliefs. I was brought up nominally Anglican, but never believed the literal accounts of such things as Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark. Even as a young child, my own intelligence told me that these were not literal truths. At 15, I realised that I regarded much of the Apostles' Creed as either erroneous or irrelevant. But that did not mean that I rejected the whole belief system as definitely nonsense.

During my long life, I have had a varied number of what could be described as psychic experiences. You, Keiran, knowing nothing of me or my experiences, can regard it all as nonsense if you wish. Some of our more dogmatic religious posters may regard it as the devil's work. I see it as an indication that there are things going on which are beyond our present understanding.

For Philo and others who denigrate gay people [or the sexual activity which is natural to them]. No, two males [or two females] don't "make" a child. But most of the time, sexual activity by a mixed sex couple doesn't make a child either! Gay people are not a "dead species", they're a normal part of normal families.

My children, by a wife I was married to at the time, are all adults. I see my grandchildren only occasionally, so my life doesn't consist of telling them stories. And, Philo, my life is far from dull!

I'm a "one lady at a time" person, and most of the sexual activity in my life was certainly not intended to produce a child. Maybe that's what some would call self-centred. I would say, "Mind your own damn business, [if that's at all possible!]".

Keiran......your nonsense only goes to prove: you don't know what your talking about. Get help, mate, re your fixation with "teddies"

So Philo, the answer, as far as it is comprehensible, is that gay people are bad because they don't reproduce? Therefore, priests, infertile people and people who cannot find a partner to have children with are also bad. Hmmmm..

And also Philo, not all gay people are men, and 2 women plus a little sperm from a friend can most certainly make children. So I guess lesbians are OK and gay men are bad (just like priests and infertile people). Makes perfect sense, as long as you are completely detached from logic and reason.

Philo

I have devoted my professional life to people with mental health problems. I am proud of that.

I have also done some rather awful things in my personal life, for which I am not proud. But I have made amends when it was appropriate, or I was able to do so.

I will not be going to your hell.

You say that God is "perfect". I get the impression that as a devout follower of Christian God, you think you are made in that perfect image? I guess therefore that you have not ever made any mistakes, told a white lie, lost your temper, said damn or buggar - and that you have always held people of other religious or non-religious faiths as equal to yourself?

I will be interested in your response
Cheers
Kay

Martin, why is the idea that right and wrong can be determined by humans a silly one?

Hellothere,

Humans can discern right from wrong, but we're not the measure of all things.

The moral law is as objective as mathematics. Some understand it well, some poorly. Some societies have darkened their collective conscience by ignoring it, others have strived to adhere to it. A study of ancient writings, including holy books show the same things said time and again. Show mercy, do not steal, look after the underprivileged, respect one's father and mother etc etc.

CS Lewis ‘The Abolition of Man’ or his essay ‘The Poison of Subjectivism’ I found helpful (because as a genius he can write in an easy to understand way)

The outcome of pretending that moral relativism is true - that right and wrong is relative to the individual, (rather than independent of what one dreams, hopes or wills to be right and wrong) is described by Leszek Kolakowski.

“You must know that nothing is good or evil, but I am teaching you that some things are good and some are evil, in order to induce in you conditioned reflexes which are useful for the maintenance of solidarity in communal life which is neither good nor evil but must be seen as good”

“The natural social self defense against education so conceived (that is an education which gives up authority or employs authority while at the same time proclaiming its fictitiousness) is understandable. Since an effective inheritance of values is always the work of authority, and every act of emancipation from authority may arise only in the name of values absorbed thanks to authority, a scientistic upbringing is therefore an absurd utopia.”

Scientistic here meaning that somehow empirical facts alone can give rise to values.

Authority here meaning someone who knows what is right and has a right to do it.

The standard exists. We often don't live up to it but its still there. Moral relativism teaches that the standard changes over time. This makes a mockery of the idea that humans can gradually become better, that societies can improve.

Kay,
I am not your judge. Your life stands or falls in your own conscience relationship to the character of perfection. If you know the message of Christianity, you will realise we have all done things less than perfect. The gospel is that God accepts and forgives imperfect people and gives them imputed [perfection] rightness of character. Their values and focus as a response should be in seeing the true image of the character of God expressed in their lives.

Quote, "You say that God is "perfect". I get the impression that as a devout follower of Christian God, you think you are made in that perfect image? I guess therefore that you have not ever made any mistakes, told a white lie, lost your temper, said damn or buggar - and that you have always held people of other religious or non-religious faiths as equal to yourself?"

I prefer to say no more on the homosexual issue on this thread as there has been other threads where it has been covered. Except to say that teachers in the Public Education system are indoctrinating [brain-washing] all infant children to accept that a homosexual lifestyle is normal. It is the act of anal sex that is an abomination, that increases the physical and emotional health curses upon a society. Go to Google and type in "homosexual health' and read the medical research.

Kay, loved your post.

Interesting how Philo claims not to be your judge. He certainly follows me around OLO offering little judgements on me. I dare say if you engage in riposte with Philo more frequently, he won't be able to contain himself and no doubt will pass comment on you. Notice also that Philo has not admitted to any past (or current) indescretions.

Thereofore, one must conclude that Philo is perfect.

Philo: This is for your edification. I know that you are perfect, but I guess that doesn't mean you know everything if one reads your claim:

"It is the act of anal sex that is an abomination, that increases the physical and emotional health curses upon a society. Go to Google and type in "homosexual health' and read the medical research."

Philo I suggest that you widen your Google searches.

On the subject of anal sex, many heterosexuals engage in anal penetration with either a penis or other phallic object. While it is not my preferred practise - too painful and just generally revolting, it is not the province of gays only. In fact I knew this Christian man rather intimately who liked to........

The reason we split up was due to my refusal to become a born again Christian. Oh and sexual incompatibility....

;0)

philo,
in response to your question, the department do not allow mention of God in performances that are offered to public schools . Needless to say, private religious schools make their own rules.
Donna

Lyrebird, Surely you can see that the comments in this thread are evidence that the telling of Biblical stories in schools would soon become attacks on Muslims and other religions; lead to exclusion of children that disagree with the story teller's interpretation of Bible text; attempts at conversion and coercion; the reintroduction of the age-old warring at lunch time between the "cattleticks" and the "press-buttons" and, of course, thanks to the constant mis-representation of the majority of folk who belong to Islam - these days the "mossies".

And seriously do any of you really want to expose your children to the "storytelling" of the likes of Baraka and B's childish racist attempts to stereotype people of other race, who B religiously identifies with a particular religion, by the behaviour of a few. The behaviour which, I think, these individuals, who are not representative of their culture, learn from western, and thus, using Barakian "logic" - Christian websites.

So Baraka and his fellow-travellers, using B's logic, B's stereotyping methods, B must belong to a culture that approves of rape. B.. must disapprove of Muslim rape - on racial grounds and approve of Christian rape because B's (and B's Christian accomplicises') hatred has twisted their thinking so the disorder and hypocrisy in their own "Christian" culture is whitewashed. So by trying to paint all Muslims with the one brush most of it has covered Baraka. B's behaviour is called "levelling" -bringing others down because you and yours are feeling inadequate.

