Wonderful article Danny and you have really covered it all eloquently and succinctly.

Secularism may not be perfect but it is the only obvious path forward in modern socieites because it is:

1. That condition that allows people to believe in what they will without fear of persecution/prosecution as long as those beliefs don't contravene the law.
2. The freedom for democratic government to develop policy without the shackles of religious dogma.
3. The freedom for our children not to be indoctrinated at a tender age by another's agenda/dogma.

I agree with Danny,

Chaplains should not have access to the children without the express written permission of the parents.

I would prefer priests and other kiddie fiddlers were kept away completely from all schools.

Danny says he has a 'chaplain' at his daughters school. I wonder how honest the school was in introducing the so-called 'chaplain' to the school community?

All too frequently the school principal and a bunch of desperately scared parents set the tone and ram through, against the DEEWR rules, and without any broad consultation with students and parents, their own idea of what a 'chaplain' should be. Most parents are unaware that they can have control over the job description and set the parameters before the SU employee gets selected.

I like the tone of this article, although I think Danny is far too generous with Mander and the SU.

And the reason I say that is because Danny and others will never get the chance to enter an EQ school as an 'alternative' chaplain. SU has stiched up a backroom deal with Bligh and previous ALP governments and has, apart from a lone-wolf Buddhist chaplain, got a monopoly on this tax funded scam.

I see down at Pelican Waters Mander is in trouble with a errant 'chaplain', according to the local newspaper anyway:
http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2009/jul/28/chaplain-suggestive-msn-chats/

The response from Ed Qld is absolutely shocking, totally devoid of any notion of what they have let loose in our state schools.

Why don't the Manders of this world go and place their employees in private schools?

Is it because private schools know better than to trust evangelical extremists?

The issue I have with secularism and education is that it often shows an unthinking quality when it comes to religion.
While religion is (and ought to remain) an aspect of our individual choice, all religions are not equal. Some religious beliefs are highly commendable, and others are rightly reproachable. Yet discernment when it comes to religion is often something put in the too hard basket in our society.

I am certainly not without bias, I teach Religious Education in a public primary school, but I do not want to take this as an opportunity to 'indoctrinate', but to educate.
Religions are complex and are often poorly taught be people who do not practice them. I want my students to grasp the idea that it is worth thinking about God. While they often come up with different answers to my own, my aim is to encourage them to evaluate evidence and consider some of the options available.
I would hope that our schools are places where all questions are welcome and that we see the value in having more than mere councilors available to help children answer them.
While we cannot present every option and opinion to have some of the more 'tried and true' responses on offer ought not to be considered a threat to parents but a key part of understanding our heritage and our world.
parents are right to be concerned about religious indoctrination but to then ensure that most of our children are ignorant in this area would surely be to leave them more open to indoctrination.
Religious organisations that have a commitment to the community are a valuable part of our society and can make an important contribution within the education system.

The heading says it all ('Secularism is good for you'). Unfortunatley multitudes of parents don't agree with you Danny. Even many pagans have abandoned State run zoos based on secular idealism. Your ignorance of religions really does show up. You think equal weight should be given to to Islam (the religion of peace) along with Christ. Unfortunately secularism has much in common with the death cult of Islam. Suddenly you put yourself as god and tell us what is good for us.

What can a chaplain do that a counsellor can't won't do. A Chaplain can teach a few basic morals. A Chaplain can give a plausible account for origins. A Chaplain ca advise a teenager not to murder the baby she has as a result of secular values.

We really don't need you preaching your secular dogma Danny as to what is good for us. Anyone with a conscience and half a brain can see the fruit of your belief system.

Secularism seems to be the result of our postmodern past. It simply has no objective footing whatsoever, which in my mind, gives it major pitfalls. Take for example, Pelicans statement about why secularism is "the way forward": It is "That condition that allows people to believe in what they will without fear of persecution/prosecution as long as those beliefs don't contravene the law.". But, where did we get the laws in the first place? From our Judeo Christian past. So, we should respect a worldview which allows people to believe what they want, as long as those views don't contradict the law?

I wonder if Pelican would say the same if he lived in Afghanistan. No, he'd rail against the law.

So really secularism is just a worldview which says everything and nothing at the same time. It doesn't really stand for much at all

I am not a religious person, and I don’t care whether or not religion is taught in schools if it is not compulsory as it was in my day.

But, what I find extremely hypocritical is that people like this author, a member of the extreme left Greens and a teacher of mumbo-jumbo lateral thinking, along with his loony left mates in education unions, reserve the right to brain wash students with their own extremist views of politics and the way they think society should be run.

The Green Left view of everything is much more dangerous than religion, which is easier to see through at a time when most of its sensible practitioners no longer believe in the myths and fears presented by religion in past times. The Greens are spoilers and wreckers who want to change the face of society and economic principles that work, to the grey, depressive existence of socialism.

The only religion as dangerous as the Green Left religion is Islam.

Other god-following religions are so ineffectual and irrelevant that they are dying a natural death in secular countries anyway.

All this author and other adherents of the Green Left religion want is to clear the way quicker than they can apparently wait to reinforce better their own ideas in our already ruined public school system.

Not only is Secularism good for you, it is essential for a healthy society.

Are the Islamic states that exist under Islamic law healthy societies? Was the Christian society we had before the separation of state and religion good for you? There is no difference to what happens to any society when it is subject to religious law. Those who dissent are persecuted.

A secular society is one of the ways we protect the minorities and protect freedom of thought and speech. It even supports those with weird ideas about 'adherents to green left religions' and vague mutterings about 'post modern whatever's.' You cannot do that in a religious State.

Christianity is better for you, Chrsitaisn are happier in general, have better marriages, more kids, less depressed, less anxious and volunteer more than their secular brothers and sisters.

On the other hand, everything wrong with society can be traced back to secularism - abortion, anxiety, feminism, broken families and broken hearts.

