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 > Education, religion and values: Getting the mix right > Comments

Education, religion and values: Getting the mix right : Comments

By Noel Preston, published 5/10/2006

How justified is the values related explanation for the shift to private schools? What is the case for integrating values and schooling?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
As a retired farmer who fought with the family during the Great Depression to semi-socialise our grain industry and get rid of Big Biz at the time in order to stay on the land, one feels stuck in the realm of Big Biz once again.

We depression farm kids who most never completed primary school in order to replace workers whom the family could not afford to pay, and whom in their retirement still rely on the farm to pay their pensions, so to speak, after help paying for their grandkids to go to high school, now find their progeny joining big business backed lobby groups such as the Farmers and Graziers, rather than the Cockies Unions which became our lifelines during the Great Depression.

Not that we should grizzle having done well since WW2, mostly through war-caused shortages and some say more during the after-war carry on of Keynesian economics which got us out of the Depression.

The point is, in the case of another frightening economic downturn as happened in 1929 when Big Biz buyers such as Bunge and Dreyfus disappeared out of the picture - and are now really back again with neo-freemarketism, the only thing a college education might give in the case of another big eco'-crash, is the chance of getting another job besides cockyin'. Though we might wonder, even about religion helpin' a bit?

Let's have a few opinions from you younger ones.
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 5 October 2006 1:44:40 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
Thanks bushbred, for the invite.

I know its off topic, but i wanted to respond.

May say, i know you (so to speak). Elsewhere in my thread you can locate me. I was a good horseman in those days. Educated by your generation to be proper in the saddle; and schooled by the best in horsemanship and military discipline. Oh to be there again, what glory.

Moving on, i am an 'X'er not a 'Y'er so i will be centrist for the occassion.

I agree with you on the Keynsian economic period, and the antiquated position it now leaves us in. But i do beleive there is an attempt to either pluralise systems, or at least to alter the Keynsian problem. Too, i agree that unionsim served its purpose; but i know that they haved moved well on from those days.

Certainly, the land was our blessed saviour as we rode the woolly jumper to exhaltation. And as then now, the land still is not a social significance. Perhaps it is to do with God, (for he can be found eveywhere), money and just plain simply people. We all need our comforts, both bodily and shelter.

I think that in time, as modernity and science grow, we will all naturally gravitate to city centers. The systems of sustainance are all there, and by then a FIFO model of mega-food production will be in place.

For what its worth, i think we are on the right track there. But it will be at the expense of rural community. Short of natural doom, this wont change, and indeed wont need to.
Posted by Gadget, Thursday, 5 October 2006 3:11:39 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
I actually want to respond to the article, which I thought was thoughtful and rather good.
I very much enjoyed the authors careful separation of values and religion, which I think is becoming dangerously confused in this country. Some so-called religious values are little better than bigotry and, worse, are being propounded in schools that are being supported by tax payers money.
I, for one, strenuously object to my money supporting a nearby prestigious private anglican girl's school where the chaplain has warned the girls to avoid athiests, humanists and public school students because they will introduce them to drugs, sex and crime! As an agnostic humanist who sends my children to public school ( no drugs, sex or crime so far), I want to march up there and ask for my tax dollars back.
Posted by ena, Thursday, 5 October 2006 4:18:54 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
Ena... if that teacher is indeed saying those things, then someone needs to complain. If a secular teacher told their students to avoid fundamentalist christians (and I think in the cases of the most extreme Christians, that wouldn't be such bad advice) the teacher would be hoisted by their petards.

Put simply - don't like the idea of private schools having an edge over public ones. If they want to charge to admit students and do it their way, then fine, but if the school is going to have a financial advantage over public ones then it should be entirely fee driven.

Don't get me wrong - I'm happy for government funding to go toward private, fee based schools provided the end result is equal funding between all the schools.
But if it's to be superior facilities then I think they have to do that themselves. That's just being fair to those who can't afford it, and those who can and wish to take advantage of it.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 5 October 2006 4:56:27 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
From Bushbred

Gooday, Gadget, nice to make your acquaintance. Also glad you can see my point without sounding difficult. Though have done well in a long retirement, having been overseas studying International Relations and Third World Problems - my experience during the Depression helping the family from going broke, is still never much out of my mind.

Probably that is why I still have a special interest in the works of Emile Zola, who not only wrote about 19th century French agrarian socialism, but also the Realpolitik and the Balance of Power theories of the great German thinker and leader Bismarck. Even today historians still say that if Bismarck had been alive just prior to WW1, Germany would never had begun the war. Further it is also said that if WW1 had never happened neither would have WW2. It is also so interesting that Maynard Keynes
who attended the Treaty of Versailles, did give warning about forgiveness being far better for the future than revenge.

Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, have both been quoted as saying the same thing.

