Hi pelican,
I was not suggesting a solution to the problem of how to teach religion/ethiscs/world-view to a class with a variety of family backgrounds. I only wanted to show that an ideal solution probably did not exist.

I agree, there is no problem with mentioning various religions, languages etc. when teaching geography. You can tell the students that in Germany and Austria they speak German, without telling them anything about the German language. To teach German is a different thing, and although e.g. in Australia it should not be compulsory, a foreign language - chosen from a list of approved ones - should be, technical difficulties (not much demand, no qualified teacher) notwithstanding.

Along these line, in the States of Germany (education in Germany is in State, not Federal, jurisdiction) they have a compulsory/optional subject Ethics/Religion, where the student (parent) has to chose one from a Catholic, Lutheran or Ethics (religion-free) version of the subject. Berlin, where “Religion-free” Ethics is compolsory is an exception, and in a recent referendum people in Berlin rejected the Ethics/Religion alternative model. The problem was whether and in what form to include Islam among the options in the Ethics/Religion model (up to 10% of Berliners are Muslims).

As you indicate, even in case of an overwhelming but tolerant majority, there is the possibility of a mainstream subject on ethics/religion (Anglican, I presume, in your case) with exceptions. I personally would not be against even a compulsory religion-free Ethics/”religious studies”) as long as it was presented to the students as the prevailing model, rather than absolute truth that one should not deviate from (as e.g. maths and science must be - and as old-time RE used to be - presented at High School).

oliver,
>>According to Toynbee, monotheism is “exclusive” and “parochial”.<<

You got only one half of Tounbee's message:

"Christianity and Judaism (and Islam) have one vision of God as self-sacrificing love - God the merciful, the compassionate, according to the Islamic formula - and another vision of God as being a jealous God ... (ctd)

(ctd) The jealous God's chosen people easily fall into becoming intolerant persecutors ... Perhaps the two visions of God, which I have called irreconcilable ... have their roots in nature-worship and in man-worship respectively ... the vision of God as being self-sacrificing love has, at any rate, one of its roots in the previous worship of a vegetation-god who dies to give Man sustenance ... The vision of God as being a jealous god undoubtedly has at least one of its roots in the worship of the tribe in the form of the god of the Choosen People, representing their collective power. (Arnold Toynbee, Christianity Among the Religions of the World)

Accepting this "evolutionary interpretation/explanation" of Revelation one can see the rise of atheism in the last couple of centuries as a kind of return to "man-worship" and "nature-worship" that differ from their pre-Abrahamic forms in that they are no more a prerequisite for a deeper understanding of God (as a factor both in human history and in nature) but a consequence of rejecting the idea of God (again, as a factor in understanding both human history and the world we live in).

However, I would disagree with Toynbee in seeing these two human predispositions as complementary (in the sense of yin-yang) rather than irreconcilable.

>> ... to a monothesist, "defense by offence" ... is like a drink is to an alcholic.<<

Do you mean statements like “I dont want to understand muslims or jews or christians or any other airy fairy superstitious nutters. They are all evil and elitist and foul minded bigots who want to force their sick views onto the rest of the world and subjugate us to their sick and twisted morality and show the same submissiveness to their leaders that they do” (mikk)?

>> It is hard for montheists not to say "only we know the" way and "the others are deluded". <<

Are you sure this is a prerogative of monotheists only? Do you consider the author of "The God Delusion" a monotheist?

The atheist consensus is that questioning Muslims is a no-go zone for a Christian.

Out of “respect and tolerance” (cowardice and acquiescence), having been discredited by a violent track record, I should waiver my rights to an opinion and count on the vainglorious atheists (on balance, both anti-Muslim and anti-Christian) to raise the questions that this article begs.

The price for harmonious relations is the erosion of my individual rights and freedom, and the cost is the suppression of dissent or opposition.

Democracy has a very flexible implementation for the atheist. It’s called totalitarianism.

Oliver, calling Christians hypocritical in their teachings of love and kindness by using the historical record is over-simplistic and biased (particularly with the very high death toll on the atheist killing fields caused by communism, abortion, nazism and fascism).

Rather than hijack this discussion on understanding Muslims, perhaps you could start a new thread, as I am very willing to both engage in and learn from it. I’m also interested to hear your comments on Teuku’s article, if you have any.

I belong to a community of believers that date from the 1st Century – so there is a lot of history, (in biblical terms this period is collectively known as the “end times"), and yes, much of it bloody and violent. Laying responsibility for this at my feet and calling me to account for my choice of religion is your right, and I respect that this is a valid question for a non-believer.

(As it is my right to ask a Muslim to be more transparent about what the Qur’an teaches).

In brief, my position on this is that we cannot change the past, nor gloss over it.

The challenge for Christianity is to change the future by acting not for our own gain, but with love and kindness, for the glory of God.

It is an ideal, Oliver, a worthwhile goal for a person of faith; to continually lift our vision upward out of the muck and mess that humans create.

KatieO,

"Oliver, calling Christians hypocritical in their teachings of love and kindness by using the historical record is over-simplistic and biased (particularly with the very high death toll on the atheist killing fields caused by communism, abortion, nazism and fascism."
-KO

Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and other inhumane atheists were born atheists (as we all are). The deaths they caused were not a commitment to atheism or "in the name of atheism". Instead of committing a religion they were committed to their own ambitions which left millions dead in their wake. They didn't want people (religious sects, intellectuals ets.) associating and opposing them.

Knowing their histories, I would not ware a t-shirt showing a swaskia or a cross, in knowledge of there past deeds. I guess one can say I'm a good NAZI or a good Christian; whereas, I would say that if one wants to follow State Capitalism or Jesus-ism, it should not be under the umbrella of the old caste.

"Love and kindness" should be attached to the individual which may expressed, as a secular humanist ("unconditional positive regard towards - Rogers) or, for theists, via one's personal relationship with their chosen god.

In an Utopian reality, if people were called to War by a State or Religion and, the Masses held that the expression of love is enjoioned to a direct relationship to a loving divine role model, we would have "suppose they called a war and nobody came".

It would be hypocritical to describe the Sermon on The Mount as counter to the expression of love. Yet, the Yehwah favouring an exclusive "Chosen People" and destroying states is unloving:

Much of the OT is the antithesis of Jesus' teachings; as are the deeds of the Christian Churches century after century.

Hi George,

- "Do you mean statements like “I dont want to understand muslims or jews or christians or any other airy fairy superstitious nutters. They are all evil and elitist... ” (mikk in Geoge)?

I think I would call these responses rationalisations or justifications stemming from centrism.

- "It is hard for montheists not to say "only we know the" way and "the others are deluded". Are you sure this is a prerogative of monotheists only? Do you consider the author of "The God Delusion" a monotheist? - George

Yes, if Dawkins does not test his atheism.

As a scientist he should try to "indwell" (that word again!) in religious scripture and experience and test religious propositions using science and history. Only then should he reject the null hypothesis and roll over to its alternative. But it is an on going process of experiment.

- Toynbee.

Toynbee (A Study of History) does address peoples reverting to earlier stages of development. This can happen when a people are under occupation and they recall a glorious past or a grand future to come. They avoid living in the present. Whether or not atheism could be seen to follow a similar regression; I will need to do some homework.

Glorfindel (24/6, 10:15), can you explain to me, without plagiarising, the differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims? Or Hasidic and Orthodox Jews? Or Sikhs and Hindus? Could you even sum up the differences between the many sects of Christianity?

See, you can argue furiously over how many angels dance on the head of a pin, but to a secular and unbiased observer, it looks like this:

- For every passage of the Koran which encourages violence, theft or rape, there is a passage from the Bible which encourages the same.

- For every Muslim massacre in history, there is a Christian massacre.

- As we know, Christianity at 1400 years old behaved exactly as Islam is at 1400 years old.

It always astounds me that devout Christians will quote from the Koran to demonstrate the violence of Islam, when the Bible is drenched thick in blood. The only defence available to you is the “no true Scotsman” claim, which also exonerates Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Musoliini, and our favourite Catholic, Adolph Hitler.

I’m sure the tiny details matter to you, but that's necessary to validate your faith to yourself and others who live up to their neck in religion. The rest of us just want such primitivism out of our society. The opinion of a Bronze Age hermit is not evidence, but you make the mistake of thinking that it’s both important and reliable in 2009.
.
.
.