Wow - these comments have taken an unusual tack.
While I myself am very religious I can see the value of secularism in society at large (and our schools as one example).
I myself had serious misgivings about the introduction of Chaplains into public schools. The chaplaincy program is dominated by a certain segment of christianity and - even though chaplains are not meant to proselyte - there is an implicit endorsement of a message when you introduce it to children and pay for it.
I felt it was a bit of a knee-jerk to the loss of enrollments to the private sector and the idea that parents were seeking 'values' in their choice of school.
I agree that if there is a need for counselling it ought be given by counsellors - not quasi-priests. If parents want their children taught values it should be done in the home.
As for society at large, I don't think it can be seriously denied that much of what we enjoy, including our most basic freedoms, have some root in our religious heritage. At the same time I think that much of what we enjoy today is also the result of religious ambivalence and particularly non-sectarianism.
Anyone who believes that the promotion of one ideology over any others has never felt what it is like to have a minority viewpoint.

abortion, anxiety, feminism, broken families and broken hearts...all the things that are real in fact....they are real things based on the real experience of living, as opposed to the completely insane fantasy of faith in some (any) god. you christians..you leave me and my children alone please, because i think you are all deeply ill and need a great deal of help, and i am afraid i do not have the patience or the qualifications to help you...so just leave me and my children alone....build your churches (and your temples)..pass round the collection plate, clasp your hands in supplication if you so desire, someone will get round to helping you eventually...not me. i would like you all to leave me, my government and my children and their school alone please. i did not vote for you, you have no right to force me or my children to do or believe in anything. it is the secular societies that have managed to sustain democracy, democracy is far more important to me that the insane rantings of very sick people.

"The Green Left view of everything is much more dangerous than religion, which is easier to see through at a time when most of its sensible practitioners no longer believe in the myths and fears presented by religion in past times. The Greens are spoilers and wreckers who want to change the face of society and economic principles that work, to the grey, depressive existence of socialism." so spoke Leigh, who by his/her words sounds like a full-on evangelical fundie with Coalition tendencies, along with Tony Abbott's global view on the need to continue taming the world and suppressing 'nature', all as part of God's good work.

I could be wrong, but this is such a distorted view of Green thinking, that it has to belong well past the One Nation wheelbarrow, and deep into the mind-field of Senators Barnaby Rubble and 'Albert' Fielding, the two Isaac Newtons of the Red Leather Room.

Clearly Leigh does not place the Pope as one of the 'more sensible practioners', not 'Houston calling' from Hillosng, nor the Jensen family of Sydney, nor.... most of the US political scene.... there isn't much left on the Xtian side of life is there? Oh yes, I forget Tony Blair, always sensible our Tony.

Maybe Leigh was thinking of the emerging Russian mix of church and state, who are having another run at forming as toxic a brew today as they had when the Czar was in town last?

But Truthnow78 is right, what with all those RI 'helpers' and Tim Costello's World Vision Christian missionaries let loose in Qld schools by an uncaring and politically focused Premier Bligh, they are doing a lot of volunteering, in our state schools with the support of the State Government.

I suspect, that if the author Danny here took along a group of Greens members to discuss the relative merits of 4WDs with the students at his daughters school, he'd be shown the door as a political opportunist, a mind distorter no less, imposing 'political values' on the kiddies.

But what if God was to say that?

That's certainly an illuminating take on the situation, Brett_P.

>While religion is (and ought to remain) an aspect of our individual choice, all religions are not equal. Some religious beliefs are highly commendable, and others are rightly reproachable.<<

This is the classic cry of the religionist.

"My religion is OK, but your's sucks/is the devil's work/endangers our country's future/should be banned/is blasphemy/is nothing more than brainwashing."

I hate to think how many people have died, in Northern Ireland as well as other parts of the globe, under the banner of such blind intolerance.

It has always fascinated me that there are so many shades of religion.

From sweet ol' ladies like my grandmother, who never said a bad word about anyone in her entire long and blameless life, to fanatics who would blow themselves up, so long as they could take a few non-believers with them.

Or even simply set themselves on fire, just to make a point.

http://www.gnn.tv/threads/4496/Thich_Quang_Duc_The_Burning_Monk

Interestingly, the world has yet to witness atheists fighting amongst themselves to determine whose atheism is best.

These ongoing strategies among different religions to obtain political favours are attempts to expand and defraud even more people - get 'em while they're young and vulnerable!

Those religions that defraud society attempt to validate themselves through their myths and superstitions where none of these myths and superstitions have any basis in fact.

If religious education is permitted in schools, why not education in clairvoyance, transcendal meditation or even the “scriptures” of Nostradamus? They have as much credibility.

My profoundly deaf and blind mother was an involuntary and reluctant psychic, much in demand though she never allowed a penny to cross her palm nor did she ever attempt to indoctrinate others.

Perhaps the religious in our society could learn a thing or two from my mother's "Christian" principles?

Wow! I'm 48 myself and I'm really impressed that Danny still looks forward to birthdays!
I don't know what I can add that hasn't been said already. The secularists have exhaustively and reasonably made their case. I'd like to hear from the other side now in the same register (feel free to throw in a bit of name calling). Can we have some reasoned counterargument please, as to why public schools shouldn't be purged of a well organised and extremist cohort of fruit bats?

Trav
You remarked "I wonder if Pelican would say the same if he (sic) lived in Afghanistan. No, he'd (sic) rail against the law."

That is my point. Afghanistan is not a secular state and you can be ostracised, stoned, jailed or at worst killed for a contrary religious view. Afghani law as with many other Islamic States, is as it is because it has been highly interfered with by the extremist end of Islam - usually old men with beards and a strong political/religious agenda.

I take your point about our system of law as influenced by a JudeoChristian past. I agree but this influence has changed and evolved over the years to what we experience today. Many years past one could have been persecuted, killed or jailed if not of the Christian faith.

Thankfully the JudeoChristian world has moved forward. We hope the same for the Islamic world where government is free from the same restraints. Eventually, democracy has to come to the Middle East - it seems inevitable with greater lines of communication and exposure to education and technology.

The difference between Counsellors and Chaplains is that support is provided free from religious motivations. The Chaplains, while many will be well intentioned, might find it difficult to separate religious mission work from impartial counselling and support.

As Leigh, commented it is true that no-one is without bias. We all have a particular worldview but those with a strong religious agenda tend to push those views with little thought to individual family's rights to raise children in their own way.

Chaplains are not 'Gods' they do not have the right to assume their choice should be, or would even work, for every other person on the planet.

Whilst reading the posts I came across one I agreed with.

Then I saw the name 'Pericles.'

Halleluiah, there is a God

Thanks Danny for a balanced article.

Some contributors seem to think that religion is a kind of ideology that cannot be questioned. I am studying a Masters of Theology at the United Faculty of Theology (Melbourne Uni), and I can assure you that any aspect of the tradition is up for discussion and debate. There is a great deal of sophisticated academic theology, and indeed it is a discipline taught in most major world universities. Most people (I think) find the idea of God highly interesting and important, at least as a debating topic. So why shouldn't suitably qualified teachers canvass these ideas in schools? As long as they allow free discussion and indeed dissent, surely there can be no objection.

I like the religion of secularism.Belief in non-belief.Could it be the perfect oxymoron?It has a real ring to it.What we need is the church of secularism and pay homage to the mighty dollar.

We could have a competition for the 'spectacular secular.'What do you believe in? Well just the opposite of those bastards over there.

teatree,

I think the difference is a theologian might advocate rather than teach. Something like the Trinity can be studied objectively, yet a cleric would take his/her church's position. As you would know, the Eygptians and Hawiians had trinities.That said, I see no problem studying the NT as one might the Iliad.

I have a friend, then already a cleric, who studied comparative religions and after independent analysis of the works available to became an atheist

WE have to get Religions out of Education not let them in. When has teaching untruths been one of the goals of Education? Secularism is better for you than fibs!

Do these religious instruction teachers really know their Bibles?

I have explained these points on many threads with the believers amongst us mostly rather silent!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2572&page=0

Indoctrination is NOT Education. Manipulating minds to believe in flawed religions is NOT education.

Surely all that needs to be taught is

1. Love or at least try to like one another
2. Respect one another
3. Help & Care for one another
4. Be tolerant of one another

and a teacher is already qualified for this.

But back to the Bible - the great reference book, so flawed, and yet so heavily relied upon.

If your God gives you the courage read what it really says. Don't gloss over it.

The Bible really should have an MA15+ rating.

Examples

Why would we place a book that wrongly threatens hellfire and damnation in the hands of a child?

Luke 17:28-30

OR follow the teachings of someone who believes Jesus said at the end of the parable of the gold coins

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

OR teaches that their loving God killed all the innocent children of the Earth in Noah's flood

Genesis 7:4 "...and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

OR teaches that a loving God would kill all the innocent firstborn of Egypt

Exodus 12:29 "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt..."

Now I know that the religious instruction teachers will say they don't teach these bits...BUT doesn't that make the teachings selective and therefore dishonest?

BrettP...If what you are teaching are falsehoods, then that isn't education!

Runner...what is a plausible origin to you, is a piece of clay to most....Ha!

Teatree...they don't canvass ideas they teach myth as fact...OMG

>> I don't like all this silly running around bending at the knees religious nonsense.<<
I could hardly expect to be seen as tolerant if I wrote "I don't like all this silly American placing one's hand over one's heart while their national anthem is playing, patriotic nonsense".

>> Our concern is that our children are being indoctrinated into somebody else's idea of the nature of reality and the moral codes that flow from it. ... it is not right for any one view to be imposed on the kids, and that further, the kids should not be admonished to learn, and cleave to, any one religious view. <<
I principally agree, except I would not restrict this to only "religious" views, but any world-view that has to come down from the teacher to the student (unless one restricts teaching to only science and maths). However, I do not see how to implement this in a society, where subjects like history, philosophy, ethjcs etc. have to be taught to children/students coming from families with different world-view preferences.

Also, the author seems to have conflated the role of a chaplain - a counsellor working from this or that world-view background - and a teacher of RE, an optional subject, like a foreign language.

>> as their atheist chaplain and we got in a Buddhist, Taoist, Islamic, Catholic and Judaic chaplain as well. .. Schools have properly trained and accountable councillors.<<
If the councellor/chaplain is not "properly trained and accountable" e.g. lacks the necessary formal qualifications in psychology (a science subject), the school should reject his/her services, irrespective of his/her world-view background. Besides, every school can offer only this number of foreign languages, and similar restrictions obviously apply also to the world-view backgrounds of counsellors/chaplains the school can afford.

Pelican, we already had a system:
1. That ... allows people to believe in what they will ... as long as those beliefs don't contravene the law, including the law against blasphemy (the old name for political correctness).
2. The freedom for democratic government to develop policy without the “shackles“ of the presuppositions of other world-views, especially those based on atheism.
3. The freedom for our children not to be indoctrinated at a tender age by those who rejected world-view based on Christianity and universally accepted.

It did not last for long, and I do not think your variation would, if implemented consequently, provide for a better and freer society either, though it might help religion - e.g. the Christian versions of it - by clearing out their dead wood. At least this was my experience with a system where your model was followed verbatim (in East-Central Europe) and it took only a few decades for a religious revival, both on the emotional (spiritual) and intellectual levels, to re-emerge. The same in Russia.

>>difference between Counsellors and Chaplains is that support is provided free from religious motivations<<
A suitably (psychology) qualified person can indeed cause a lot of damage by brainwashing a young person, irrespective of his/her motivations, religious, anti-religious or what.

Pericles,
>>Interestingly, the world has yet to witness atheists fighting amongst themselves to determine whose atheism is best.<<
Atheism is not an ideology, nor a religion, so one atheism cannot be better than another (though one atheist can be better educated, behaved etc. than another). However, there are many world-views based on atheism, and you just have to read about the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, to see how deadly were the fights between different interpreters of Marx and Lenin, all atheists.

Nevertheless, one thing atheism has common with religion: both can degenerate into an ideology.

Dear George,

I view Marxism as a Christian heresy. The Marxist belief in the original sin of private property and the classless millennium makes Marxism like Christianity in the belief in a historical process leading to an apotheosis.

Possibly Joachim of Fiore propounded the first three stage version of History between 1190 and 1195. The book of Revelation was his key. One part of the Trinity presided over each stage. First was the age of the Father or the Law, second was the age of the Son or the Gospel, and third would be the age of the Spirit. The age of the Spirit was the millennium in which all men would be contemplative monks in mystical ecstasy singing the praises of God continuing until the last judgment. No mention of women. Since Augustine had maintained we were already in the Millennium with the advent of Christianity Joachim's theory of history was at odds with Augustine even though Joachim had the encouragement of three popes.

The theories of historical evolution of the German Idealist philosophers Lessing, Schelling and Fichte and also Hegel embodied the Joachite phantasy of the three ages. Comte had the idea that history went through three phases, an ascent from the theological to the metaphysical and finally to the scientific stage, and Marxian dialectic went through the three stages of primitive communism, the class society and a final communism in which the state would wither away.

Nationalist theorists wrote of three stages, too. Their nations were the heirs of an earlier glory. Of course powerful nations already claimed to be the heirs of Rome. The titles, kaiser and czar, are German and Russian versions of Caesar. In 1923 Moeller van den Bruck coined the phrase, "the Third Reich". The Holy Roman Empire was the first, Bismarck's Germany the second and the Nazis referred to their Germany after the takeover in 1933 in van den Bruck's phrase as "the Third Reich" or in millenarian terminology,
"the Thousand Year Reich". It lasted until 1945. Nationalist theorists added another hierarchical concept to the progression of their nation in history.

continued

continued

Of all the peoples on earth their group was peculiarly fitted to bring the glory of their nation to the world. Since the nineteenth century nationalisms stemmed from people who generally accepted the Bible which specified the Jews as the chosen people somehow the Jews must be shown to be usurpers."Secular Messianism carries the idea that history has a meaning and direction leading to an apotheosis of fulfillment.

Both Marxism and Nazism embodied ideas of secular messianism. To a large extent they had the same source. That source is the German philosopher, Hegel.

Just as a single human being progresses from childhood through youth to maturity, so, Hegel thought, human cultures have progressed from what he calls the "Oriental world" through the Greek and Roman experiences and into the "Christian world," by which he means medieval and modern Europe. The idea that there is an engine of progress, and that history has a meaning and direction is another belief that has powered a great deal of craziness. Once you postulate that history has a meaning and direction you, of course, see
yourself on the right side of history and those on on the wrong side of history as somewhat less than human. One on the right side of history has the right and even the duty to destroy those on the wrong side of history. Hegel, Joachim of Fiore, Marx and other individuals have had this conceit. Hegel's apotheosis or fulfilment was the Prussian state. Marx's was the eventual classless society. The Nazis' apotheosis was the Thousand year
Reich.

Followers of philosophies inspired by Hegelian thought are responsible for millions of Jewish and other corpses. Followers of Hegel split into left Hegelians the most notable being Karl Marx and right Hegelians who were mainly German nationalists. Hegel opposed individualist concepts of freedom contending that only absorption in an organic society
generates self-realisation for the individual. The outcome of this was the justification of state tyranny under Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini and Mao and the murder of millions. The we/they philosophies of class struggle, nationalism and race struggle supported these murders.

George
You cannot compare secularism as it stands in Australia to that under Communism. I don’t understand the difficulties that religious folk find abot secularism.

Secularism allows religious people to worship a faith of their choosing. I know many Christians who are secularists and believe that secularism serves religion as well as democracy.

What is the alternative? To have one religion reign supreme? Look at the outcome in places like Afghanistan.

As far as counsellors/Chaplains go, we agree that some counsellors will be wanting in terms of level of professionalism and as I said earlier we all have biases. The fact is this ‘wanting’ is only muddied further if we throw religious motivation into the mix. Another are of contention for assessing suitability for the role.

School counsellors might be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Atheists, but it is not within the scope of their role to use their position to indoctrinate particularly when dealing with vulnerable students. A Chaplain's role is less clear given the obvious religious nature of their position.

What advantages can you see for Chaplains in schools? Given that many of the students will be Buddhist, Muslim, Atheists, Hindus etc. How does this serve students as a whole?

If we let Christian Chaplains in we also have to let in Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu equivalents – this would be both unwieldy, expensive and for most undesirable.

For me, spiritual belief is the province of the home or local Church. This does not mean that topics of religion, politics and ideology cannot be discussed at school with open and lively debate and discussion but not as a subject in itself when the intention is to indoctrinate.

We have to be honest about this, my own experience with schools is Chaplains do not invite dissension or discussions about God but merely wish to ‘instruct’. The two instructors at my daughter’s primary school some years ago were not even qualified but attendees of a local Church. Naturally many parents chose for their children not to attend instruction as it was voluntary in a public school.

There have been plenty of wars fought because of, or in spite of religious beliefs.

Anybody know of one that was stopped by them?

Both sides try to impose their views on the other except one seems to do so with more conviction and self-interest.

Schools were initially set up in this country by the Churches not the state. Religious education in schools was part of the agreement the State made with the churches so that they would hand the schools over to the state. The concession of religious education was given so that the secular state would not dictate that aspect of education. Today, provided you can satisfy the legislation any group may teach a group for their religion within a school and any parent may remove their student from it. Most teachers are unpaid and voluntary.
Should the state now attempt to remove this forum for discussion of religion from schools? Surely this would be to enhance the divisions and foster a culture where there is a lack of understanding and increased prejudice. Most school teachers would happily admit that they are not trained to teach on religion and hence allowing others to teach can offer real explanation.
The reason that I think that Religious Education is not necessarily indoctrination is that I think there is more to this world than mere empiricism can deliver. While some may wish to argue about epistemology, the majority of people in this country still look beyond mere empiricism to answer the questions of life.
Should those who volunteer their time be allowed in our schools? The reality is that they will be, either for the purpose of religious instruction, or in other projects. Most schools look for any program that will provide positive outcomes for their students, something that the religious have been good at for millennia.
The paid chaplaincy question has a different character to it. It seems the government has decided that it is one way to promote values in our society and so for the moment is providing some financial assistance, which is often supplemented by other organisations. Chaplains’ roles can be diverse, from teaching Religious Education, through to taking significant time with families in hardship and rebellious students. Generally, there is no compulsion to convert but merely the offer of assistance in times of trouble

i know a qld school chaplain who says jesus sits with her in her kitchen while she's doing the washing up of an evening and instructs her as to how best to bring her school children to god. i would never allow my children to be in a room alone with such a person. she is very clearly insane. and yet she is allowed to "offer assistance" to children in her school, as a matter of law, in any way she (and the kitchen jesus) sees fit, with no checks or balances whatsoever.

australian society has sunk that low. we are actually that ill.

BrettP...You use the term Religious Education, Do you really know what this means?

The only proof of a Christian GOD is the Bible.

The fact that generations have been indoctrinated to believe in him doesn't make it so. Is teaching the baby Jesus story really honest?

If Jesus is God (even though in John 14:28 he states "....I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I"), do you realise the implications?

If Jesus is God he killed innocent children in Noah's flood and in Moses' time. If Jesus is God he allowed Moses to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing in Numbers 31:17-18

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

If Jesus is God he allowed people to be stoned to death for disrespecting their parents, blasphemy and other minuscule transgressions.

Will you teach Moses was found in the rushes and forget the above?

So God allowed "himself" to be killed on the cross to save us from sin...That's not what the Bible says...he allowed his son to be killed! What sort of loving father would do that? Trinity in question again!

So how many years study have you done on other religions besides yours? I think what you are stating is teaching Christianity not religious Education.

Financing Chaplains in schools is farcical...If children need councelling employ trained social workers OR psychologists. This is Govts. putting naive people in the wrong jobs for a cost benefit!

As you didn't try to answer the Biblical questions I posed are you really qualified to teach even Christianity?

If teaching Chritianity selectively a deceptive practice?

Should education be about fact or myth?

IF we all have a spiritual side to us that doesn't make relgious instruction....education!

Do you know your Bible well enough to teach?

Which Jesus will you instruct the children to believe in?

Some reflections on Brett's contribution part 1 of 2:

"Schools were initially set up in this country by the Churches not the state." Indeed, and Australia was an evolving set of colonies at that time, so not all was the same around the wide-brown-land. We know Brett is not from Qld, so 'his' history will be similar, but different, to that of Qlders. In Qld, in the 1860s, one of the first actions after separating from NSW was to defund the denominational schools and push for secular schooling, such was the feeling here against funding religions at all. By 1875 we had real secular schooling, not the half measure of NSW, and I believe Victoria-could be wrong there. This was opposed by Christians (there were no other religions, of course)and the good work of thinking people, many of whom were Christians who understood the benefits of a secula public sphere, to all of us including them, was undone in the 1910 referendum which imposed RI and Bible lessons on Qld students for the next 100 years.

"Today, provided you can satisfy the legislation any group may teach a group for their religion within a school and any parent may remove their student from it." Not true in Qld. 'Any group' applies only to a select few, so Pagans are excluded, and there are over 100000 declared Pagans, plus those too scared to 'own up' on the census form. In effect, generally, only Christians enter schools for RI. More recently, as Buddhism has become the 'new' plaything of the angst ridden middleclasses, these, and a few other odds & sods get in too. Indeed, 'any parent may remove' is true in theory, but so too is the requirement to have a 'separate space' for non-RI students, generally ignored in Qld state schools, while the habit of using RI as a 'default option' is the practice not the exception, and to Hell with what parents want.

"Most teachers are unpaid and voluntary" - the word 'teacher' is too grand, stick to 'volunteer, yes, that's the deal

George,

The Nazi's weren't professed athiests, in fact they used the church to unite the population against the athiest communists.

Likewise one of the reasons that marxism pushed for athiesm was because of the excesses of the church in accumulating property and wealth at the expense of the proletariate.

These ideologies did not spring from athiesm.

Reflections on Brett: 2,

"Should the state now attempt to remove this forum for discussion of religion from schools?" RI is a closed shop for low grade indoctrination from poorly equipped volunteers, in the main, in Qld, and yes, it should stop as it is a waste of scarce time and resources.

"The reason that I think that Religious Education is not necessarily indoctrination is that I think there is more to this world than mere empiricism can deliver." - ah, that RE expression. Well, if you mean RE not RI, then it could be done, by trained EQ employed staff, within SOSE, as part of an exploration of philosophy, thinking and behaviours.

The situation in Qld, where Ed Qld employed staff are required to give Bible lessons in school is simply ‘not on’ in this world anymore. RI is one issue, which can be dealt with intelligently by ending it and instituting a broad education ‘about’ religion and thinking, but our non-secular status here makes us a laughing stock. Perhaps Afghanistan is comparable?

The political processes in Qld are so inflicted-upon by Christianity that we might as well be a theocracy. Then Bible lessons in public schools would not be considered odd or unusual.

Secular public schooling, after 100 years of Christian public schooling, has come of age. Tim Mander, spoke glowingly of the multi-faith and multi-cultural state of the nation. Most posters here understand the real Mander position, and if they don’t, go visit the SU website to see what he strives hard for.

It is not a secular state at all, but a state fit for ‘the return of Jesus’. But in the meantime, he is happy to take the secular tax handouts to religions, not only in the form of Bligh’s $10m and Gillard’s $165m of the NSCP monies that pay for his 500 plus frequently unqualified chaplains, but also all the tax-free perks, like no income tax for ‘vicars’ up to $60k a year, no council rates, no taxes for ‘religious’ businesses, not to mention the AOG ‘university’ that churns out ‘qualified’ evangelists.

Shadow Minister,

Apart from his famous "opium of the peple comment", it can be argued Marx was not an atheist to the extent that belief was was immaterial to material dialecticism in history. To Marx, religion didn’t count enough to actively oppose it. I guess Marx was a product of the bourgeois middle-class himself and his political economy an example the mechanistic nineteenth century.

When it came to Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot, I suspect the quest for power overrode any rational atheism opposite to genuine faith. If one is a dictator, one does not want any form of potentially threatening reference groups, be these groups religious, the press ot an intelligensia.

Dear David f,
>>I view Marxism as a Christian heresy.<<
I appreciate that you present this as a personal view - that I can understand and share to a certain point - rather than a sweeping statement.

>>Both Marxism and Nazism embodied ideas of secular messianism. To a large extent they had the same source.<<
I agree and thank you for an interesting account of the Hegelian background to a stream of German philosophy that certainly went wrong after Goethe and Schiller (you probably know Hans Kohn’s ‘ The Mind of Germany’ where this is elucidated) and led to both Nazism and Communism.

On the other hand, not only German but all European thinking has its sources in Judaeo-Chirstian (and Hellenistic) traditions. Of course, the “trinitarian structure” of the Divine (and its reflection in Western culture) is of Christian provenance (but Christians are not the originators of messianic myths and expectations), however I do not think that everything that is/was subdivided into THREE varieties, stages, epochs, etc. can be traced to that. For instance, the Platonic ideals of beauty, truth and goodness can be used to explain a lot about how humans relate to their environment. It could be an interesting (though probably futile) exercise to try to correlate this triple with others, including the Trinity, the same as one might correlate the yin-yang complementarity with many pairs of concepts intrinsic to Western thought (well, there are six permutations of three elements, but only two of two).

Just one small remark: The Marxist theory of historical materialism recognises six, not three stages: Primitive Communism, Slave Society, Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism and Communism. Even if you lump the middle three into one “class society” you get four stages.

I appreciate your perspective that acknowledges the common roots of Nazism and Communism: both Jews and Christians suffered by both, although in the first case the Jewish suffering was incomparably higher than that of some Christians, whereas in the second case - at least in the years following the October Revolution - it was rather the Christians who suffered.

Pelican,
I was not comparing the situation under Communism with the status quo in Australia but with a situation that might arise if your model was fully implemented (I do not think it is yet an official policy in Australia to regard ANY religious education as indoctrination), and even that only as far as its instability rather than harshness is concerned.

>>What is the alternative? To have one religion reign supreme?<<
That was exactly my point, except that not only “one religion” but no world-view orientation should “reign supreme” by e.g. calling indoctrination, or some other pejorative name, education into world-views that disagree with it. The real alternative is a majority world-view (orientation) that does not teach children disrespectfully about other orientations. The majority might be Christians (as in the past) or secular humanists (I really prefer this term to secularists that one somehow correlates with islamists or fundamentalists) as the future seems to hold for Australia and Western Europe. In Australia you teach children how to properly speak English without using derogative terms to describe other languages, especially if some children might come from a family where that language is spoken. The same with world-view orientations, religious or not. What I was trying to say was that such a situation was rather unstable, that irrespective of who is in the majority there will always be those, from the majority or minority, who will want their view to “reign supreme”, starting by condemning, denigrating, ridiculing, etc. the alternatives.

Chaplains/Counsellors, are useful only if they are properly qualified as child psychologists, but I do not see why an additional qualification in a religion that the child can relate to, should be an obstacle.

Religions can be discussed in classes supervised by a secular humanist or a Christian. The emphasis is on the teacher’s sense of tolerance not orientation.

Shadow Minister,
>> These ideologies did not spring from athiesm <<
A standard cliché reciprocated by “the evils perpetrated by Christians did not spring from theism (or Christianity) but from motivations external to their religion”. Both clichés are right to a point.

George

"A standard cliché reciprocated by “the evils perpetrated by Christians did not spring from theism (or Christianity) but from motivations external to their religion”."

Rubbish.

One has nothing to do with the other. The church has a long history of religiously inspired torture and war mongering.

Religion needs reinventing. Why? Because as a society we need a structure and system for discussing what is and is not ethical and moral about human behaviour.

I see all religious stories and symbols as a vehicle for discussing good and evil, just and unjust, right and wrong.

Of course, a new system of religion needs to eschew creationism, matters of which are best left to science.

If only we would put our minds to the process of religion rather than the content such as the bible.

The process is about perfecting ourselves and being all that is good for ourselves and our community. This process is what needs study and instruction or guidance.

The content will vary from culture to culture.

We need to talk about a new vision in order to move forward. Without that vision we are stuck in the past.

George
You are comparing with apples and oranges. The teaching of English and language is not about 'reign supreme' as in the case of ideology. Language exists and there are is no debate. Religion is a whole different ball game.

I don't think I stated that there is a formal policy of indoctrination in schools. It is my own opinion that religious instruction is indoctrination. It is not an insult, we are all indoctrinated from birth one way or another. Religion depends on indoctrination otherwise a particular bias would not take hold enmasse.

There is nothing harsh about this, it is just a reality. Religious folk are not the only sector with rights and I am not sure why modern governments have cow-towed to the Christian lobby in recent years. I suspect it is in reaction to strong pressure groups possibly due to the perceived threat of Islam.

I am not arguing that atheism be taught, enforced or discussed either as this would not be fair. My argument is more looking towards harmony by not allowing the schoolyard to become yet another boiling pot for disharmony and intolerance or open slather for various religious dogma (specifically in respect to Chaplains and RI).

George & Others,

Of course someone being of a particular religion when counseling children is an obstacle.

If people believe the rubbish dished up in ancient flawed texts they are hardly in a position to council anyone. Many would argue they need the counseling and deprogramming.

Are you really suggesting that a person's religious persuasion doesn't affect their thinking or interpretation of a given situation? Of course it does!

Where were all the reports to the police about child abuse in religious institutions in the past? Where was the open accountable counceling?

You also seem to misunderstand the fundamental processes of indoctrination. Why would you find the religiously indoctrinated, counceling others, as a reasonable proposition?

Pelican explains it very well.

I also have a problem with athiests though. It seems to me that to state categorically that GOD doesn't exist is as arrogant as to say he does.

Maybe it is the word GOD that is so overused and so misunderstood. If there is a universal energy that gives us a spiritual side, it certainly doesn't cure people.

Praying to it is demonstrably a waste of time. If praying worked there would be no starving people. Rwanda or the holocaust wouldn't have happened and people wouldn't die horrid miserable deaths.

The real problem with Chaplains in schools is that they are already unqualified by their GODly beliefs.

How anyone could even think that teaching atheism in schools is possible astounds me. It is almost as ludicrous as having a Masters in Religion as a qualification.

Surely it should be Masters of Improbable History - Religious Mythology

I guess it proves that Universities will teach anything for a buck!

If my very simple questions on religion cause those with strong religious convictions to shrink and not respond then it doesn't say much for their knowledge or conviction.

As I have said elsewhere...To believe that an allegedly loving GOD could murder innocent children and believe the likes of Moses are heroes is the ultimate in religious naivety and probably the ultimate blasphemy if a GOD exists.

Can God really be that dumb?

Pelican,
Sorry, it is apparently my fault that you did not understood what I meant. I agree with you in principle except that not only none of the religions should have privileges over other world-views, but that the same should hold for any world-view (or philosophy-of-life) presented directly (through RE or an irreligious person teaching "religious studies") or indirectly (when teaching subjects like history, ethics etc).

I conceded that this principle did not work very well when Christians were in the majority, expressing doubts whether it will work with a group of world-views based on secular humanism. By privileges I mean a situation when all the others are referred to as infidels, pagans, heretics or irrational, superstitious, etc, and education into alternative world-views called child abuse in sweeping accusations.

I am not familiar with the situation in Queensland, and whether, or under what conditions resident counsellors/chaplains should be appointed at all.

>> we are all indoctrinated from birth one way or another <<
If you mean also those educated into world-views based on atheism or secular humanism, then the word is indeed harmless, and expresses the fact that small children must be instructed in a way different from adults. I suggested the same understanding of the word - by admitting that when I was five I was also “indoctrinated“ by my childhood environment into speaking three languages that were not my choice - but was harshly rebuked by most atheists on this OLO who insisted on its pejorative meaning.

Shadow Minister,
Condemning an institution for a “history of ... torture and war mongering” is like condemning a medical practitioner for performing amputations without any anaesthetic. In both cases it depends on what century the “perpetrator” - institution or practitioner - belonged to, whether an alternative existed. Today such a practitioner would be prosecuted, in the Middle Ages that was the only available practice. Something similar about the Church that eventually gave birth - as painful as it was - to Enlightenment (it was not imposed on Christendom from the outside, from another planet or civilisation).

George, you state:

<< history of ... torture and war mongering” is like condemning a medical practitioner for performing amputations without any anaesthetic. In both cases it depends on what century the “perpetrator” - institution or practitioner - belonged to, whether an alternative existed.>>

So torture and war mongering wasn't really torture and war mongering because it was in a different era, when people thought beating the crap out of each other wasn't really bad at all.

Interesting logic, George, Jesus would be proud of you.

Fractelle,
Irrespective of your language, you are right that I rather clumsily expressed the simple fact that historical events should be seen and judged in their historical context. That and nothing else was meant by the “something similar about the Church”.

A person who claims the Earth is about 6000 years old is wrong, whether he/she lives today or lived during the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, in each case one would make different conclusions about the person’s intelligence.

As there is an “absolute truth” about the age of our Earth, there is also an “absolute truth“ about what is good and what is bad (the sense of which is in your genes, called “natural morals“ in Catholic terminology). It is just when one wants to pass judgements about the perpetrators, one ought to take into account the historical context. That is the difference between atrocities perpetrated by Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao on one hand, and those perpetrated by the Church and others in the Middle Ages.

I will not elaborate further on that since I am not a historian. There are many professional historians whose interpretation of European history more or less agrees with the way I see it, as there are those whose interpretation is closer to passing sweeping judgements that you and Shadow Minister seem to prefer. We both can learn from the historians whose interpretation we like, as well as from those whose interpretation we do not like.

George
Perhaps indoctrination was not the best word to use in this sense but basically we are all shaped by our early childhood experiences. I am not sure how many people would choose a religious path after the age of 15 or at the agreed point of critical thinking. There are some that will. I know people who have changed their outlook or views in adulthood one way or another.

As for secularism, it isn't perfect. One misgiving is that we might become too politically correct as to invite the ridiculuous. While I am not a fan of Peter Costello, his article in The Age highlights an important issue -that of religious schools to be able to choose teachers on the basis of their religious faith. Despite some of the minor distractions in his piece, I agree with the thrust of his argument. It does seem a bit ridiculous to dictate to a religious school that they cannot hire religious teachers.

In any case, many religious schools hire non-religious teachers in certain subjects because they are excellent teachers. A smart principal will hire on the basis of competency to attract families to their schools. Some Muslims schools have hired non-Muslim teachers in various subjects.

I suspect the legislation won't be passed anyway.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-legal-threat-to-christian-schools-20090728-dzzx.html

"One has nothing to do with the other. The church has a long history of religiously inspired torture and war mongering."

And you think that if the church was eradicated or no longer existed, that "religiously inspirsed torture" and violence would cease? Yes. But would torture and violence themselves cease? Of course not.

The problem lies in human nature, not religion!

Anyone who suggests otherwise needs to put some more thought into it; and if they still draw the same errant conclusion after said thought, I'll have to assume they're living in delusional deep seated hatred towards religion, as holding to that position would indicate a departure from any semblance of rational thought.

A rational view of the situation reveals that John Dickson was spot on when he wrote...."The slogan ‘religion-leads-to-violence’ finds plausibility today not through logic or the facts but through simple repetition."

http://www.publicchristianity.com/religious_violence.html

Dear Trav,

Professor Edwards of the University of Pennsylvania wrote "Torture" which is a history of the practice. It is not human nature. It is primarily cultural. In ancient times some civilizations practiced it as a normal part of their jurisprudence some didn't.

The ancient Greeks, Romans and Chinese practiced torture. The ancient Persians, Indians and Israelis did not. Western religion primarily derived its structure and practices from classical Rome after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in 371. Religious torture followed. The provision in English law that one cannot be forced to testify against oneself comes from the outlawing of torture. The provision in the US Constitution prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment" also outlaws torture. The actions of the Bush administration allowing torture broke with past practices. Obama seems to be restoring the previous attitude.

Religiously inspired torture is not common to all religions. It is only common to religions which originated in cultures which accepted torture as a part of their jurisprudence.

I spoke too soon, a Court in America is now allowing a Priest in Texas to sacrifice goats at his home in the interests of religious freedoms.

This is the ridiculous - now some poor goat has to endure death and pain (possibly) for some warped human view of the world.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/priest-allowed-to-sacrifice-goats-court-20090801-e4t2.html

I am surprised that religious freedoms would override animal cruelty in this instance but it is America.

I will add this to my misgivings about broader religious freedoms impacting on other rights already enshrined in law.

Pelican

That is distressing news and further indictment of the evil that occurs in the name of religion.

Davidf

Very interesting to note the influence of both culture and religion as to the incidence of torture as acceptable or not.

George

I adore words, I do not select them lightly, my use of the word "crap" therefore was for dramatic effect. That you chose to ignore the meaning of my post and take offense at the deliberate use of an expletive (which is accepted by the OLO filter), says more about your prejudices towards others than it does about your ability to understand another's point of view.

A reminder, secularism allows religious to practice whatever dogma with which they are indoctrinated - like sacrificing goats. Unfortunately for the non-religious we are forced to accommodate such excuses for bad behaviour.

Trav, your point about human nature is valid, however, it is only religion and other dogma (facism and communism) that succeeds in convincing good people to do bad things. Therefore, the teaching of critical thinking of our children cannot begin soon enough.

Pelican,
You are right people convert at different ages but "critical thinking" does not have to enter the game. It is more a matter of psychological disposition (or indisposition), I think psychologists call it "limit life situations". People abandon religion ("loose their faith") usually because of a too rigid and formalistic family environment, an incompetent priest, RE teacher etc. that did not allow their childish, naive faith to develop into an emotionally and intellectually more satisfying form, level with their other formal education, intelligence and life experience.

I think something similar can happen also the other way around, although one does not speak of an atheist "loosing his/her faith". I know a Catholic priest, the son of a former high-ranking party functionary in Communist Czechoslovakia, who was baptised at the age of 17, taught physics and biology, was secretly ordained priest, revealed after 1989. I consider him a more valuable priest - including the ability to think critically, if you like - than many others I have met, who grew up in Catholic families.

As I said before, the world-view background of a maths or science teacher does not matter (not even in a religious school). However, there are other subjects, like history, where the teaching must go beyond a listing of dry facts into evaluating and interpreting them, and there the teacher's (or syllabus author‘s) world-view background will necessarily show.

There is this problem in Europe, that is not directly related to religion, namely how to develop a unified, or at least not self-contradictory, teaching of European history. An event (e.g. a battle) that one nation sees in a positive light, another might view negatively, etc. The same with different world-view orientations (in society as well as education). The more tolerant towards others is the prevailing orientation - irrespective of which (it might be the secular humanist that seems to be in ascendancy) - the better, but I cannot see an ideal solution asking a priori for the one or the other to prevail.

Fractelle,
thanks for explaining to me your “ability to understand another's point of view“.

'This is the ridiculous - now some poor goat has to endure death and pain (possibly) for some warped human view of the world.'

Only surpassed by the murder of unborn children in the name of women's rights (another dogma of secularism).

Squeers, please make up your mind, which do you want, reasoned argument or name calling?

Danny,
In responding to Tim Mander, you claim that some of his arguments don’t fly. However, scratch beneath the surface and, by and large, your piece pretty much resembles and agrees with his.

You both pull out the dictionary and have a go at defining the word secular. It must be a very plastic word as everyone is coming out with something a little different.

Yet you come to the nub of the issue with this phrase, “Our concern is that our children are being indoctrinated into somebody else's idea of the nature of reality and the moral codes that flow from it.” In saying this, I think you’ve summed up succinctly what most want, both those pursuant of faith and those not.

Many Christians and other believers are very welcoming of true secular principles and practices, as they ensure that the government system is not foisting unwanted doctrines upon us.

Squeers asks us to use some colourful adjectives. How about the word arrogant, the opposite of which is tolerance. Tolerance is truly at the heart of secularism. Tim Mander spoke about that in his piece. The real enemy is not a faith or creed, but the arrogance of a view, whatever view, which must dominate and can’t co-exist alongside others.

In this sense, Christians might be sometimes be appealing to true secular ideals to protect them from the aggression of the hard lined atheist who has no tolerance for anything religious.

david f,

You make reasonable distinction between religion and culture for, while often intertwined, they are not the same "institution." As to the nature of torture not being symbiotic to the nature of man - this is merely a reflective optimism. Man has, afterall, in his tendency toward the formation of religion, given hell the place of nothing other than religion's torture chamber.

George,
I completely agree in that, “We both can learn from the historians whose interpretation we like, as well as from those whose interpretation we do not like.” Critical thought allows an examination of both perspectives and I find much of what you say to be certainly more affirmative rather than pejorative in meaning.

It has been stated (Madeleine Bunting), and I believe correctly so, that like any kind of fundamentalism, Western fundamentalism “Is tolerant towards other cultures only to the extent that they reflect its own values - so it is frequently fiercely intolerant of religious belief and has no qualms about expressing its contempt and prejudice.” This fundamentalism, inter alia, lacks the will to understand what is profoundly different from itself.

Cultural values indeed form a reference point, for example, who is it that decides why exposing certain private parts completely is a criminal offence, yet covering them only slightly is a sign of liberation for women – a secularist contradiction surely. Here’s another: Colombia’s Constitutional Court, the nation’s highest legal entity, “may legalize incest as it considers a request to eliminate the criminal penalty for sexual intercourse between brothers and sisters or parents and children.” Referring to the distinction of making moral and legal matters two separate entities, Alberto Franco, a lawyer pushing for this new legislation, said that incest “is a moral problem and not a legal one, because it is related to freedom and personal autonomy.”

I need mention also that Democracy holds the view that millions of people are wiser than one, which caused one Western thinker to state that Democracy is “a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”

Dear Relda,

Some people get pleasure from torture. However, I don't think those usually are the torturers. People who get pleasure from torture, show mercy or object to the activity are not reliable as they tend not to stay within religious or state specified boundaries. People who torture without religious or state sanction are subject to criminal proceedings. Religion and the state want reliable servants.

In calling hell religion's torture chamber you neglect the fact that all religions do not have the concept of hell. Some people whose religion may have the concept of hell may reject that particular part of their religion.

I do not know what the nature of man is. I think some things are fixed. The sex drive must be sufficiently wide spread for the species to continue. Sufficient numbers of us must want to stay alive long enough to satisfy that urge and produce more humans. Beyond that I think most things are up for grabs. I know of no investigation into the factors that incline a person to enjoy torturing or reject torturing.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

The Milgram experiment was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.

The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the question: "Was it that Eichmann and his accomplices in the Holocaust had mutual intent, in at least with regard to the goals of the Holocaust?" In other words, "Was there a mutual sense of morality among those involved?"

Milgram's testing revealed that it could have been that the millions of accomplices were merely following orders, despite violating their deepest moral beliefs.

david f,
Initially, to address your second observation from the Milgram experiment,i.e.- “.. accomplices were merely following orders, despite violating their deepest moral beliefs” , I will center on a tenet within your own tradition. Judaism is much more focused on actions rather than beliefs, its prophets and sages have not spent much time on speculations about the world to come, but rather the elaborations on the mitzvot to be performed in this life – perhaps a practical aspect of your tradition. Moral belief, in the Milgram experiment,is quite irrelevant as it lacks the important or affirming action. Without the courage to enact it, belief has no end result. It would seem, purely from the Nazi experiment, man is generally unable to realise his deepest moral belief. The courage to enact, in the face of opposition, appears to be something unnatural – rather,it is an extraordinary and surprising trait.

You probably have an understanding of the yetzer tov, where a moral conscience is able to give ‘authority’ to a specific action or choice – as an atheist, you may not ascribe this outside ‘entity’ or ‘authority’ to ‘g-d’. Nevertheless, a tension is likely to exist within the yetzer ra - i.e. the natural impulse to satisfy one's own needs and desires (eating, drinking, procreation, and making a living). The state has an understanding of these desires and, depending on it authority, sets its boundaries accordingly. A reliable servant is one thing but faith in the state requires subservience to an ideology - whether it is Communistic, purely Marxist or socially Capitalistic.

Your first point: I agree, not all religions have a concept of hell. Christianity certainly has one – or used to at least. The theological trend of the last few centuries has certainly strayed dramatically from a central feature of historical Christianity. The pull of atheism and agnosticism in our culture gives this trend some reinforcement. But for those who truly suffer, can we absolutely say their particular ‘hell’ is merely the paradigm of a truly pointless, gratuitous suffering.? Through its neutrality, mere secularism tends to agree.