There is also that resurrected saying by Dr Henry Searle, known as From Deserts the Prophets Come, a kind of misused praise about commonsense coming from the outback, but as you hinted at, it is too much of the romantic and not of the scientific - but still - we might guess that it will only be time that will tell.

Cheers, Mate.

George C, WA - Mandurah

PS Apologies to the author and editor for the digression. BB
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 5 October 2006 5:29:00 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
The most 'fundamental' religious value is "Love The Lord your God with all your heart and mind and strength"

Not all members of the community feel comfortable with this for a variety of reasons. This religious value, can only truly apply to Christians and Jews. Though, if another faith did have such a value, then it would be legitimate for them also. Perhaps Islam has this value.

This is one value which can never ever become state policy, because it is a matter of the individual heart and will. If,however a Theocracy was established along the lines of ancient Israel using the Mosaic law as its constitution, then it could be in fact 'enforced' in the sense of regularly asking people "Who is on the Lords side"?
As Joshua once said to Moses in this regard "As for me and my house, we are with the Lord".

But Israelite Theocracy, has served its purpose, and is no longer relevant. The Messiah has come, he has brought the New Covenant

"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD(Jeremiah31)

Another value, which all can accept, while religious is equally socially beneficial.

"You shall love your neighbour as yourself"

This idea forms the foundation of most social structures in Western societies.

I think it is at least reasonable, for such societies to show the connection between this value and its Author. Specially as expressed in Christs life and teaching. No one need be asked to 'believe' but they can at least be 'informed' :)
...And that is a role for Education.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 6 October 2006 8:15:36 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
If we each prayed with conviction and hope the Lords prayer each day, we would recognise and mouth aspiration for a better world and admiration of a perfect character, seek forgivness releasing our mind from self centeredness and realise personal accountability of the impact of our action on others as we relate to our highest moral conscience. Educate the mind with love and respect and all the activities we occupy ourselves with will have true value and purpose.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 6 October 2006 8:49:49 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
Most religions seem to profess similar values - love your God, love other people and the do as you would be done by golden rule. (Though as someone once pointed out, the Christian God, according to his/her 10 commandments does seem to spend an inordinate amount of time and commandments exhorting followers not to erect idols or take his name in vain etc, etc, before he gets to the real how-to-live stuff.)
Most of us secular humanists would have no argument with love other people and do as you would be done by stuff, either. So I think we can argue that these are universal human values, not just religious ones.
The problem is not with the values you profess or believe, its easy to sound pious, but with the values you actually live by, the way you act upon those values. And human beings, whether religious or not, seem to be a great deal better at preaching values than practising them.
If we really loved our neighbours as ourselves, for example ( and our govt keeps telling us we're a Christian country) would we be setting up such hurdles for them to climb over before we'll let them come and live here?
Posted by ena, Friday, 6 October 2006 1:15:28 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
Hear hear Ena,

The hypocrisy of our political leaders preaching to us and to hardworking underpaid and under"valued" teachers about the supposed lack of values taught in public schools is sickening.

The subsidisation of elitist religious private schools with working people's taxes while public schools are being allowed to rot shows just what "values" the ruling class in this country have.

The pundits marvel over the flow of parents to private schools and claim that this is evidence that people prefer the "values" of private schools. However what they don't link it to is the systematic underfunding of public schools which leads to substandard facilities and large class sizes.

Of course parents want the best education for their children, however rather than providing people with "choices", the aim of the government appears to be that if you want a good education for your child, the only "choice" you will have is to pay thousands of dollars to send them to a private school. If you don't have the money, the only "choice" you will have will be to give them a substandard public education.

The attempted promotion of religion in all realms of life is a cover for the growing social and economic polarization of society as a whole.
Posted by tao, Saturday, 7 October 2006 11:12:39 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 recently finished my education, and was exposed to all three school systems; Government, Catholic and Independant. The most fulsome education in values I received was from the Independant school (also Catholic, but not in the Catholic system). The premise there was the same as it was when the school was established in the mid-late 19th century; that if you're a good, Christian gentleman who'll work for the common wealth, then you will be a good citizen.

The premise seemed correct. I found that such a grounding called not only to loyalty to a system which emerged from Christian values (liberal, secular democracy), but also challenged students to look at it in the light of those Christian values to see whether or not it was on a good course. The thing that was done there which was not done at the public school I attended was to really challenge in the realm of private rather than public morality. Its message of public morality, based around good works and such, has similarities in what the public system teaches, although there is a greater focus on charity rather than government. Its private message seeks to compliment that, by calling a life of Christian virtue, which was seen as necessary to ensure ethical public dealings. As will next to all religious schools, there was a variety of ethnic background, languages, of course, many not of religious backgrounds. In fact, the biggest minority was English, after Celtic.

