The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > God and the Democrats > Comments

God and the Democrats : Comments

By Ted Witham, published 5/9/2006

In most government schools today, the critical teaching of 'world religions' is taught poorly, if at all.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
it is unhelpful to start with the assumption that it is necessary to have spiritual teaching in schools. This is not so. We need studies in ethics, philosophy and comparative religion, but the last thing we need is one religion [posing as spirituality whatever that is]indoctrinating children with their brand of supernaturalism.
The worst aspect of this it that parents have to write a letter to opt out of the classes. This is seldom made clear and opting out is often punished by forcing those students to do unattractive activities. Thus many students are forced into classes to learn that although we live in a natural world, there is an invisible, supernatural world that no one had ever seen, for which there is no evidence, which is ruled by a superman who not only made the universe and all that’s in it, but also knows every breath and thought and deed of every human on the planet, weighs them up and judges them according to an unknowable system of ‘justice’….
Such palpable nonsense has no place in an institute of learning, and to call it spiritual is simple minded.
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 5 September 2006 11:53:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't remember what prompted me, but I did actually start to complete the survey referred to in the article. I found it difficult to work with, because the answer options available were not those that I would describe as either natural or intuitive.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of religious education, issuing such questionnaires, and presumably (if the answers suit their book) publishing the results at some point in the future, does not advance their cause one iota.

The use of data based on answers to blatantly skewed questions can only diminish their reputation for honesty.

But of course, they are a political party.

Ignore this post.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 5 September 2006 12:17:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the Democrats get their way they will only help the private schools continue to burst at the seams.We see the evidence of godless based education in schools today. It is no wonder when children are not taught about their Creator that they often lack purpose, morals and a reason to live. Secular religion has shown that it can not replace the God vacumm in every one of us. It leads to more drug use, more self indulgence, more immorality, more suicide, more abortions etc,etc,etc. To compare all religions as the same is total ignorance. I wonder how many of the kids of the dimishing Democrats attend Christian based schools. The sooner the democrats disappear the better.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 5 September 2006 1:24:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That the teaching of various religions, would be a good thing.

All I would emphasize is that the FOUNDER of each faith be placed under microscopic scrutiny and that this be linked to his/her claims about his/her position in regard to that faith.

I SHUDDER to think that just the 'main teachings' of a faith made it to the blackboard without FULL information about the founders.

UNLIMITED SEX
After listing all the various categories of woman Mohamed could have sex with (including cousins) Surah 33:50 makes this statement:

"and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her; a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers"

DOES ANYONE SEE THIS ? "for u only...but NOT for the believers"

Sounds like 'man' in all his carnality speaking to me.

"REVELATIONS of CONVENIENCE"
This man used his revelations to give him an 'open slather'sexual policy and is it any wonder that various biographies say he had between 13 and 21 wives and who knows how many captive slave girls.

The moral permissiveness and promiscuity is not hidden by the word 'marraige' or.. 'Allah makes lawful' but are EXPOSED by the 'for you alone, not for the believers'

His marraige of his adopted sons wife, who had to divorce her so mohamed could 'have' her, is described like this:

37 [We gave her to you in marriage, so that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the believers in respect of (the marriage of) the wives of their adopted sons]

So, presumably, extending this logic to ALL that mohamed did, we can safely assume that he married a 6 yr old girl to show us how this is OK with Allah.

It should not surprise anyone that the violence and hatred which emerges from many Muslims who don't like the 'prophet' to be insulted.
(I'm sure Ivan Milat also does not like the term 'Serial Killer')

Why ? because they are brought face to face with the ugliness and decadence of their own position in following such a man.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 5 September 2006 1:36:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the first post. If religion is taught in schools, then surely it can only really be taught in the context of history or social science as something which some people do sometimes.

Ethics and philosophy can stand on their own as areas for study without needing an explicitly religious framework, particularly not one which takes as its starting point an irrational belief in a omniscient omnipresent omnipotent ghost.

I think students should be taught to respect the religions of other people; but this in itself is about learning a wider respect for the practices of other peoples.