Also, Lyrebird you have exposed the rights own form of political correctness. That the Education Department can assess that it is is best that people not rely on the state or some religious zealot for their children's moral instruction suggests that the Education folk are not bowing to the demands of the religious lobbyists, and thus, are not letting political correctness (for the right) influence their decisions.(Manners)

Donna,
Well written, well done!

The over-reactions from so many, are to be expected.
Certainly the present climate of our public education system is a result of an arrogant mind-set hijacking the school system, away from Judeo-Christian roots. I have witnessed the way this has been done - often rather sneakily - with the public schools system. And what a mess so many of them are in. What are meant to be reasonable learning environments, often end up as government sanctioned rabbles.

As far as I can see, it is because of their view of the world (without an eschatology), that the secularists have no stories of ultimate significance to tell.
So I think your work will continue to emerge amidst the debris. But it will still be a battle.
Stick at it!

We need to recall that Jesus was not into political correctness, at least not in the frightened way we see it being bowed down to in Australia. When asked, he simply stated God's purpose was deliberate, and his way of doing this was clear for all to see, if they would.

'Salvation is from the Jews' said Jesus.
And some very good kids stories too: ... 'off came the giants head! Up went the cheers!'

Cheers.

Martin suffers from a severe case of arrested moral development when he comes out with this classic Freudian displacement. Brilliant and absolutely absolute. LOL i.e. You're either with us or against us stuff. Phew! This is the hallmark of any really true reactionary position where if you don’t believe in teddy (god), you must believe instead in the opposite of teddy which would be some construct of very bad indeed. It naturally follows that because atheists don't believe they'll get slapped around by a teddy if they misbehave, they will, of course, do nothing but misbehave. How wrong.

But what can one say in defence of non-theists? There is much that can be said that is positive, progressive and enduring. One can say, with a fair degree of accuracy, an athiest never took another life based on his or her atheism. I can't imagine that nineteen atheists would hijack planes and take thousands of innocent lives because of their atheism. Prison surveys have shown that less than 1% of convicted murderers in the U.S. of A. are atheists. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution America performs poorly. In all secular developing democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution.

Much has been expressed about an inclusive determinism and an exclusive indeterminism. The reality is that each person and each society contains elements of both in varying degrees but no matter what, there is always perpetual conflict with these two ways of viewing the world. Where determinism encourages us to seek answers and knowledge, indeterminism says there are none and maintains ignorance and selfishness.

Tennyson: Jesus was so into political correctness. He also didn't explain why his Dad didn't write about dinosaurs in His story.

And another thing the way you Judeo-Christians treat the Palestenians suggests that you have read the Bible to suit your own hatreds. Hitler murdered six million Jews and still you have gathered not a jolt of empathy for others. Most religious folk who have experienced such pain would seek solace in the lesson learned which is that we must all be as politically correct as possible because Hitler's disregard for political incorrectness gradually escalated to genocide.

To just foul mouth every one under the guise of not wanting to be silenced by political correctness is not something Jesus would be a part of. It has nothing to do with love, the ultimate form of political correctness, which according to the Bible is not rude, not self-seeking and keeps no record of wrongs. Isn't Christian love supposed be patient, kind, does not envy, not boastful, not proud, delights in truth rather than evil, protects, trusts, hopes and preserves? Corin. 13

You can tell the truth for truth sake and that is the only example that Jesus gave of political correctness that involves intimidation. Most of the people who go on about their right to be politically correct display all the negatives that Christians supposedly must NOT do.

Indeed, often their political incorrectness unfairly betrays the truth about the peoples or people that they attack.

This attack on the Education mob is misleading and is just clearly a biased opinion. So don't start boasting about how Holier you are than people who think schools should remain secular. Your posts suggests that you are just a another hypocrite using the Bible to further your own OPINION . (Trains)

rancitas,
I note you describe Public Schools as secular, which they are in regard to teaching secular education. However you equate secular as being Atheistic which they were never intended to be. They were never meant to teach atheism as a world view as has been hijacked by the PC Atheist brigade. The right of clergy and qualified laity were given priviledge to teach spiritual truths to their children in Public Schools. Religious schools also teach secular subjects when it comes to meeting State set cirriculum. However I remember in 1952 my sixth class Public School teacher reading the moral stories from the Gospels.

Great stories are told to amplify heroism and inspire children. The human weakness of the character is often overlooked for the quality that is the moral of the story, unless overcoming the weakness is the moral of the story, the frailty of an opponent of the hero demonstrates human weakness.

Write a story about one of our great Olympians and you will not mention they were a bed wetter, unless their overcoming was the trigger of determination to their greatness. Pub stories are told as put down of others character to create laughter or gossip, and it is then the storyteller becomes the central character, eg Keiran, with his "teddy god" impersonations. The storyteller is the central figure as he attempts to entertain and the moral point of the story is lost.

Educational stories should inspire character that overcomes opposition or weakness so that children are encouraged to persevere to greater achievement. Stories of failed human beings can only be given as warning not as posessing a moral greatness. Drug addicts who overdose and take their lives by the habbit are not stories of greatness but of weakness. However a drug addict who kicks the habbit and makes somthing of their life is inspirational. We have several such examples in our Church at this time. Overcoming weakness is inspirational.

Dear O dear, rancitas!
So many personal accusations. Perhaps you could do with a good story:

'Once upon a time there was a very cross and huffy rancitas. Most of all he was angry with those who claimed to be friends of Jesus. So rancitas decided to give some of them a real good verbal spray, with a few historical examples thrown into the mix, to teach them that they were a bunch of hypocrytes. But while rancitas was still an angry enemy, God, the Father of Jesus' friends, did something for rancitas, behind his back.

Yes, while he was still in his bad mood, this God, this Father - in his mercy and kindness - he took old rancitas, and - in a very strange way - he reconciled dear rancitas to himself, and to all people, through the life and deeds of his own dear Son. And on a cross he did this. And his son was a Jew.

But alas, this made rancitas even angrier... He was indignant: 'How dare he do this!' he exclaimed. 'I've got my opinion, and I'm sticking to it... come hell or highwater'. Now, as we can see, not everyone lived happily ever after.

But even that was not the end of the story, for rancitas. Because while he had breath, many new mercies and good things of creation, came his way. But still he was cross about those dinasour bones, and them Crusaders, and them holier-than-thou types.. (A good synonym for anger, that word, "cross")

To be continued...

Keiran,

Wasn't Stalin an atheist. As well as Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot etc etc. Didn't Hitler wander off in that direction. Strewth, some real nice characters have come from your side of the fence.

Kieran suffers from an inability to take what he dishes out. A post of complete hyperbole IS annoying.

Ok justification of your beliefs, now we’re getting somewhere.

But you’ve started poorly. Soviet Communism executed priests en masse and destroyed Churches by the thousand. For what other reason besides their adoption of Mad Marx as an authority did they do that? Religion was the opium of the masses and God a crutch for the feeble minded. It must be extirpated!