Australia's civic patriotism has always been complimented by Christianity, which was arguably the greatest reducer in crime and increased in civic virtue in the growth of the early colony. Those old private schools, still known as Public Schools in the traditional sense, are just that... there to serve the Public Good. There is no reason to doubt their importance as furnishers of leaders, and as creaters of balanced, prepared citizens.
Posted by DFXK, Saturday, 7 October 2006 11:15:53 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
As a secular humanist I accept that others may choose to adopt another religion. The fundamental thing, I believe, is the call to "love thy neighbour as thyself" This seems to be the bedrock of a civil society. I would like all schools, public and private to teach this formally and experientially. The next most fundamental value that I would like to see incorporated in the teaching and practices of schools is that of tolerance to other religions and points of view. This is most difficult. To acknowledge the possibility of someone else's religion or secularism being okay is to undermine the validity of one's own faith. How brave a belief that can accept that others can be okay even with their peculiar beliefs! And as for the public-private school thing, well I am sorry to say that the public schools have lost the discipline capacity that private schools manage to retain. Sorry, you can't always allow full human rights to kids who are just learning to be human.
Posted by Fencepost, Saturday, 7 October 2006 7:39:17 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
DFXK and Fencepost,
A couple of thoughtful posts. I have to agree with the teaching a personal faith is more impacting and forming of behaviour than merely teaching social ethics.

Love thy neighbour is dependent on how one sees themself in the bigger scheme of the universe and creation. As the Scripture says love thy neighbour as you love yourself. The personal value of self worth in the scheme of Creation in this period of history places value upon the individual. The first instructions given to man recorded as religious was to establish family and the second was to nurture and care for the garden and the ground from which he draws substance and survival.

When these two principles are respected and guarded as paromount to human survival then society will flourish. These are the principles of life.

Much of public education is focused in money, hence the politics of envy of those defending such. They merely see lack of money as the problem of public education. Money is the basic currency of their thinking. What is lacking is a real sense of value of themselves and their children. Because parents value of their children in mosts cases ranks higher than money they sacrifice to give children in their care values greater than mere assets is the reason non-public schools are growing.

Teachers that see money as the answer to teaching values fail to inspire children of things of higher value than money. They fail to realise parents of children in private education also pay taxes, as well as healthy school fees. When my children were in private parent controlled school our family paid 6% of our gross yearly income, as fees were structured on our last years gross income.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 8 October 2006 12:31:39 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
The aforementioned premise that if you're a good, Christian gentleman who'll work for the common wealth, then you will be a good citizen, reaks more of detriment here in contemporary Australia.

So complicated is the state of Australia in terms of culture, nationality, influence, media, foreign policy and our own history of blunders and blinders - that I can so no good coming from the separation of young people into religious sectors that are often merely based on their parents' beliefs of a statistically dwindling olden day religion and of a superior education coming from such cashed up schools.

The more Australia grows with multi nationalism and multi culturalism, would it not seem that the less relevant a place Christianity has with Aussie youth? Hard to answer, but worthy of consideration.
Posted by edwardcav, Sunday, 8 October 2006 7:44:32 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
Noel you offer an extremely good argument. It has to be kept in mind however, religion is a political movement self justified by mythology. The claim that any set of religious beliefs has in any way a set of ‘good values’ or morality should be rejected outright, especially when it is based on monotheism. This is because the principle value of monotheism is inclusionism (gods chosen) and exclusionism (others- whom god rejects). On that level religion is nothing more than another word for bigotry. Even if we considered the alleged teaching of Jesus, Jesus comes out as nothing more than a bigot willing to only save the souls of the chosen (those who accept Christ as a supernatural king). The reality is values are a born characteristic of our personalities. A serial killer will kill wether he believes in a god or not. A neighbourly person will ‘love thy neighbour’ wether Atheist or Christian. Teaching religious values in schools is politics not spirituality. Its primary objective is psychological control and command through superstition. For that reason teaching religious values in schools is itself immoral and so self redundant as a vehicle to install values to children.

This values debate is really about allowing the extreme Christian Right rule our children’s minds. We as a nation should address this issue head on. There is no difference between the values of the Christian Right and the Taliban and Al-Queda. Australia should interpret Afghanistan as a warning to alert us to what the inevitable result is of mixing religion and politics
Posted by West, Sunday, 8 October 2006 1:54:46 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
Westy

No difference ?

Let me explain it simply..

JESUS said.."Behold, I stand at the door knocking, to him who opens, I will come in, and eat with him"

MOHAMED SAID "If anyone changes his deen (from Islam to any other), KILL him"

Now pleaseeeee don't tell me you cannot see the difference ?

Christ is the one who knocks.. "anyone home, may I come in"?