The author's concern about RE seems to be that if it is withdrawn, there will not be a skilled base for religious instruction left behind. I think he is right. I just don't see it as a problem.

In the alternative, of course, you could make an even more wild jump and have all religions offered - with secularism as an explicit alternative - to schools on the same basis, instead of giving Christianity a free kick. Let little Billy do a course in Christianity this semester, Buddhism next semester, Islam the following semester, and secularism last of all.
Posted by Anth, Tuesday, 5 September 2006 1:41:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If by their actions shall ye know them, then many so-called Godless public schools are doing a sight more christian job of educating the neediest, the most difficult and the most disadvantaged kids in Australia than many of their private, religious counterparts. I have no problem with religious education in secular schools, as long as it is freely chosen. I also cannot see why humanists or athiests should not also be able to preach their gospel along with the others. However, I do think it should be an opt in rather than an opt out system. I allowed my daughters to attend Uniting Church scripture at their public school, because it is the only church not to make a fuss about women priests. When that RE teacher retired, I stopped them attending scripture - and they had to sit and watch videos instead! This is ridiculous, they should have learnt ethics or philosophy or comparative religions, or something.
I had made a decision of conscience about what I want my girls to be taught, no way would I allow them to sit in any class which believed they were somehow of lesser value than the boys they sat next to, yet my decision led to them wasting time. Imagine, for a moment, there was a church ( and there used to be in slave owning America) that thought black people were all very well but should never take leadership over white people. What would we think of black parents who sent their kids to such a scripture class? Well, I see it as being just the same regarding my daughters and all churches, except the Uniting Church. This is a rational position and deeply felt, yet my girls were inflicted with boredom because of it.
Posted by ena, Tuesday, 5 September 2006 1:45:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great post Anth.
new gb runner if you come ti ideas with facts and reality as your adviser you would know that those problems you talk about occur with the at best same freq in Christians as non Christians. In fact there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that these problems you talk about are systemic in the so called bible belt of the USA.

Religion should be taught in history class along with spot the GB 101 in social studies, and maybe make reference to it in "how to debunk silly ideas" in science class.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 5 September 2006 1:52:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny

If your assertions are right (even though not backed up) why are so many non religous people paying lots of money to send their kids to private schools?
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 5 September 2006 2:24:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Depends on how the religionism is presented: e.g., "Five Approaches to Creationism in History", seems okay to me. Must be an elective only, for reason of Church and State. Albeit, delivery could prove to problematic given the diverse views of instructors
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 5 September 2006 3:10:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come on BOAZ,

Those cartoons were as deliberately offensive to some people as burning the Australian flag is offensive to you, and Islam isn't the only religion that oppresses women and contains some bizzare sexual quirks.

Ivan Milat, by the way, was the product of our own society and there's as much hatred and intolerance in these forums as you would find in any other society.

Religious education (in a historic sense) seems like a reasonable idea if it's undertaken without prejudice, especially if it opens minds to a deeper level of understanding and illustrates similarities rather than differences between faiths.
Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 1:40:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wobbles.... point taken but....surely you are not justifying violence due to being offended ?

Look around..at media..comedy.. gay mardi gras.. ask yourself 'How many times and in how many ways is Jesus Christ..the Church..Nuns.. Priests..Fred Nile etc held up to public ridicule and mocked.' ? its on a daily basis.

Then ask.. "How many of the above have threatened murder, death, invasion, bombing or worse DONE some of the above.. because of this vilification and holding up to public scorn and ridicule ?

That....is the problem as I see it.

Which leads immediately to the question of....'why' do large numbers of people of the Islamic faith DO these things ? In many cases it is nothing more than vociferous protest, but as you well know, the cases of murder, attempted murder, 'contracts' (Salman Rushdie, Ayan hirsi Ali (Dutch MP) etc) are an all too common reality.

This is where it has to be connected back to the very core and heart of the religion which is the example of its prophet. He did not like Kaab's poetry so he put a 'hit' out on him and so it goes on.

