Relda; you clearly mentioned Derrida previously, and it is without any error that these philosophical antitheses Contributors are , and is a part of the post Structuralism and Post- modernism - Freud and Lacan- Foucault-Deleuze-Guattari-Cixous in femonazism. : Loytard-Baudrillard ; Plus many more brainless contributions ; and seemingly that equates to Secularism ;
A whole list of psychobabling psychopaths that have clearly entered the realm of , and are certifiably insane.
And that is construed now as a normal cognitive expression of normality.
Not.

peter:

1) "My target is the ultra rationalist that must see a reason for everything."

yes, yes. but WHO are they? what influence do they have? i'm very happy for you to target such people, i'm just not convinced that such people exist, or at least exist in numbers and influence to warrant your fear-mongering.

2) "Christianity is the only faith that has an inbuilt criticism of religion understood as the desire to manipulate the divine."

well, gee. in advocating the humility of christianity, you're not short of a little pride. nothing like throwing away a few thousand years of eastern religion and philosophy with an absent-minded flick.

did it occur to you that we non-religious folk may have the mechanisms of self-reflection and self-criticism? and that we can do this without the need for the inbuilt criticism of a religion we can do without? and that we can do this without the debasing characterization of ourselves as "miserable sinners"?

3) "If Christianity is so false why does the discussion of it raise the blood pressure so much?"

gee, i dunno. and i guess jews get upset by the protocols of the elders of zion because it's speaking the truth?

maybe it's just that non-religious folk get tired of faith being used as an excuse for lazy thinking and moral grandstanding.

Bushbred,
I understand grief as something intensely personal… two years ago, for you, undoubtedly seems like yesterday. Over 30 years ago… for me, I felt an awful tragedy – and still highly cognizant of that time… time ‘pastes’ over but does not remove. As a ‘tough’ old bushy, your instincts would have been seldom wrong, your intuition, I suspect, is not so far behind.

Crabsy,
Jung’s attachment to the symbolic is important when considering the early Christian creeds, he says that our “denominational religions with their archaic rites and conceptions – justified enough in themselves – express a view of the world which caused no great difficulties in the Middle Ages but has become strange and in intelligible to the man of today.” A superficial reading of this might be to embrace some of the nihilistic and apocalyptic fantasy of the ‘New Age’. Jung insisted that the human must withstand her or his ground in the face of the ‘archetypes’. Not just sort of marry the dragon, but in fact engage the dragon in combat – he would wish to avoid the mush and promiscuity of the New Age.

Practicing a creed blindly, without true examination at an experiential level of the validity of the creed for oneself may in fact lead to a fanaticism so far removed from its origin as to bear little resemblance to the experience which birthed it. Driven by an innate spiritual urge, the fanatic may have great zeal but attaches it blindly to whatever is available to fill the void. Fundamentalism, which can move to fanaticism, is easy to adopt as it deals in the ‘concrete’, rather than vague symbols which challenge us to decipher a meaning.

All,
Derrida is certainly not ‘easy’. In ‘The Gift of Death’, he intends to free us from the common assumption that responsibility is to be associated with a behaviour that accords with the general principle of being justified in the public realm (ie. liberalism). As he says, "Abraham is at the same time, the most moral and the most immoral, the most responsible and the most irresponsible"

George,
You are quite correct to question what I actually meant by the word "respect"
I should have been more precise as the word, of course, can mean a number of things,

Here is one online dictionary definition I agree with.

re·spect (r-spkt)
tr.v. re·spect·ed, re·spect·ing, re·spects
1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.
n.
1. A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem. See Synonyms at regard.
2. The state of being regarded with honor or esteem.
3. Willingness to show consideration or appreciation.
4. respects Polite expressions of consideration or deference: pay one's respects.
5. A particular aspect, feature, or detail: In many respects this is an important decision.
6. Usage Problem Relation; reference. See Usage Note at regard.

I meant "respect" as:-
To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem:
The state of being regarded with honor or esteem:

Of course there are varying degrees of respect ..... qualified respect.
I personally respect many Christian moral conclusions. e.g. Love your neighbour, Treat others as you would have them treat you etc.
I have no respect for the authority on which they base the moral conclusions (a god/s concept) and minor respect the literal source of this authority (an ancient book). This of course is only my opinion which any comment about religion amounts to.

If you choose take the path of unqualified respect for religion (any religion) you run the risk of cultural relativism and worst still, shock, horror..... moral relativism. Peter does not like this and I agree with him.

While on the subject of word definitions, could I ask Davidf,

in the context of a six-year-old, what is the difference between education and indoctrination? Is the difference in the emotive quality of the word, or is it technique, philosophical approach, or is it only a matter of content?

david f,
The story about the Chinese girl whom you saved from being indoctrinated into Christianity (and religion in general) before she could critically think is - sort of - interesting.

I must confess to you that I was also indoctrinated, not only into a Christian outlook but also to three languages (that I allegedly spoke at the age of five), into counting apples and bunnies before I have developed critical thinking about mathematics, languages, religion etc.

However, I am grateful to my parents and the school for having given me these skills at an early age when one is not yet critical, but easily learns new propensities. [It is much easier for a child to learn to swim than for an adult. The adult who never learned to swim can observe a swimmer, can analyse his/her movements but will never have the “insider knowledge” of how it actually feels to swim.] Today I speak more or less six languages, have a decent knowledge of mathematics, can understand what Christians claim (although I agree only with some of them) and enjoy learning about all sorts of other religious and non-religious world-views.

I also know many people who have remained “uncontaminated“, have a very naive understanding of what Christians believe, or are monolingual, or have a very modest knowledge of mathematics. But do you know what? I do not envy either of them.