You and anyone else can keep that door of your heart deadlocked till you die. No one but no one can force your heart, mind and will to open it.

The difference is as far as the east is from the west.

cheers
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 8 October 2006 2:22:23 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
Exactly Boaz, Im sure the North Korean leader Kim Jong Il offers "Choice" to do as he commands just as Jesus does in the Bible. What do Christians believe happens to those who do not "choose" to submit to what Christs commands?

This is translated into the real world as the persecution of those who choose not to follow those who speak for Christ , command others on Christs behalf, those who seek to dictate their values to non-Christians. The chosen people who can confidently claim they are a type of master race for they are saved.

Bible quotes dont mean very much. Passages from Mein Kampf can be quoted to paint Hitler as having sincere concerns for Germany's welfare. The underlying principle in Christs teachings is exclusionism and so bigotry. It cannot be moral and should not be taught as positive laden values to school children.
Posted by West, Sunday, 8 October 2006 3:26:59 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 West

"religion is a political movement self justified by mythology"

...is too broad.

In the case of Islam it is true unquestionably. Hence their prophets clear call for the death penalty for apostacy. This is a 'state' action. He was the founder of the first Islamic 'state'. Islam cannot be understood apart from the concept of 'State'. So, its not so much 'mythology' which supports this idea, it is the outright declaration of fundamental principle.

Such is not the case with Christ. Jesus never founded a State, or a government, he came to impart grace and truth, and was the One through whom we can experience the kingdom (riegn) of God in our hearts.

Now..lets address your other concern about Jesus being 'bigoted'.

Believe it or not, you are probably the ONLY person on OLO I've ever seen directly attacking Jesus. Most attack 'me' or 'Christians' or 'The Church', but you... you attack Jesus.

In a way its refreshing. Because it means you fully understand that when a person is faced with the claims of Christ, there is a choice to be made. Where you 'err' is twofold.

1) You seem to feel that to be Christian automatically translates to 'persecuting non Christians'. The worst I see evangelists commanded to do is 'shake off the dust of your feet' against a town to which the gospel has been proclaimed and signs done, yet it rejects Christ. I hardly think that is 'persecution'.

There is no need or reason to 'persecute' anyone who rejects Christ.
Historically it has happened for political reasons, when the State regarded 'unorthodox' beliefs/traditions as a political threat. Lets be clear, that is POLITICAL persecution, not religious. European 'religious wars' were based on the political nature of 'The Church' and this is foreign to the New Testament.

2) You miss the point that Jesus showed his divine credentials by
-Healing the sick (including blind from birth and crippled)
-Releasing people from demonic influence
-Raising the dead
-Calming the Storm
-Walking on water

You might like to call Him "Bigoted" but that, as always, is your choice.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 9 October 2006 9:01:09 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
Boaz,
Recognise West acts with the same exclusive level of bigotry as he claims Christians exercise - 'his way is the best' and Christ's way is detrimental to humanity. It is easy for him to mouth words of criticism, let him define a society that fulfils his social agenda and let us see if it discriminates - especilally against Christians.

Bertrand Russell in his book 'Why I am not a Christian' is at least honest enough to acknowledge teaching the morality of the New Testament to children builds character and social values not acquired by any other means.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 1:59:23 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 thankyou Philo for confirming exactly what I said. You personally attacked me and personally labelled me as a bigot for rejecting a cult ideology you wish to see forced upon innocent people.
Bertrand Russell simply was wrong. The so called ‘morality’ of the New Testament comes directly from the Roman soldier cult of Chrisos and the affirmable elements were found in most cults in Eurasia.
Why is Christianity immoral? Because it is a cult of bigotry, the proof of which is what Christians believe happen to non-Christians. Therefore the spine of Christian values is based on prejudice and exclusionism.
Christian values when operationalized are articulated in witch burning , inquisition , holy wars , controlling women’s bodies, banning gay (others) marriage, brainwashing children into accepting superstition, slavery, colonisation, ethnic cleansing (eg Pagans) , anti Semitism, sectarian violence, terrorism (northern Ireland , Oklahoma), money farming, mind control (Jones Town) ect.
If the Biblical character of Jesus had taught good values the above would be impossible to have occurred.
The imperative in any set of religious values is not common good but the appeasement of an idol or deity. After all the character of Jesus in the bible was a human sacrifice by his followers to appease their god.
I certainly find Christian values offensive and would be shocked and dismayed if they were forced upon my children. Children to not belong to Christianity, to force Christian values upon children would be an abuse of human rights.
If you wish to attack me then please begin with telling me what Christians believe happen to non-Christians
Posted by West, Tuesday, 10 October 2006 10:00:37 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
West, I suggest you identify your model society; since it is not Christian or espousing the principles of morality found in the New Testament. Just what is it you see as your model? Where do we see it in operation?