Offensive ? good grief mate.. I am offended every time I hear the Lords name taken in vain.. I don't quickly launch out with a high powered front kick to the groin.. no.. I'm saddened by the pitiful ignorance of such a person who is clearly lost and I fully understand that the most I can ever do for them is seek to present the Gospel but other than that...their life path is their own choice.

But to me, the idea of a man who used God's name and claim a 'revelation' to satisfy his own unbridled lust for uncountable women, who murders those who oppose him, and then who's followers are ready to use violence against me for exposing such a diabolical filth to the community, well..that is the point where I see a threat which the 'Emperor' needs to address, with the sword if neccessary.(Romans 13)

Teach 'religions' sure .....warts and all.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 6:39:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Published on Saturday, October 1, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times

The Dark Side of Faith
by Rosa Brooks

It's official: Too much religion may be a dangerous thing.
This is the implication of a study reported in the current issue of the Journal of Religion and Society, a publication of Creighton University's Center for the Study of Religion. The study, by evolutionary scientist Gregory S. Paul, looks at the correlation between levels of "popular religiosity" and various "quantifiable societal health" indicators in 18 prosperous democracies, including the United States.
Paul ranked societies based on the percentage of their population expressing absolute belief in God, the frequency of prayer reported by their citizens and their frequency of attendance at religious services. He then correlated this with data on rates of homicide, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, abortion and child mortality.
He found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S. — which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) — also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
: When it comes to "values," if you look at facts rather than mere rhetoric, the substantially more secular blue states routinely leave the Bible Belt red states in the dust.
Murder rates? Six of the seven states with the highest 2003 homicide rates were "red" in the 2004 elections (Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina), while the deep blue Northeastern states had murder rates well below the national average. Infant mortality rates? Highest in the South and Southwest; lowest in New England. Divorce rates? Marriages break up far more in religious states than in more secular.
Posted by ybgirp, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 10:34:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner
>>Secular religion<< is this an oxymoron or a contradiction?

Our personal vacuum can be filled by a philosophy which condemns greed and anger (based on ignorance).

When we stop seeking the aggrandisement of our egos we will find happiness.
Posted by fdixit, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 4:55:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
fdixit

Who is to say that greed and anger is bad? One person says abortion is murder another does not. You say 'Our personal vacuum can be filled by a philosophy which condemns greed and anger (based on ignorance).' Ignorance of what?

Depending on what a person's defintion of religion will determine whether secularlism is a religion. Many evolutionist are just as dogmatic as creationist even though neither belief or theory can be proved by true science.

You say 'When we stop seeking the aggrandisement of our egos we will find happiness.' Depends largely on what you define as happiness. Different things make different people happy.

I personally think what will make people happy is when they are at peace with God and at peace with their neighbour. This is made possible by Jesus Christ.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 5:18:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner
If everything depends on how you define things there is no point to discussion.
Posted by fdixit, Wednesday, 6 September 2006 6:51:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I personally think what will make people happy is when they are at peace with God and at peace with their neighbour. This is made possible by Jesus Christ."

Strangely enough, Runner, despite thinking your god is a myth and your jesus no more than a historical figure, I still manage to live happily and be (at least most of the time) a decent human being.

Go figure.

Anth
Posted by Anth, Thursday, 7 September 2006 9:33:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I remember taking RE in one school I went to, and the RE lady spent a pretty good time trying to convince us that the Bible is not a reliable document (was written too long ago) but that we should try and believe it and go to church anyway. So my experiences of RE have told me it probably does more harm than good.

It's sad to me that many post-Gen Y (Gen Z ?) kids haven't got a clue about even the most basic tenants of Christianity. Some kids think Christmas is when Santa was born. Easter is a time to worship the Easter bunny. (I realise that Easter was originally a pagan festival, but it has been celebrated in its Christian context in Australia for generations.)

Young kids should at least know the basics of the Christian belief. Without being too political, our society was built on many Christian doctrines, and we should be able to acknowledge them if we want to have any reasonable idea of where we want to head as a society in the future.

