Dan to Pelican: "Can the values of secularism alone, such as reason, rationality, and tolerance, give us an answer to why monogamy is better than polygamy?"

For a start, I don't think we should be afraid to ask whether polygamy is better than monogamy.

I believe monogamy is preferable because it ensures children are reared within genetic family units, the situation in which it seems they thrive best. It also distributes life partners evenly throughout society. Which keeps us happy. And it protects us from maraudering groups of young horny men!

Dan: "Such a mixture amongst the staff was, of course, quite healthy for the department and the students..."

Absolutely — a person's religion has no bearing on their teaching ability. I went to a white-bread, small-town regional state school — some openly Jewish teachers walking round in kippahs would have really shaken things up! A Sikh or two would have been excellent.

I studied comparative religion as an HSC subject (I was then at a Christian school as my state school only went to year ten — the school Chaplain taught it, and very well too I might add). Then at uni I did first year comparative religion. Although I appear to have forgotten *everything* I learnt at uni (something to do with the vast quantities of Strongbow cider I consumed), but I know I learnt much. Comparative religion, the psychological and sociological origins of religion, and cultural religious practices are all part of a good liberal education.

But there is a difference between having teachers who are religious and/or teaching the beliefs and cultures of the world's religions in that sociological context, AND ministering to children within a particular theology. It is not the business of teachers to proselytise. It's not their business to suggest one religion is real while another is fantasy.

In their own time, sure. But not from nine to three-thirty, or whatever hours school keeps these days.

Dan you ask some good questions and space limitations probably don't permit a greater analysis or discussion and it is good to reappraise what is considered moral within a secular society.

The short answer is that I would agree with Vanilla's explanation about favouring monogamy over polygamy from the view of biological diversity and implications for survival of the species.

The same premise can be used to answer your question about the basis of marriage from an atheist's point of view. The union of two people in love who might wish to demonstrate their committment via the legal process and who later might go on to raise a family. Some couples may not choose that path and be equally committed.

Marriage is also a part of our culture. Even an atheist cannot deny the influence religion has played in shaping our values and through it our legal systems.

Would man have developed similar value systems without the 'presence' of an all-knowing or feared God? No-one can answer that but I suspect with technological advancement, increased access to information and 'civilisation' man would have developed some moral code or a community value system from a natural sense of altruism and for assurance of survival. This might have included marriage to only one person over polygamy for the reasons outlined above.

Dear Vanilla.. you are making a lot of sense there.. even to me. (regarding the right to an 'education', but not a "religious" education.)

One problem though, is that the state education contains certain biases and content which while still theoretical, is presented as fact, and in such a way that it conflicts seriously with some faiths. The origin of the Universe and life being prime examples.

I don't see why, if they are the main differences between a secular and religious education, government funding should not be made available for religious schools also. Our consitution does not allow the government to make any law which inhibits a religion or promotes it.
The lawfully enforced teaching of Origins as purely natural phenomena might be arguably unconstitutional because it 'inhibits' all religions which believe in Divine Creation.

If, however, Government/Secular schools, were prepared to do the following, there might not be any incentive for religious schools (Protestant Christian ones at least)

-When teaching 'origins' they can present "View i) View ii) View iii) etc. As long as they say "The Jury is still out on this" we are less threatened.
-When teaching 'human health and sexuality' or whatever they term it, they should point out that while secularists accept homosexual lifestyles, some religious faiths do not. (without condemning those faiths when this issue is raised)

Other than that, all educational information is quite neutral.

We still have some problems though.

Secularism is vulnerable to the 'loudest voices' and one of those 'voices' may argue for polygamy, or.. lowering the age of consent to 'puberty'... etc.

Once the "secular" bridge has been crossed, the "highway" then goes to who knows where. (But the AC/DC song comes to mind)

We need our moral TomTom :) "500 meters from now, turn...right"

Boazy: "Dear Vanilla.. you are making a lot of sense there.. even to me."
Really? Cause you're making no sense to me.

I presume your convoluted post suggests that the state school system should teach the ludicrous "theory" of creationism during science lessons. It's a natty idea, but does have one major stumbling block — the education department is populated with people who, while by no means geniuses, aren't complete idiots either.

In earlier post, Dan correctly posited that we should teach kids to think for themselves, rather than believe any old cr@p that they're taught. Unfortunately for you, that happened some generations ago.

It's disappointing for you, but you're going to have to accept it.

Boazy: "Secularism is vulnerable to the 'loudest voices' and one of those 'voices' may argue for polygamy, or.. lowering the age of consent to 'puberty'... etc."
Polygamy is generally a religious practice, not a secular one. Lowering the age of consent is something you are obsessed with. As I understand it, you erroneously believe that gay people lobby to lower the age of consent. This is incorrect.

Look, you turn people off god, and for that I still love you, but if you're going to go all monkey trial on us, why not be entertaining at the same time? A while ago, you posted that the fact that there was no rivers on Mars proved that evolution was impossible. When challenged, you did your usual disappearing act. C'mon, explain the science for us.

It's late and time for bed, so my brain isn't functioning normally. Let me just say what a clever nom de plume Dan S de Merengue is.

I like these guys. They want equal air time with intelligent design in the school system. I think they have a good case.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/