Knockers based in ignorance are a dime a dozen, builders of a civilised society are few.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 12:39:37 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
Philo I suggest a society built on mutual respect rather than tolerance. Christianity is not respectful of others; if it were then it would not seek to have its (so called) values taught to non Christians. For stating the obvious naturally I could be accused of not respecting Christians but I am not suggesting dictating to Christians they must live by my beliefs. Christians on the other hand are attempting to force their values on to others. Just as Islamic terrorists are attempting to force their values and just as Christian terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh tried to force Christian values onto others. Just as Christians have prevented gays from marriage Christians have forced their values onto others. Just as Christians have had abortion banned in South Dakota, Christians have forced their values onto others. Just as Christians have force teaching Children myth as science in parts of the U.S they have forced their values onto others. Now Christians assume they have a right to force their values onto other people’s children here. All the above is based on prejudice, ignorance, hostility and that is what Jesus preached through exclusionism. What Christians call values is nothing more than a type of fascism. I will not draw up a blue print for a better society that is an exercise in fascism.
The accusation that children have no values is a false accusation. Anybody who suggests we need to install values into children must be treated with grave suspicion. These poor kids are battling in an environment of market predators and their parents are indentured to be away from the family home for ridiculous hours. Now Christians and fascists are calling for them to be brainwashed into exploitive ideology.
Now please tell me what do Christians believe happens to non-Christians?
Posted by West, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 11:33:31 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
West,
In answer to your inquiry: "Now please tell me what do Christians believe happens to non-Christians?" If one ignores the principles of moral living then the result of their life is personal torment, social disconnect and grief. For instance: "Do not committ adultery" talk to the spouse of the offender and see if she bears grief. For instance: "Do not steal" talk to the person who has had his / her house ransacked and see if such behaviour advances social good. For instance: "Do not lie" talk to the person who has been deceived or slandered and see if they are happy. For instance: "Do not kill" talk to the family whose member has been murdered and see if it leads to a better society. In all these cases Christ taught repentance by offenders, and forgiveness of those violated. The taking of a life is not justified in the Christian society [as the Armish have demonstrated this week].

The wisdom of the ages have taught us to be socially responsible toward others and to aspire for higher things other than material assets. Love the right life and care for ones neighbour. Both these principles have assumed excluding clauses, disrespect for good behaviour brings pain, even as disrespect for ones neighbour. Christ taught and demonstrated both,love of the highest moral life and care for ones neighbour, even to his enemies. The behaviour of anti-social people must be restrained or removed from society. We believe is excluding behaviours and influences that destroy best thought and behaviours in society. Unfortunately Christians fail because of improper passions even as nonbelievers.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 3:42:55 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 do not believe that it is necessarily socially irresponsible to:

Be in a defacto relationship.
Have children outside of formal marriage.
Be in a gay relationship.
Have an abortion.
Start a new relationship without first getting divorced.
[And plenty of other scenarios.]

Note that I said "necessarily". All of these things and more could involve some degree of social irresponsibility, but not merely because they are disapproved of by some religious people.

I would class the following as socially irresponsible:

Teaching religion to those who have not specifically requested it, except in a comparative, historical or philosophical manner.
Teaching creationism, except as a theory believed in by some people, which does not stand up to critical examination.
Teaching young people to be judgemental toward those who do not fit the rigid standards of some religions.
Teaching young people that there is only one path to Heaven and that's the one being promoted by those who are brainwashing them.

Those who don't feel comfortable with my last point could reflect on the fact that this is what is taught in religious terrorist indoctrination schools/camps. Note that I did not define the type of belief promoted in such schools/camps, religious bigotry knows no boundaries.
Posted by Rex, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 4:49:43 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
Well put, Rex.
Posted by edwardcav, Thursday, 12 October 2006 5:39:17 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
Rex,
Are you telling me that those that engage in such relationships build the best society and have not caused pain to others or social disfunction? I've been a Crisis counsellor and I can tell you that those in such relationships lead the statistics in seeking help for relationship insecurity.

Quote, "Be in a defacto relationship.
Have children outside of formal marriage.
Be in a gay relationship.
Have an abortion.
Start a new relationship without first getting divorced."
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 12 October 2006 7:32:45 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
Christianity and Islam have proved themselves completely socially irresponsible. Those superstitions have done more harm than their offshoot Satanism. Anybody who suggests teaching religious values to a child should be viewed with deep suspicion, the only purpose would be to brainwash that child in preparation for exploitation.
The focus of the Bible and Quran is in death. The onus is a life dedicated to eternal life in death. All the fantasy lands – Heaven, Hell, all the characters – God/Allah, Jesus, angels, Satan are found only in death (despite the paranoid superstition of omnipresence).
Children have enough to worry about than having to worry about the mortality focus which defines the death cult of Christianity.
To put that on the shoulders of Children is totally socially irresponsible.
Posted by West, Thursday, 12 October 2006 8:50:45 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
West you are mistaken Christ does not not emphasise about death but about life. Christianity is about living not about dying, as you claim.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 12 October 2006 10:14:21 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
We witness appalling ignorance, opposition and indifference to the teachings of Christ. So what did he teach and live?

1. His primary discourse is in Matthew 5: 1 - 7: 28 or Luke 6: 17 - 49, and outlines principles of right-living - how we are to aspire to blessing all men. It's not just a matter of not murdering as the law defines; rather it's not even hating your enemy. It is not just a matter of refraining from committing adultery it's rather the matter of not even accomodating the thought.

2. In Matthew 4: 1 - 11 we have his confrontation with the Masada Zealots who opposed Roman occupation of their land. These Zealots desired a bloody confrontation to overthrow the Romans. What was his attitude? Learn to live with enemies and bless their lives as they also are welcome to enter the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God isn't Jewish nationalism it's personal right living by all men. Note when he introduced the life and faith of Gentile examples while addressing his hometown they tried to throw him over a cliff. Luke 4: 14 - 30. He taught acommodation of all men, which was foreign to Jewish nationalism. See his example of the Samaritan [Luke 10: 25 - 37] the Samaritan's attitude reflected attitudes of the kingdom of God above the self-righteous religiously indifferent.

3. Among his friends were outcasts of society because they knew his acceptance and forgiveness of their sins. He believed people changed by offering forgiveness and acceptance, rather than by exclusion and holding guilt against them. This is evident even till the last breath of his life when he prayed for forgivness for his murderers.

People change as they are offered self worth over exclusion and condemnation. Even though their lives have failings they are encouraged to put their life right with God. Our society needs change in personal attitudes if we are to see national blessing. National blessing happens when people bless their opponents with forgiveness and encouragement. A society that functions on hateful adversial attitudes will ultimately fail.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 13 October 2006 8:25:29 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
Philo if Christians cant handle the fact they have to share the planet with others such as homosexuals, defacto relationships, new relationships and about everything else that historically has also been the targets of both fascists and communists in the past then I would argue that a Christian life is a miserable life. Even if the fact that Christianity is a death cult is not taken into account. Although it is a demonstration that Christianity is prejudice based.

Philo if Christianity is not a death worshipping cult then when do Christians believe they are Judged by their idol. When do Christians go to Heaven? Where in the universe is Heaven? When do Christians achieve salvation? When do the people that Christians look down upon go to hell? Where in the universe is hell? What is the magic the occult rituals practised in churches trying to achieve? Certainly there is no god in life otherwise everybody would believe in god, there would be no reason for a god to hide, no reason for the excuses for his absence which has become a multi million dollar industry. When do you “meet your maker”? Certainly Christianity is a death cult and Jesus was all about death, the superstition of resurrection is in no way a cult of life.

Quoting bits and pieces of the bible is meaningless. You can quote Hitler too; neo-Nazi argue he loved the German people. It’s the exact same thing. Of course people want to protect their idols from the light of reality wether its Hitler or Jesus and what people do in the privacy of their own home is their business. But to force those beliefs onto others is wrong and immoral. The Biblical character of Jesus is exclusionary just as Hitler was. I cannot see why anybody would want to harm children with Christian values unless they wished to exploit those children.

Please tell me what do Christians believe happens to non Christians
Posted by West, Friday, 13 October 2006 9:23:43 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
Dear West
I'm getting the impression you may have had a 'bad church experience' at some stage in your life.

You said:
"When do the people that Christians look down upon go to hell"

I don't look 'down' on anyone from my 'pulpit 2 feet above contradiction' Good grief.. the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax collector is outright condemnation for 'looking down' at people in the way u suggest.

Make no mistake though, I will call a spade a spade when it comes to politics. I will absolutely condemn some of the actions of Marilyn Shepherd, Bob Brown, and Tony Kevin for their antics in the political sphere.

I will even state that "homosexual behavior is deviate and an abomination to God". But "I'm so gooood..and they are so baddddd" is not where that comes from.

Rather it goes like this "I am the foremost of sinners, but by Grace, undeserved kindness, I am saved through faith" There is NOTHING in the transaction of salvation which allows us to 'look down' on people.

Philo and I might give different answers on "When do people goto hell"
But I prefer to emphasize the positive, Salvation, and leave judgement up to the Almighty.

Christian values in education are really quite good, but they fall into 'social' and 'spiritual' The spiritual cannot be forced on anyone. The social are a great foundation for a society.

You have a problem with these ?

-Honor your father and mother
-Do not murder
-Do not commit adultery
-Do not lie
-Do not steal
-Do not covet/lust

Most law is or is based on, 'restraining'. Mutual respect simply does not work. Its too nebulous.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 13 October 2006 10:40:28 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 feel I must respond, Christianity is immoral because bottom line it is a cult which seeks exclusion. That out of the way those so called values you mention are values found amongst many cults of differing ilk and atheists alike. But let us examine how the cult of Christianity influences the interpretation of your said values , aside from the horrific history that is the legacy of Christianity from genocide to the Oklahoma. In the context of the occult manuscript the Bible:

Honour your father and mother – The character of Jesus did not honour his mother , he did not righteously take responsibility of his mother, instead he followed an agenda of megalomania wandering around suiting himself.

Do not Murder- If god actually existed he would be the only creature to bring about human genocide in history, additionally the majority of pregnancies naturally abort, making god the master abortionist. If god created everything then god created death which means all death is murder by god. God is synonymous with murder, murder is synonymous with God.

Do not commit adultery - (besides the fact adultery is a body ownership discourse) If Jesus is the son of God and Mary the wife of Joseph then God and Christs mother committed adultery.

Do not Lie – Christians speak of God and Christ and Salvation as if they actually know what they are talking about. The fact is all they say about God and Christ and Salvation is invented by them based on their interpretation (not Knowledge) of occult literature, the Bible. To say God exists is itself a lie.

Do not steal – The entire superstition of Christianity is Stolen from Jewish and pagan sects as well as from the cult of Chrisos.

Do not covert/ Lust – News Flash, its how babies are made. But seriously socially it’s a body ownership discourse which Christianity has proved it has not the awareness and understanding of humanity to be able to address without harm toward the community.
Posted by West, Friday, 13 October 2006 3:08:51 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
We discover Wests whole world view is totally negative. He does not or has not researched life or Christianity, so he makes invalid claims.

He does not like death, and calls God the creator of death. He has a real problem with death as a reality, but he does not believe there is a creator god. The fact is he has a deviant obsession and fear of death. Perhaps a close family member died in his childhood that he has not yet come to terms with.

The nature of all living things is they have a limited lifespan - it is the reality. West will die too but has he made a positive contribution to the living? Christianity is about the fact of living a fulfilled life the enhances others lives. Spending ones life in the blessing of others. One of Jesus last request before his death was to the apostle John to take care of Mary his mother. Which indicates West is both ignorant and wrong. However for this we feel some sympathy for his anxiety, negativeism and emptyness.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 14 October 2006 3:00:19 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
Philo quite simply you are wrong. However your ignorant accusations prove my point , the underlying values of Christianity are a based on bigotry and exclusionism. Of course I do not wish to die, we only have one life, and I will not waste my life worshipping death as Christians do. When I drive I don’t pray that I make it , I don’t rely on a jesus fish sticker to remind a deity that I am a chosen one , instead I put on my seat belt and concentrate on driving and the road in a well maintained vehicle. When I arrive at my destination it is by no magic (or miracles or power of god as Christians call magic). Death never enters my mind except when idiots don’t give way.
Yes I will die and my family and friends will also die, that is nature.

To accuse me of not making a positive contribution to the living is nothing more than ignorant and empty rhetoric. The fact is Christian ideology throughout its history through to today make only negative contribution to the living, Christianity is a death cult based on superstitiously gained self immortality. Even Christians that claim to help others are not sincere people but do so out of the superstitious belief that to do so will earn them brownie points with an omnipresent monstrous god. Christian values when played out in reality divide communities, spread poverty (often consciously to create opportunity to exploit), create social and psychological terrorism and is a driver of youth suicide.

In the U.S various Christian youth Camps such as Jesus Camp and Homosexual correction camps to prevent young children ever becoming homosexual, Christianity is on the same trajectory as Islam was and soon inevitably we will see Christian terrorists attempting to force that upon us what Muslim terrorists are failing to do. Obviously teaching Christian values to children in schools is the first step in the Christian agenda to prepare children for the future recruitment of Christian terrorists – psychological, social and martial
Posted by West, Saturday, 14 October 2006 11:29:40 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
Go West!
What fun. I love your dogged determination in this debate.
I am sick of believers claiming the high moral ground simply on the basis of their beliefs. Believe what you want, but I won't respect you just because of the rhetoric of truth, justice and compassion you spout, I will respect you for your actions. It is just as necessary for the pious to prove they are good people as it is for anyone else.
Hence my suspicion of many, particularly the wealthiest, of religious schools. They preach values right enough, but they practice exclusion, snobbery, greed and, often, the quiet dumping of more difficult and less academically successful students on the supposedly "values-neutral" public school down the road. I didn't know entrenchment of privilege was a religious value and then I had a look at human history and saw the actions of most churches and realised it must be.
Posted by ena, Saturday, 14 October 2006 3:13:11 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
You are so right Ena. Christianity throughout history and to the present ‘talks the talk’ but has proven beyond argument that it cannot “walk the walk”. What good parent would put their child at risk to allow them to be indoctrinated into the cult that inspired all such things from the bloodshed of its Roman revolution , through wars, witch hunting, inquisition, slavery, a liturgy of social and sectarian apartheid through to the teaching of blatant lies to children such as intelligent design, the rise of prosperity cults such as Pentecostalism, Hatred inspired law making in the U.S , including the rhetoric of Family First here at the last election. For its utility and purpose Christianity remains an immoral ideology. A parent that allows others to control their children’s minds is not a competent parent. Parent incompetence has led to a massive child abuse problem within Churches. We must resist allowing ourselves to be controlled by a neo-Taliban movement no matter what deity they worship, Jesus is no justification. Jesus is only one of thousands of idols.
Christian values must never be taught in schools. We know the horror Christianity inflicted upon western society before the separation of politics and religion, a horror being played out in many Islamic countries today. Cults shouldn’t even be permitted to advertise on television. The risk to our Children and their future is far too great; the risk is too great for our nation and society as well.
Posted by West, Sunday, 15 October 2006 11:28:37 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
Dear Westy (*ouch* Ena :)

There is probably little one can say to dissuade you, because you basically attributed all the worlds ills to God and Chrisianity.

Rather than tackle each one individually, let me look at the root of your position.

You seem to be torn between an idea of God of your own invention, which you are then projecting onto all the Biblical data. You are not so much disbelieving in God, but are simply 'angry' at Him. (it seems to me)

Many of your points need to be addressed one way. (Biblical interpretation) and others need simply historical re-evaluation.
One such example is the 'inquisition'. Clearly a read of the new Testament will demonstrate that this had nothing to do with Christ, but everything to do with human political power. A Monarch ensuring his reign was unchallenged by those who had already demonstrated they would invade and take control of the country (Islamic Moors).

You should give some consideration to the resurrection of Christ, and the conversion of Saul and his own testimony in 1 Corinthians 15.
The contrast between your 'angry man' style and Pauls "Here are the facts" approach could not be more stark.

I won't try to argue each point with you, but will simply underline the proclaimed Gospel which is accessable to you at any time.

Ena. The 'high' moral ground is reserved for God Almighty. We are just signposts, albeit with a lot of dust on them.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 15 October 2006 7:42:40 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
Have you met God Boaz? Or are you simply inventing him? Nobody is blaming all the worlds ills on Christianity, only the ills Christianity have created. It is the Christian view to see oneself as the centre of the universe and I gather that could also be another reason it would seem Christianity is being blamed for all the worlds’ ills. On the other hand what has been presented in this discussion is only the tip of the ice berg as far as the breadth and depth of harm Christianity has done to human beings, that which is only relevant to forcing Christian immorality or Christian values as many call it onto innocent children.
As far as Jesus having nothing to do with the Inquisition you are both right and wrong, Jesus is nothing more than an occult character and idol of superstition and naturally as such Jesus is not capable of anything at all. The so called values attributed to Jesus is completely responsible for the Inquisition, for if they were ‘good’ values the Inquisition would never have occurred. The Holocaust occurred under fascism, not under critical democracy. From another perspective, a person does not join the Nazi party if he does not agree with the extermination of the Jews, a person does not become a Christian if he does not agree with witch hunting, the inquisition, the banning of gay marriage ect. Yes many Neo-nazis deny the holocaust and their inherited responsibility of the past and so do Christians, yes Muslims do it , corporations do it , not only Christians. But it is the values that facilitate the actions. If Islam was ‘good’ values laden then Islamic terrorism would be impossible. If Christianity was ‘good’ values laden then Jesus camp wouldn’t be possible.
How could more Christians be thrown to the lions by Christian Rome than in Imperial Rome? You have the answer, what do Christians believe happens to non-Christians? While you are at it what gives you the right to impose your beliefs on other peoples children?
Posted by West, Sunday, 15 October 2006 10:52:40 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
Please note, at no time did I criticise anyone's God or, even, religion per se. All I criticised was the comfortable assumption of righteousness by many of the religious when their actions would not seem to bear out their claims. An encyclopedic knowledge of biblical quotes, obsessive attendance at church on Sunday, prayers nightly or, even, the wearing of hair shirts does not a good human being make.
I have met good human beings who were deeply religious and good human beings who had no supernatural faith, and I have met the opposite too. The only advantage the non believer has is that he or she does not automatically claim to be "good" merely because they believe in a God. Good has been done in the name of a God, but much evil has been done in his or her name also, it is dangerous to forget that.
Posted by ena, Monday, 16 October 2006 8:18:01 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. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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