And Nietzsche’s ubermenschen would only be weighed down with this religion nonsense. When Hitler’s power was complete he started planning the destruction of the Church in Europe. It was a rival and he was not going to share power. Dachau alone executed 1100 priests and had a special ‘priest block’. Over 6000 priests were executed in the Spanish civil war by Communists – you know the kind, they show their contempt for Christians by calling belief in God - belief in a ‘teddy’. And that’s how the persecution began – very small.

No wonder the people and societies that struggle admit to a belief in God, they clearly need Him the most.
“"It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Mark 2:7
We don’t know how many Christians have been true disciples of Jesus, who haven’t fled from the struggle but are free from hatred. However many there were or are they are the salt of the earth and Western civilization would be a desert without them.

Correlations are interesting things, here’s one for you. Religious people have lower rates of mental disease and are happier than non-believers. It seems to help people cope with life-just what we’d expect from the good God.

Premarital sex, something all religious traditions prohibit, leads to unwanted babies and therefore tempts us to kill our offspring. Secularism teaches ‘explore your sexuality!’ Those without faith kill their growing babies at a ghoulish rate. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH02Aa01.html

This is great stuff, guys. I'm enjoying this "comments" forum more than the articles themselves.

Quick note, Francis: what characterised Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Hitler etc. was an absolute and unrelenting belief that their view of the world was correct, and that dissenters deserved death at the minimum.

Linking tyranny to a system of belief (or lack thereof) is specious. Once someone decides not to allow other points of view to interfere with their ideology, they won't hesitate to punish disbelievers. It goes for atheistic dictators as much as it goes for devout inquisitors, Nazi-sympathising popes, anti-West mullahs and Anglican paedophiles.

And Rumsfeld, of course.

Sancho,

Who are the Nazi-sympathising popes?.....your understanding of history seems really immature......read Rabbi David Dalin's latest book on the so-called Nazi-sympathising pope......the Rabbi might just shock you.

Welcome to the world that any serious Christian has faced for over 20 years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/editorial.asp?vPrint=1

Tyrant dictators like Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, etc may have been atheists in some respects but were not about democracy nor a secular democracy. Their teddy came from an extreme ideology where in fact they themselves assumed the position of an omnipotent teddy ....... not unlike any such theocratic playpen. None were promoting atheism as such because their prime motivation, and include Hitler here, was political, nationalist and totalitarian. To associate atheism and freethought with such activity is as absurd as it is untrue.

In the case of both Hitler and Stalin there is strong evidence to say they were heavily influenced by religion and were all products of their societies. These influences would have shaped their attitudes and behaviour which in turn would have influenced their reaction to these powerful 'father' figures. People drilled in accepting, believing, in faith, and unthinking obedience to an all powerful 'teddy' figure is all part of the same picture.

With regard Hitler, one only has to read from his own writings to appreciate that Hitler's God equals the same God of the Christian Bible. Much of his philosophy came from the Bible, and more influentially, from the Christian Social movement. i.e. The German Christian Social movement, remarkably, resembles the Christian Right movement in the US of A today.

e.g.
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people."

Adolph Hitler, April 26, 1933

Of course the Christian books, television documentaries, and sermons will preach of Hitler's "evil" and seek to eliminate Hitler's teddy for their Christian audiences. When one examines the record of the Catholic church and its attitude to, and action in relation to the Third Reich what do you see? Not a pretty picture?

ps
Martin, increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution.

lyrebird, that isn't very convincing:

>>in response to your question, the department do not allow mention of God in performances that are offered to public schools<<

It would be more persuasive if you answered the question more fully - is this a written rule? Or is it just an interpretation of a perceived rule?

This is quite an important point.

If this is official, written policy that we can examine and comment upon, you have done a considerable service in bringing an example of petty political correctness to the attention of the public.

If on the other hand you simply received some poor treatment from a departmental flunkey, and chose to take this experience and blow it up into a full-on accusation that the department is "turning its back on our own Judeo-Christian culture", that would at the very least be exaggeration.

Please let us know.

All this carry on because some Jew girl couldn't get her own way, I suggest you'all gwt a hobby!

Europe is better off with rampant secularism? There is little hope for Europe, it can’t even reproduce itself. As Pope Benedict XVI said Europe sees children as a burden rather than a source of joy. In this respect the decadence of Europe must be compared with the fall of the Roman Empire. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/front_page/ED08Aa01.html

Its true religion is the greatest force for good or evil. Even more reason to understand and not explain away religion with “teddys”, for the charge of escapism is suitably applied to a westerner who refuses to take a proper account of the life of Jesus. Besides, how was Jesus’ obedience unto death, to God the Father, some kind of comfort blanket? Perhaps you can tell him that when you meet him.

So a convicted murderer is likely to believe in God – so what?! The demons believe in God and tremble. Satan has no doubt about the existence of God.

Look Christianity hasn’t been tried and found wanting its been found hard and not tried. Do you want to take up your cross and follow him? No ? The cross is folly to you?

How many could articulate philosophical atheism? I have great respect for people like JS Mill who looked carefully but could not believe. How many like this?

Determinism? are you trying to say you believe free will an illusion? That religion inhibits the investigation of the natural world?

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=tqm4xd5mqkk5px43d968m19qmf4w3g5y

It was Christianity that championed reason. Greek philosophy had no effect on Greek religion, nor did it win over Muslims. Reason applied to commerce – capitalism, and nature – science have their seeds in Mediaeval Christendom.

The best example of humanity we have, this luminous Nazarene - Jesus Christ, from whom all good we have has come. What do you call him?

Atheism had no effect on the barbarity of communist atrocities? You can subtract atheism from the full fledged communist world view? mmmm lol
The two monsters weren't really atheists because they picked up bits of Christianity from their surrounding culture. That rules you out too then Kieran

SHONGA,
Your rudeness toward faith and racism is the point of this post. If you do not wish to participate please refrain from abuse. Get a real life! That you treat life as a mere hobby is demonstration of your shallowness of mind.

Quote, "All this carry on because some Jew girl couldn't get her own way, I suggest you'all gwt a hobby!

>>Correlations are interesting things<< says Martin.

O-o-o-okay. So try this one.

>>Religious people have lower rates of mental disease<<

A couple of weeks ago, Abdul Rahman was reprieved from the gallows on the basis that he is mentally unfit to stand trial for the crime of apostasy. In his case, this was simply because he was a Christian.

Leaving aside the world's moral outrage that enabled his life to be saved, the fact remains that his crime, and the verdict, prove conclusively that mental illness is a social construct.

If we take the Afghani society, it is only a small step from this verdict to the proclamation that Christianity itself is a mental illness. I may not agree with this conclusion, but a) it might save a lot of lives and b) would guarantee that in Afghanistan at least, it could be shown that Christians have a 100% record of mental illness.

How's that for correlation Martin?

your protestations on the ability of Christians to think freely...

>>are you trying to say you believe free will an illusion? That religion inhibits the investigation of the natural world?<<

...you provide an example that is headed "How Christianity (and Capitalism) Led to Science", in which the argument proceeds as follows:

“The most convincing answer to those questions attributes Western dominance to the rise of capitalism .... [which] achieved that miracle through regular reinvestment to increase productivity ...but, if one digs deeper, it becomes clear that the truly fundamental basis not only for capitalism, but for the rise of the West, was an extraordinary faith in reason ... [and w]hile the other world religions emphasized mystery and intuition, Christianity alone embraced reason and logic as the primary guides to religious truth.”