The "Christian worldview" is being fought, for and against, in the media most days. Most OLO articles that mention some sort of Christian "hotspot" get over 100 posts within a few days. Do we want the 20 year olds of tomorrow not even to have a reasonable clue what is being debated, or why, and so, have no real reasonable belief on the subject?
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Friday, 8 September 2006 9:27:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religious doctrine should never be taught under a speartion of State and Church system. Nonetheless, the objective and forensic study of Religions would seem okay under philosophy, history and economics. Knowing the reasons behind why religions are fabricated/developed/introduced are important and need to be more generally known: A situation apart from religionism, agnosticism or atheism.

If we can move society from agriculture to market capitalism; hopefully, one day, we can replace externational superstition with an "unconditional positive regard" towards fellows which is self-generated and self-sustaining, without the need for external fictitious constituencies.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 11 September 2006 4:34:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ena,

There is not just one, but numerous contemporary Christians churches that pose no hindrances to women in leadership. They are those that value Scripture highly, as the Scripture properly interpreted is liberating force for women. For one example, the leading officer in the Salvation Army here in Australia for quite some time was a woman.

As for your kids learning ethics, philosophy, or comparative religion or something in schools, speaking as a former teacher I suspect that these subjects will never be treated properly in schools as most teachers don’t study them in university, and so they don’t have a proper grasp of them.

These days, to give your kids a well rounded education in the deeper things of life, or possibly the spiritual aspect, it may require actually stepping inside of a church. This is something that many Australians, especially some that are quick to criticise on these forum pages, have seldom attempted. But the motto of the University I attended (Latrobe) was “Seek and you will find”, a quote taken straight from the mouth of Jesus. You are welcome at our local church, which is part of the Assemblies of God movement. We have a great pastor and I would be happy to introduce you to her.

Michael Viljoen.
Posted by Mick V, Monday, 25 September 2006 11:33:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No one is suggesting that individual christians are evil or bad. What religious adherents fail to understand is that they are mere ciphers. Mainstream religion is not a democratic institution; it is big business dictatorship. Nice guys' can rant as much as they like, they will not change one syllable of the dogma that enchains them. Archbishops, cardinals, moderators, imams know their faithful will do as they're told for fear of the afterlife... for which there's as much evidence as there is for a big JuJu in the sky who knows all sees all hears all and does ---- all.
Religious leaders have opposed all the social changes that made Australia a fine place to live and they are still opposing them. They hold the balance of power but most of the rights that made Australian workers the envy of the world have been lost. Why? Because church leaders agree not to oppose changes in return for financial rewards and more power. The Catholic church made 18 billion dollars tax-free profit last year. More taxpayer money is spent on religious schools than state schools; that's why there's an exodus from state schools. Homophobia, sexism and elitism are rife in religious schools.
As for marriage, why’s the divorce rate of fundamentalist christians higher than atheists?
With religious teaching in rundown state schools, why keep your child there?
Religion is the death of thinking, justice and fairness, because each religion insists their god is perfect. Therefore, if they do not persecute those who disagree, they are denying their god's perfection.
Every theist society in human history has become a terrorist state of persecutions, fear and misery.
Why do you want that for Australia? Why can't you learn from history? Why can't you practice your religion among consenting adults in private? Why do you want to indoctrinate children with these irrational myths?
Morality is about the ‘good’ and happiness. If you are unable to distinguish between good and bad, and do not understand what happiness is, then you have only your religion to blame.
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 10:59:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Ybgirp,

I'm not sure who you are aiming your comments at, but as a 'religious adherent' I'll respond.

I am not a cipher. I am not even a number. I am a conscient person, and God knows be by name, from even before the foundation of the world.

I am not sure what is the basis of all of these rather extreme ideas you have put forward, but can I put forward a thought to contemplate? Just what is the basis for any of our thoughts or observations? Are we just chemical accidents of evolution? If so, are all our thoughts just the results of chemical combinations in our brain? If so, how can you trust them? Can we trust the brain epiphenomena of a monkey that got lucky? Do you believe in this?

I can trust that our thoughts are reasonable. because we are made in the image of a reasonable Deity. He spoke the world into existance, and made us to be rational beings, made in His image.

Michael.
Posted by Mick V, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 11:37:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy