Good points there goodthief - I'd say I'm marginally more comfortable with extreme anti-christianity as there's less basis for decisions based on theology rather than rationality, but I'm not really comfortable with either.

Frankly, I don't like extremist views of any hue, be it socialism, anarcho-capitalism, Christianity or Islam.

Espoused from a moderate view however, I've no problem with any of them (though in the case of anarcho-capitalism, the moderate view is more or less plain old capitalism - the status quo).

I guess the real problem we face is the fact that extreme ideologies are inevitably more powerful than moderate ones.

Lets face it - somebody who espouses a view that urges tolerance and understanding of their opponent's view as well, is never going to have the same 'sledgehammer' effect as one that can discard the worth of their ideological opponent.

It's far harder to galvanise a movement if you respect the views of the people you're mobilising against.

Hence the ongoing pendulum effect.

It's just a shame that for all the people with hefty dose of common sense, be they Christian, Islam, Socialist or Buddhist (anything really) they unfortunately, don't wield the same influence as the extremists.

All they have in their favour, is that they're able to work co-operatively with people from other ideologies. I suppose that's one benefit of multiculturalism that's often ignored in favour of the extremist views - which again, are seductive in their brute force.

It's interesting to muse what has made Australia a stable country.
To be fair to the 'monoculture' brigade that inhabits these boards, a strong western influence is of course a large factor, but a healthy injection of other cultures has meant that there isn't one single ideology that can run roughshod over others.

The other ingredient, I think, is apathy. The apathetic nature of Australians in regard to politics is quite a contrast to the raging views held throughout unstable countries in Europe, where socialism vs capitalism debates always rage. Ironically, I think the apathy that is so frustrating at times is actually a blessing in disguise.

Boaz - I don't care who you are and after that last post I'm not all that interested.

Fundamentalist preachers and presidents.....cock and coca cola, yankee doodle just the same.

When are the secular humanist such as the author going to realise that people have tried the humanistic approach to education only to prove a massive failure. Even many of the Labour party send their kids to schools that don't lie about so called global warming, teach the lie of evolution and promote next to no values or dubious value at best. Most parents are more interested in reality than philosophy. What parent in their right mind would send their kids to a school that encourages immorality, allows a drug culture and does little more than manage badly behaved kids?

What beats me is how men with views like Alan were ever ordained in a church. It sounds like he would of been preaching more of Dawkin's dogmas than Christ's teaching.

Mr Rudd did not mind pulling out the religious card when it suited him Why is not Alan writing about him? Oh that is right he is also a friend the the ACTU

What is worrying me is that this 'creationism' is really taking over in many parts of Australia, eg my local paper 'Blue Mountains Gazette' has been inundated recently with letters to the editor claiming that science is just false and misleading and that evolution is a deliberate attempt by 'anti-christians' to confuse and corrupt. I have always believed in religious freedom and my concern now is that I can be targeted as evil. I have friends who have spoken in support of other religions and have then had their property vandalised, and their lives threatened - eg 'Family First' has threatened terror actions against those who are considered to be against them. Remember the witch trials? Hold the suspected person underwater, if they drown they were innocent, if not they were put to death as being evil. Whichever way they lose. AS DO WE?

BOAZ_David: "JUST try.. to question 'evolution' and see how you are howled down, mocked, ridiculed and ostracized."

It depends on which part of evolution you're questioning. If you're questioning the theoretically and experimentally proven mechanisms of evolution with nothing more than your opinion or a fairy tale then yes you will be howled down, mocked, ridiculed and ostracized. If you're questioning the historical story told by the fossil evidence then you'll probably find quite active debate within the scientific community about how to interpret the evidence. Of course if you're going to offer an alternative story, then it needs to be rationally based on scientific principles otherwise its no better than claiming babies are delivered by stalks.

"The id agenda is to teach id as ONE of a number of possible interpretations of the evidence."

Given that ID is not a scientific theory it does not belong in the science class.

As for "Fundamentalist Christians", I'd regard anyone who places the tenants of their faith over and above observations of the world around them as "Fundamentalist". When fundamentalists impact public policy they might improve things in the context of their faith, but their ignorance of reality can cause great harm to people in the real world. If you're advocating the teaching of ID within the school science class then you are one of the dangerous fundamentalists the article is talking about.