This sort of logic does not even pass the gentlest of examinations. While Christianity may embrace reason and logic as guides to religious truth (although even that is vigorously arguable – ID anyone?), there remains no connection with the primary claim, that it has anything to do with scientific enquiry.

The argument is a house of cards, built on sand.

Martin Ibn Warriq

"No wonder the people and societies that struggle admit to a belief in God, they clearly need Him the most."

They are also more likely to believe in witch doctors.

"Religious people have lower rates of mental disease and are happier than non-believers. It seems to help people cope with life-just what we’d expect from the good God."

If this supposition is correct, though personally I doubt it, it could be explained by the fact that people have to suspend all judgement and reason if they are to accept religious teachings. And obviously if you don't think very deeply you can't stress your mental faculties to the point of illness.

No person who thinks rationally could possibly believe in the existence of heaven and an eternal life. I guess though that if you could empty your head to that extent you probably would be happy. You probably wouldn't trouble your mind too much about many other issues that the rest of us have to grapple with either. Believing that the world's problems are simply the will of God absolves people from having to take some personal responsibility which no doubt helps in remaining happy.

People who do take the bible literally will have to do some serious (not to mention creative) thinking if they are to reconcile its teachings with the recently discovered Gospel of Judas. Apparently the representation of Judas in this tome is quite at odds with his long accepted portrayal in the New Testament. One can only wonder at how many hours will be wasted in explaining away this little mystery.

"Premarital sex, something all religious traditions prohibit, leads to unwanted babies and therefore tempts us to kill our offspring. Secularism teaches ‘explore your sexuality!’ Those without faith kill their growing babies at a ghoulish rate."

What a nonsense to try and link secularism with promiscuity as you have attempted to do here. If you can't use reasoning and/or evidence to back up such wild claims don't make them. Especially to this audience. Most of us don't believe in blind acceptance.

Martin

From my 30 or so years of mental health nursing experience, nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed, the contrary applies from my experience. The most disturbed mentally ill people I have nursed, have come from an indoctrinated faith. Some examples are: Roman Catholicism, The Bretherin, and especially The Mormons.

I have nursed many Nuns who have been profoundly psychotic - using "fs and cs" abundantly. When they became well, of course they were mortified, and inevitably lapsed into a very black whole of depression. Absolutelly trajic stuff.

Regards
Kay

Bron
there were many 'pseudo' gospels in the days of the early church.

The key point which is promoted about this 'gospel' is that Judas is not the 'hated' figure, but more an 'assistant' to the fulfillment of Christs crucifixion destiny.. does that change the meaning, purpose and result of his actual death on our behalf ? Nope..not a bit.

It might change how Judas is regarded, but to be honest, he is just about the last biblical character I think about.

The most important outcome of study of this document, will probably be nothing more than further help in understanding the use of Koine greek. There may be other documentary 'pearls' which emerge, it may support some historical incidents..

Have a peak at this reference please

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospeljudas.html

The gospel of Judas was mentioned by an early church father Irenaeus.
Its just one among many false gospels, like that of Bartholomew and others.. rejected by the Church due to knowing where they came from.

Knowing what it actually 'says' in 2006 will not change the fact that it was rejected with good reason by the early Church in the fixing of the Canon.

Cheers

Listen Brownwyn your co-religionists’ (I was a member of that audience until recently) are applauded for towing the secularist line. As always the definition of a Christian is someone who is persecuted. The Cross of Christ is God’s judgment on this world, and radical secularism is the rejection of that judgment. Voltaire would be disgusted with you unable to see the lies that characterize the age, the epitome of blind acceptance.

The intellectual fashions, scientism, secularism are glamorous. They got me too. But that spark of divinity in the soul isn’t easy to extinguish.

Its self evident that radical secularism and the decline of religious moral authority has led to an increase in convenient abortion. Your argument should be that humans have every right to control their reproduction in any way they see fit, that a first trimester fetus is a non-person and merely a clump of cells. I can’t see how you can argue that radical secularism and the relativism that goes along with it isn’t responsible for the sexually obsessed culture we inhabit. As Victor Frankl said without meaning libido expands to take up the space. If you can’t see this that’s just blind acceptance.

Except for the last 100 years the entire philosophical history of Western civilization, plus pretty much all of Eastern philosophy has assumed the existence of God/The Tao. Who is really rational? And by the way can you tell me where reason comes from?

If you like we can start talking about Heaven I think that would be great.

While on reason, are you a Da Vinci Code girl too? The Gnostic gospels were written 2nd century AD by groups who in a self serving way wanted a different tradition to orthodox Christianity. If you believe them you’ll believe David Irving’s history of the holocaust. The reason the four gospels are canonical is because the community knew they were true, there were eyewitnesses of the events who could corroborate what the authors wrote.

Like saying Hitler was a Christian its a sign you’re arguments are getting desperate when you appeal to these non-canonical texts.

Martin lbn Warriq

I wasn't appealing to these texts at all. I treat them with the same indifference I do the bible. I only mentioned the Gospel of Judas as an illustration of how contradictory these so-called Word of God accounts can be.

Kalweb, Religion is a type of Mental illness, with all its twist and turns. You say, "
"I have nursed many Nuns who have been profoundly psychotic - using "fs and cs" abundantly"
Stroke victims have similar behaviours, when part of the brain is damaged,people can revert
to profanity, that they never used in their life before.
Bronwin, you say,"
"Religious people have lower rates of mental disease and are happier than non-believers.
It seems to help people cope with life-just what we’d expect from the good God."
Can you define, "mental disease," as the more I read of these comments, I am sure
you are suffering a bit of this affliction also.

Francis, Hitler became 'father god,' to the Germans of that era. Was he not called "Mine Fauer?"

Nazis:It was a Religion on its own, based on the beliefs of Historical mythology and philosophical pantheism.
You have heard of the Ride of the Valkyries?
And the simple answer to the Question: NO most Germans did not view Hitler as a God, he did. And remember drug inducement was common for there followers- followed by intellectual psychobabble (Propaganda).
You are seeing the same ethics and manipulation now day. Ominous parallels , one would say.

[Deleted for inappropriate language.]

You’ll notice Pericles that Kieran thought his correlations very nice, my comment about correlations was ironical - you missed the point, and this happens with you too much.
Here again with Christianity and reason.

Near the end of his book, he [Stark] quotes from a study group of Chinese scholars who have been trying for at least two decades to figure out the success of the West, as compared with China itself and Islamic culture:

"One of the things that we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world. We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this."

Anything else is Hollywood history of the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ kind.

If God is rational, then we can have faith that the effort we put into studying the world will be rewarded with evidence of this. Physicists find elegance in the physical laws, no wonder, physical laws are God’s habitual mode of communication.

Prof. Stark is assuming the reader understands this.

Michael Behe never intended ID to be taught as a scientific theory, the book was written as a criticism of evolutionism. ID is a metaphysical theory, like evolutionism (which states if you leave that rock in water long enough it will come alive). These are theories about how the empirical facts came to be, not laws that describe physical events.

Reigning dogma evolutionism in science lessons anyone?

Your extreme views about mental illness are best let through to the keeper

Wow, so Bronwyn has heard of the Gospel of Judas (most of us can read newspapers too!) and now wants to use it to prove how "contradictory these word of God accounts are"......such sweeping staements and over-generalisations lead to the conslusion that she doesn't know what she's talking about. My copy of the "Gospel of Judas" (most definitely not written by Judas Iscariot) is no contradiction at all.

2NIGHT on COMPASS (abc) “Who wrote the Bible”...

So... irrespective of who ‘wrote’ it... what IS it ?

“Genesis gives us ‘Creation’ and our fall from Grace. It provides the beginning of Salvation, reconciliation, the birth of a nation, from the seed of Abraham, the sons of Jacob, and the glorious Covenant.

Exodus, “Let my people go” echoes down to us through the words of Moses,

We have the descent into gloom as Job explores the problem of suffering, the Wisdom of Solomon in Ecclesiasties who seeks meaning “All is chasing the wind... all is meaningless”

The prophets cry out against the evils of injustice and spiritual waywardness

The ox knows his master,
the donkey his owner's manger,
but Israel does not know,
my people do not understand."

Then the promise of the Messiah

“All we like sheep have gone astray, but the Lord has laid on HIM, the iniquities of us all, ...he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.

Then our glorious Servant King and Savior came in person, born in a humble manger.

18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,

Acts gives us the outpouring of the Holy Spirit

3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.

Revelation gives the returning King.

"It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life.

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away...

All celebrated in such musical treasures as Handels Messiah, astounding Architecture and Literary works unparralleled.

Ah, so many christians, and yet not one can logically explain to me why homosexuality is wrong, or why people should be condemned to hell for not believing in your version of god, all we get is ranting about pre-marital sex causing unwanted babies and causing people to kill their offspring - ever heard of contraception Martin?

BOAZ_David

Give us all a break, please! Ease up on the religious fervour. We all know you love God. We don't need to be reminded on a daily basis.

ELIDA

The statement you wrongly attributed to me was in fact made by someone else. I only quoted it in order to refute it which should have been obvious if you had bothered to read the rest of the post.

hellothere,
For a start read: The American Journal of Public Health Highlights Risks of Homosexual Practices
by
A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.P.H.
Vice President, NARTH
http://www.narth.com/docs/risks.html

Try a Christian perspective on homosexual health:
Health risks of the homosexual lifestyle by SUSAN BRINKMANN
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0088.html

Go to Google type in "Homosexual Health" and read the research reports. No good news report!

Hellothere,
Homosexuality and Mental Health Issues
http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/mental_health_review.htm

Quick Review: Consider some recent studies evaluating the mental health of homosexuals and bisexuals below.

Quote, "Summary: During the 1960s and early 1970s, homosexuals and homophiles argued that homosexuals were as mentally healthy as heterosexuals. However, confronted by considerable evidence from the late 1990s onward that homosexuals and bisexuals are at least two- to three-fold more likely to manifest mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals and homophiles have promptly started blaming stigma, prejudice, and victimization for elevated psychiatric morbidity among nonheterosexuals. Preliminary considerations suggest that elevated psychiatric morbidity among nonheterosexuals is not readily explicable in terms of stigma, prejudice, and victimization."

Are you yet satisfied?

Because we began talking about stories, and I know Philo and Martin would love a little teddy story before they go to bed, here is a Jewish teddy tale. Just love Jewish humour ..... usually warts and all. However, as with most stories, it comes with a question or two (for Martin) at the end.

"
Sarah meets Josh at a dance. Later Josh shows Sarah around his house where she notices that Josh’s room is full of teddy bears - hundreds of them. There are cute small ones on a shelf all the way along the floor, cuddly medium-sized ones on the next shelf up and huge bears on the top shelf. Sarah is surprised that such a virile man should have such an extensive collection of teddy bears. Nevertheless, she decides not to mention this but soon succumbs to his sensitive side. Later, as Sarah is lying there she says to him, smiling, "Well, Josh, what did you make of that?"
Josh replies, "Help yourself to any prize from the bottom shelf."

Q1 Martin with so many of these teddies and where finagling is endemic, is your good teddy that you are so proudly advocating, a top shelf teddy? i.e. an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent teddy who created the universe, logic and reason?

Q2 Martin, do you agree with Hitler, that "Secular schools can never be tolerated ..."? Why?

Dear Bronwyn...thanx for the reminder....

Should I urge you to ease up on the secular stuff ? :)

Have a lovely remainder of a weekend and a nice new week.

Buy your petrol early , prices will probably skyrocket prior to Easter.

cheers

OK Philo, so homosexuality is bad because there are health risks. Fat people are much more likely to die of cancer and heart disease. In fact, obesity kills many, many more people than homosexuality. Therefore, homosexuals are bad, but fat people are worse? And don't even get me started on ciggarette smokers.. and fat ciggarette smokers must be practically Satan himself. Yes?

The health results are more - circumstantial evidence, after the fact.
The angst there, in this post, Mr. 'hellothere' - certainly tells its own story.
But I think this is off the topic a bit.

I have been reading these comments with interest. It seems to me people replying to this forum are old hands at beating each other up. I would like to make a few comments on some of the underlying arguments through the list. I am not so much looking for an argument as trying to make people question their pre-established beliefs and values. I have had to split up my posts to fit the maximum word limit. Also all the links are just starting points for further study.

RE: Homosexuality
I am a Christian so I believe, for religious reasons, homosexuality is wrong. I think the people on the list are arguing past each other. One person is wanting to know why homosexuality is wrong while the other side is demonstrating that homosexuality is unnatural (with all the medical evidence being listed). Having said that even though I think homosexuality is unnatural and having it on show in public actually has a negative affect on society (a fair position to hold based on reason) Christians who spend so much time vehemently arguing against it have their priorities screwed up. There are soooo many more bigger issues to fight against – social injustice in all its guises (poverty, the IR reforms, the exploitation of the vulnerable). Sure, if someone wants to know your view on homosexuality then tell them. But if you are wasting so much breath on it you must believe there are no other social ills to deal with. Which I think is tragically wrong.

RE: Christianity is some kind of “Evil Empire”.
This myth has been around since the early 20th century. Its so wrong on so many fronts that its impossible to list them all. Suffice it to say that Christianity has been the greatest force for social good in the history of humanity. If Christian charities were to disappear tomorrow the entire welfare system would collapse. For those interested I list the following books which are a great “summary” Christian history. They were written by Rodney Stark who was initially an atheist but as he learned more about the history of Christianity he become a Christian himself and an apologist. I challenge everyone on this forum who thinks Christianity is somehow evil to read his books. Then again I would understand if you didn’t want to, as much like Rodney Stark found out, its dangerous to study.

The Rise of Christianity
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060677015/qid=1144798803/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2405056-8568014?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

One True God
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691115001/qid=1144798803/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/002-2405056-8568014?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

For the Glory of God
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691119503/qid=1144798803/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-2405056-8568014?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

RE: NAZIS, Stalin and other atheistic societies
I have to say I am astounded at anyone who would argue that NAZI Germany and Stalin Russia were some how the result of religion, in particular of Christianity. That is not only crazy but shows a terrible lack of knowledge when it comes to history. These atheistic societies killed more people than the entire world history of religious conflict. Just some quick links to get people started. Again I recommend people do a lot more reading before they start spouting off about stuff they clearly know nothing about. As it just makes you and your “side” look childish:

From Darwin to Hitler : Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1403965021/qid=1144799162/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-2405056-8568014?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Index of related Nazi and Communist links:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/communism.asp?vPrint=1

Solomani,

Welcome to on line opinion 'OLO' - your contribution to reason and sanity is appreciated.

Unfortunately I much doubt that this will appeal to the “my mind is made up don’t bother me with the facts” clan here. They enjoy arguing their lost case thinking that they owe their life and have full control of their destiny.

This is a spiritual warfare as you know. Only a spiritual intervention will open these people’s eyes and soften their hearts to accept God’s precepts.

How can we describe life to the blind?
How can we communicate love to a heart of rock?
How can we break through a closed mind?

Only God can bring them to the foot of the cross to meet His Son Jesus. Only then will they understand how futile their own understanding has been all along.

Arrogance and scientific reliance made the Titanic unsinkable...

Coach,
Thanks for your comments. Ultimately I agree with you. Until people's lives are changed by Christ through the Holy Spirit nothing will truly change people’s hearts and minds. I also know from experience people who bandy about these "logical" and "historical" evidence of why they hate God and Christianity are really not being honest. There is a deeper, personal, reason why. I also find it crazy so many of these atheists and agnostics say they rejected God when they were 5, 8 or 11 or some such and seem to be proud of that. I find that odd that you base your entire framework of how you live your life based on a decision you made as a child! And generally, its clear, most of the anti-Christian arguments are at the level of a 5, 8 or 11 year old.

Having said that I always hold out hope that pure reason and logic can sway some people. These are the people who tend to be generally agnostic towards God but based on their current understanding see the idea of religion as irrational. So I can't help but try :)

Still waiting for an answer, lyrebird.

Was your experience with an individual, or with "the system"?

I haven't found, from a random sounding of friends who are teachers and educationalists, a single one who has heard of the rules you describe.

They are all of the opinion that you met some kind of uptight functionary who doesn't like you very much and was having a bad hair day.

But it piqued their interest, so if you could help out with a reference to the policy itself, that would help a great deal.

Otherwise, your story is interesting only at the level of a shop assistant being rude to you.

Solomani, there is no doubt that you have the teddy mind virus.

Some questions. When exactly did you get infected and is your teddy (god) a top shelf teddy? i.e. an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent teddy who created the universe, logic and reason? Plus, why would Hitler say "Secular schools can never be tolerated ..."? You may like to include some of your "hope that pure reason and logic can sway some people." LOL

To help you overcome your obvious anthropocentric mindset and much rote learning, you may like to consider this ..........
If from the formation of our solar system to the present represents a walk of one mile (1.6 Kilometres), then 0.001 of an inch (.0254 millimeters) or half the thickness of a medium human hair = human lifetime.

Keiran,
Answer my question first - what’s all this teddy stuff? I know you are trying to be insulting (I guess?). But it just sounds silly and lame. Just curious what’s the history of this fixation for you.

Regarding Hitler. When you read the stuff I've linked then feel free to ask questions. I own Mien Kampf as well and have read it. So please justify your quote. What page is it on?

Finally - ahhh evolution - my favourite pet peeve and one of my areas of academic expertise. I am happy to "debate" you on the finer points. But as I said I want to know about this teddy bear you worship first, the source of your quote and finally what is your counter argument against the links I posted showing the link between evolution and atheism with NAZI Germany.

Solomani, some reading to knock this one over first ...... will get to teddies and evolution later.

"God does not make cowardly nations free." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: "Gott mit uns" = God is with us.

Mein Kampf ....... "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord,"

"We must turn all the sentiments of the Volk, all its thinking, acting, even its beliefs, away from the anti-Christian, smug individualism of the past, from the egotism and stupid Phariseeism of personal arrogance, and we must educate the youth in particular in the spirit of those of Christ's words that we must interpret anew: love one another; be considerate of your fellow man; remember that each one of you is not alone a creature of God, but that you are all brothers! " (Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant, page 140)

"It will be the Government's care to maintain honest cooperation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the German nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith." (At the Reichstag, March 23, 1933)

"We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." (Berlin, Oct. 24, 1933)

"But there is something else I believe, and that is that there is a God. . . . And this God again has blessed our efforts during the past 13 years." (Hitler ... Munich, Feb. 24, 1940)

"An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An educated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)." (Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944, page 59)

Keiran,

Be honest in your selective quotations from Hitler......you fail to quote the many statements of his which clearly show his loathing of Christianity as well as Judaism.....so he rejects the Judeo/Christian God. I see you still have a fetish about "teddy bears". You should get seen to about this.....I'm sure there's help available.

Keiran,
What is your claim? Are you saying Hitler was an example of the life and attitudes of Jesus Christ. To call onself a Christian means to live as Christ and display his attitudes.

To claim to be Buddahist means to live by the example set by Buddah. If you live by somthing else and call yourself a Buddahist it does not make you an example of a Buddahist.

If you are a atheist and you say prayers each night to God in the belief he hears your thoughts, does not make you an atheist.

If you are presenting examples of Christians I suggest you at least find people who lived his life and attitudes. It only shows the distorted view you hold of Christ and those that can be called his disciples. Hitler had more in common with the life and attitudes of Hammas or Iran than any semblence of Christ.

Quoting Hitler like that, to prove a very tenuous point of view, calls for a classic comment from Jesus, the Jew, (who is adored by Christians, and Messianic Jews alike!)

"You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!"
How did you manage to swallow that very humpy camel?

Best to come to terms with his Risen Presence - the hound of heaven, who's really bugging you, I reckon.

B. F. Skinner proposed the stimulus-response model of behavior and someone else proposed the cognitive science model. But behavior is neither just caused by stimuli in the environment nor is it blind execution of internal plans. Well we get comments from Francis, Philo and Tennyson to the selected quotes from Hitler that prove that living organisms do not "respond to stimuli" rather they control input variables. i.e. behavior is produced by comparing inputs with desired inputs, and using the difference to drive output or behaviour. Their purposeful behaviour is a means of controlling their own perceptions.

When reading these Hitler quotes, if your perceptions are limited to a religious playpen we will get Francis's "Keiran, Be honest in your selective quotations from Hitler" because it is selective only of his fetish perceptions.

Philo, with his comment "It only shows the distorted view you hold of Christ and those that can be called his disciples." is similarly selective of his particular fetish perception.

Tennyson similarly with ... "Best to come to terms with his Risen Presence - the hound of heaven, who's really bugging you, I reckon."

What then does a non-theist Keiran say about these Hitler quotes where Hitler is demonstrably damming of atheism? e.g. "which is a return to the state of the animal". Well my behaviour comes from wider and inclusive perceptions. My earlier comment on this was about tyrant dictators where they were not about democracy nor a secular democracy because they assumed the position of an omnipotent teddy (god).

i.e. These Hitler quotes seriously point to people drilled in accepting, believing, in faith, and unthinking obedience to an all powerful 'teddy' figure as all part of the same picture.

Perhaps we can move to Solomani's " favourite pet peeve and ....... areas of academic expertise." .... evolution. lol

Aah! The omniscient Kieran with his teddy bear fetish......proving that he hasn't grown up and not capable of responding to simple challenges to his muddled thinking. Kieran, I left my teddy bear years ago......you're still carrying yours.

Keiran,
When you actually understand human behaviour then we might begin to believe you. With this pseudo analysis of pschhology you have dismally failed.

Quote, "Well we get comments from Francis, Philo and Tennyson to the selected quotes from Hitler that prove that living organisms do not "respond to stimuli" rather they control input variables. i.e. behavior is produced by comparing inputs with desired inputs, and using the difference to drive output or behaviour. Their purposeful behaviour is a means of controlling their own perceptions."

Until you realise you are standing outside the human mind making clinical comments suggest there is a part of you that is not defined by your own analysis. It is called the will or the spirit. You will continue in your vanity and infantile foolishness because it defines who you are. Engage intellect and reason!

James the elder step brother of Jesus and son of Joseph said, "Devils believe in God and tremble." As in Jesus day the religious demons who had Jesus crucified were Jewish zealots. They believed they were doing the will of God. The apostle Paul believing he was doing Gods will had followers of Jesus put to death before his conversion. [Read Acts] A disciple is one who emulates his master not one who sprouts the teaching of the master. A true Buddahist is one who practises the masters teachings, not one who sprouts the teachings of the master.

The nature of your spirit reflects juvenile antagonism, and you attempt to degrade by infantile patronising comments. Engage intellect and mature!

Someone always has to put the boot into Muslims don't they Leigh. Nothing better to occupy your time with I suspect. Most Muslim stories are the same as the the Judeo-Christian ones with a variation here and there. My husband was thrilled they told the mostly Koranic version of Moses in the Ch. 7 Sunday - Monday night mini-series. I thought it was a bit tacky personally and prefer the original version. I had to inform him that that was ALSO the Judeo-Christian version. He was astounded - really they tell the same story - afraid so dear !

Anyway back to the topic at hand a good yarn is worthy whatever religion it may be from.

Philo, I am just a "nobody" and if "nobody" is perfect then that seems to makes me perfect. On reflection, if Hitler did say that atheism was "a return to the state of the animal", I'll take that as a complement along with heathen, rationalist, skeptic or whatever. However, one can dismiss Shirley's nonsense of omniscient, ....... but when you say "Until you realise you are standing outside the human mind making clinical comments suggest there is a part of you that is not defined by your own analysis. It is called the will or the spirit." it deserves some examination. (Bear in mind that OLO does present some limits.)

Spirit implies intelligence, consciousness and sentience. My thoughts are that a spirit develops and grows as an integral aspect of each living being, is a physical process, not a miracle nor some break in the fabric of causation. When that living being dies, so does its spirit. We have a connected material brain sufficient to account for the evolution of spirit in a material and infinite universe.

How this living spirit functions in its lifetime people have written countless volumes, whilst religions, monachies, politicians, the media and who knows what else have turned it into a controling business. So the first point to make is that whilst this living spirit is fundamentally endowed, necessary, unique and precious to each living being, our nerve-centre for spiritual beliefs develops and evolves in constant connection with an evolving environment giving each individual a collective set of perceptions. It is the control of these perceptions that produces purposeful behaviour.

Perhaps it's best to pause here to see if you and others are with these thoughts. Solomani, are you there because I have mentioned evolution? Will get to those teddies and playpens in good time as well. How exciting this is.

Keiran

Perception is the processing of multiplicity of stimuli that when compared against our stored (accepted) beliefs make "sense to us. i.e. if your belief of God or gods is a "Teddy" that is what your "mind" will perceive. You cannot believe beyond your own beliefs.

Unlike animalistic “reactive instinct” we humans have more than an “evolved” grey matter. There is a non-physical God-shaped spot that is receptive to an unquantifiable (but real) stimuli...God's voice.

Beyond our human spirit, above all human understanding, beyond matter, is the Spirit of God. That Spirit is what a (true) believer has deep in his soul. You need to calibrate this non-part of your being that is hindering you from perceiving - let alone understand – the total scheme of things.

We (believers) can argue with you till the cows come home, but it will mostly be a waste, if the necessary “software”is ready to decipher what we say.

God – by His Grace – is allowing you, a mere creature to Him, to intellectualise to your heart content. He has taken much wiser people than you to a point where they finally discovered their futile foolishness.

So don’t give up yet. You need to crawl before you can stand up and face the real world, as God intended it to be. Then it will be time to get on your knees and bow to the superiority of your creator…and start the relationship with Him through His Son Jesus.

Perhaps it is time for you to give up your ‘teddy’ and join the grown ups

Coach, thank you for your thoughts and concern but the simple fact is that I do not have a teddy although plenty of well meaning people have tried to give me one. In its place there seems to be a will to truth and some degree of curiosity about all manner of stuff where the vision I get is more awesome, more breathtaking, more inspiring.

When one says "You cannot believe beyond your own beliefs." I just wonder where this depressing thought originates but it is remarkable in being able to express solipsism and fatalism in one breath. This is stunning arrogance with an unreasonable certainty. To say you cannot find something is absurd but not surprising when I see many of these teddy infected types. (include a media teddy as well)

Seems like this "animalistic “reactive instinct”" stuff pops out of a similar anthropocentric mindset. Behavior as I understand it, is neither just caused by stimuli in the environment nor is it blind execution of internal plans. Behaviour from a one celled organism to a complex organism is purposeful and a means of controlling perceptions. Why even a number of animals display altruistic behaviours and even some birdsong is aesthetic in intent.

There also is this problem with the soul. I don't believe we have one of these because all these deep feelings and empathy belong in this living spirit. Also, this " non-physical God-shaped spot" has me intrigued. Are you saying your teddy has placed a vacuum in there somewhere? Of course a true vacuum simply cannot exist although there is no telling what these teddies can get up to.

In my optimism, my thoughts may get some people to think about these important matters in a slightly different manner. Must say it's a lot of fun in the process and may continue in Peter Sellick's "The source of true self".

Keiran "You cannot believe beyond your own beliefs." What I meant there is that you can only believe that which makes sense to you according to your present subconscious convinctions, what you truly believe to be the truth and is deeply embeded in your mind will act like a protective filter against new information.

It is not necessarely a negative thing - and it can be altered by displacement or replacement with a new conviction.

Most fears and phobias can be explaned (and cured) using that principle.

So if you believe there is no "soul" it is according to your own truths or convictions. It does not mean that souls exist or not.

I admire your sense of curiosity and adventure. If you continue to investigate with an open mind you will find new truths.

Birds like most animals behave in a distinct predictable manner programmed in advance by the creator God. Of course it is beautiful and perfect in every way - one can see the master touch of greatness in the simplest of creatures.

Humans are superior to animals not by evolution but by intentional design. We might share some of our physiologies but we were created for a different reason than biology. We can think and initiate (create) new thoughts.

God has a plan for each one of us according to His will. To take God out of our life is to limit our full understanding.

It is like a splendid guitare that is badly out of tune and the tension keys have been removed. No matter how much you try, only noise not music will be heard.

An Oklahoma man killed his ten-year-old neighbour. He raped her and ate her flesh.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/wouldbe-cannibal-kills-girl/2006/04/17/1145126057239.html

Why would God allow this to happen? Why did an innocent child have to die to fulfill His plan? Was the cannibal performing the work of satan? But if God is omnipotent and omniscient couldn't he stop Satan's plan from coming to fruition?

If your God is love, why does he not love children enough to prevent their slaughter?

Why did he not intervene to stop those nasty atheists, Hitler, Stalin and Mao?

I'm just asking...

...and I'm just telling.

KRS1 please goto your room and think about what you said...

Blaming God ? good grief. Can you even hear yourself ?

Please, its one thing to 'think' silly thoughts, its another to actually publicize them like you did.

Why do I say 'silly' ? to annoy you ? to mock you ? no way. To educate you !

Your statement tells us more about your 'view of God' , than anythng else mate. Apparently, God makes you pick up your fork and place food on it, and then moves your arm so that it goes into your mouth.. he even wipes your rear end... in other words, 'you' don't exist as a free thinking free acting individual, you are simply an extension of the Almighty, like a 6th finger or something.

You have the scriptures, you have conscience, you have your social upbringing.. and yet when 'you' make a choice to go against ALL that.. "Its Gods fault".

Yes, I am goading you a bit, don't take offense, I'm stirring your juices to get you thinking. Read the Old Testament, see how many times, in just about every chapter there is some reference to people turning to their own way in spite of knowing exactly what God requires.

The books of kings and chronicles are stories about various kings who are assessed in terms of doing or not doing Gods will. "And king so and so did EVIL in the sight of the Lord, following his own ways etc etc"

Bad things are done by people who have a free will.
One of my peers once said "Don't tell me about God...I've been to Vietnam" ..strange..I was also there, and I found the main source of 'evil' was ourselves...humans.. I did not find that the suffering was a result of God but of man going his own greedy way.

Don't worry Boaz, I'm not stirred. And my view of God is simple- He doesn't exist. Existence is a brief sliver of light between two eternal chasms of darkness. What I'm trying to resolve is the obvious contradictions in the beliefs of those who profess to love Him. If all evil springs from the greed of man, where does the greed come from, if we are created in the image of God himself? Why does your omniscient, omnipotent God tolerate evil? If you were watching the cannibal kill the girl and did nothing, we'd consider you criminallly negligent. So why do you not consider God criminally negligent? And, if God truly does love us, why on earth would he create something like this?-

http://www.dhpe.org/infect/guinea.html

Donna, I really do hate to be a bore on the subject, but it is three weeks since you wrote the piece, it is clear that you read the comments we have made because you replied under the nym lyrebird, but you have yet to provide any convincing substantiation of the key point you make in the article.

Namely, that in the eyes of the Department of Education "being a Jew is not kosher and telling a Christian story is heresy".

You cited one telephone call from a female as evidence of the department's root-and-branch corruption by political correctness. You choose not to tell us whether this person has any authority in the Department, or whether she was speaking for herself or quoting from regulations - in fact, you have avoided each and every request to provide substance to your claims.

There have been over a hundred responses to your article, indicating that you have tapped into a significant concern that we have - namely, that government departments are taking it upon themselves to micro-manage us in a clearly destructive and offensive manner. It would be a great shame if this turns out to be a massive fuss blown up out of all proportion by a sense of personal aggrievement.

I think you owe us all some clarification, don't you?

KRS-1 you echo a long line of atheist thought. You clearly hate evil and love mankind and if you do great deeds then I might mention your name as a pass to get into Heaven.

I think you know what you're doing, Kieran plainly doesn't. The following is from the great man GK Chesterton. Mostly for Kieran's benefit. I wish you well on your journey, be good for goodness sake. Beware Oklahoma Soul Eater hatred of innocence.

"What the denouncer of dogma really means is not that dogma is bad; rather that dogma is too good to be true. That is, he means that dogma is too liberal to be likely. Dogma gives man too much freedom when it permits him to fall. Dogma gives even God too much freedom when it permits him to die. That is what the intelligent sceptics ought to say; and it is not in the least my intention to deny that there is something to be said for it. They mean that the universe is itself a universal prison; that existence itself is a limitation and a control; and it is not for nothing that they call causation a chain. In a word, they mean quite simply that they cannot believe these things; not in the least that they are unworthy of belief. We say, not lightly but very literally, that the truth has made us free. They say that it makes us so free that it cannot be the truth. To them it is like believing in fairyland to believe in such freedom as we enjoy. It is like believing in men with wings to entertain the fancy of men with wills. It is like accepting a fable about a squirrel in conversation with a mountain to believe in a man who is free to ask or a God who is free to answer. This is a manly and a rational negation for which I for one shall always show respect. But I decline to show any respect for those who first of all clip the wings and cage the squirrel,

rivet the chains and refuse the freedom, close all the doors of the cosmic prison on us with a clang of eternal iron, tell us that our emancipation is a dream and our dungeon a necessity; and then calmly turn round and tell us they have a freer thought and a more liberal theology. The moral of all this is an old one; that religion is revelation. In other words, it is a vision, and a vision received by faith but it is a vision of reality. The faith consists in a conviction of its reality. That, for example, is the difference between a vision and a day-dream. And that is the difference between religion and mythology. That is the difference between faith and all that fancywork, quite human and more or less healthy, which we considered under the head of mythology. There is something in the reasonable use of the very word vision that implies two things about it; first that it comes very rarely, possibly that it comes only once; and secondly that it probably comes once and for all. A day-dream may come every day. A day-dream may be different every day. It is something more than the difference between telling ghost stories and meeting a ghost."

perhaps its too late, but I have not been watching the comments and see that pericles is keen to know the source of the event. My understanding is that unless it is within the SRE classes (Special Right of Entry) that is provided for scripture classes at public schools, any mention of God as a performing artist is against school policy.

>>My understanding is that unless it is within the SRE classes (Special Right of Entry) that is provided for scripture classes at public schools, any mention of God as a performing artist is against school policy.<<

Thanks for the reply lyrebird, but is your understanding correct?

Does anyone have the answer to whether we are talking here about a written policy, or simply an individual's interpretation of their understanding of the policy?

Is there a reference site, for example, where these rules and regulations are spelled out? So far, I have found nothing on any departmental site - State or Federal - that gives a clue to how this incident came about. The Northern Territory came close, but appear to leave the decisions entirely to the schools, with the general proviso that care should be taken in areas of bad language, sex and drugs

http://www.deet.nt.gov.au/corporate/policies/school_management/sm-09.1.pdf

Nothing at all about God.

I was sorry to read the response Donna received from the Department of Education. I belong to a Storytelling Guild because I love to hear stories (and occasionally tell). I have listened to many stories from different cultures and religions and some Jewish stories are amongst my favourite. I hate to think that children may miss out on these, or any other stories which contain words of wisdom, wit and which speak to the heart.