The 'Four Corners' 30th January episode, once more shone the spotlight on the teachings of fundamentalist religions in private schools. This time it was the Catholic conservative cult, Opus Dei, in NSW. The cult can count many high ranking luminaries in their numbers, including NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet and his Finance Minister Damien Tudehope, Perrottet is an old boy of the Opus Dei Redfield Collage, where he was school captain, the Perrottet family are active members of this secretive conservative church within a church.

Opus Dei was founded in 1928 by Spanish priest Josemaria Escriva, who once claimed that; "Hitler had been “badly treated” by the world’ and he further declared that ‘Hitler couldn’t have been such a bad person. He couldn’t have killed six million (Jews)." Escriva was also close to the Spanish fascists dictator Franco.

Closer to home Opus Dei schools have received large increases in government funding from both the NSW government of Perrottet and the former Federal government of Morrison. The kind of nonsense they have been peddling in their schools include, HPV vaccine for girls turns them into promiscuous sluts, watching pornography causes holes in the brain and women who are raped bring it on themselves. Department of Education material which didn't agree with Opus Dei beliefs was regularly redacted by the schools. Is this what taxpayers should expect from $20 million of public funding?

Hi Paul,

I missed the Four Corners program last night.

However our parish church here in Melbourne is
one of the most beautiful churches in the country
It's restoration is still on-going and our family
has donated quite a bit towards that. Since 2001,
the administration of this church has been entrusted
to the priests of Opus Dei. A new parish priest replaced
our old one in 2013.

My grand-children were baptized in this beautiful old church.
My husband served there as an altar boy and attended the
nearby Christian brothers schools.

Personally, we've found the priests her very caring and
decent human beings. Therefore I am surprised at this discussion.
I don't know that much about Opus Dei. But I certainly have
not noticed any kind of prejudiced behavious in this parish -
certainly not from the clergy here.

Hi Foxy,

Most cults will often present on the surface as, kind, loving, even serene, but bubbling away down below can be far more sinister things. I don't care if this particular mob, Opus Dei, wants to mix holy water in their kool-aid, providing they are harming no one, so what. What does concern me is millions of dollars of taxpayer money being used to peddle unacceptable, even dangerous nonsense. Also of concern is the rapid growth in funding for this particular mob of private schools in NSW by both the Perrottet and Morrison governments, a coincidence, possibly, favouritism, probably.

Hi Paul,

Of course you're right to be concerned.
I'm only sorry that I missed the Four
Corners program - but I'll try to find it
on the web. As far as I know - a formal
investigation into the activities of Opus Dei
in NSW is being done. It will be interesting
to see what the findings are.

ABC continues its anti-Catholic jihad.

I wonder what Muslim schools are teaching their kids? Don't worry, the ABC will be doing an exposé on that any time now....why are you smirking?

Private schools are allowed to teach their philosophy. Parents fork out significant sums to have their kids taught the way they want. And in a relatively free society they are allowed to do so. Otherwise why have private schools? And while they are doing that they are saving the public system equally significant sums. Sure they get paid a subsidy to help with costs, but that subsidy is about half what it would cost the public system if the private schools didn't exist.

Basically what we have here are the usual authoritarians opposing views they disagree with and seeking to have those views shut down.

Dear mhaze,

As usual that is completely untrue from you and is a line run from the Independent school sector all the time.

"Under the current funding arrangements for private schools, the Commonwealth Government is responsible for funding private schools at 80% of their Schooling Resource Standard (SRS). However, many Victorian private schools are funded at well above 80% as shown in the table below."

"Penleigh & Essendon Grammar School is the top over-funded school. Its cumulative over-funding for 2022 to 2028 will amount to $23.4 million. The school is currently funded at 115% of its Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) by the Commonwealth Government instead of the target 80%. The Victorian Government is responsible for the other 20% of the SRS target, but its current funding of individual private schools and systems is not divulged.

Penleigh & Essendon Grammar is a highly privileged school. Just under 70% of its students are from the highest socio-educationally advantaged (SEA) quartile and over 90% are from the top two quartiles. Only two per cent are from the lowest SEA quartile."

http://saveourschools.com.au/funding/wealthy-victorian-private-schools-massively-over-funded-by-the-morrison-government/

mhaze,

I think that you misunderstand the points that Paul
was trying to make. Private schools of course are
allowed to teach their values. But when those values
cross the line and become teachings of division,
prejudice, hatred, and exclusion, - than we should
all be concerned. Private schools should not be given
a blank cheque. They also need to be held accountable.

I know from my own family experiences with Catholic
schools. They do need to be held to account. I see
nothing wrong with that. And it does not equate
to asking for accountability as something sinister or
be classified as ulterior motivation. Questioning is
after all supposed to be a vital part of our
educations systems and curriculumss. Not just blind
acceptance.

Dear Foxy,

When these values include young ladies wearing a cilice and whipping themselves with knotted ropes then it is pretty warped and needs to be as far away from a school as possible.

http://www.gettyimages.co.nz/detail/news-photo/cilice-or-barbed-wire-like-spiked-chain-made-to-be-worn-by-news-photo/600004894

Dear Steele,

Of course It's warped and most of us would recoil at the use
of this type of mortification.

Yet how many people are obsessed
with our bodies for health reasons, and/or beauty. Many people
go in for painful procedures such as cosmetic surgery,
botox, tattoos, body piercings, weight control, running,
training, memberships in health spas, teeth whitening, body-
building, and the list goes on.

The controversy over the use of these means of mortification
arises from the fact that they are intended to fortify the soul
rather than the body.

I read that in Opus Dei these are traditional (granted extreme)
means used by many saints in the church's histories. However,
I believe that you need permission to be allowed
to do that and only certain people are allowed to do it.

I don't think children and schools are involved.

Dear Foxy,

This was a young initiate under 20 who was interacting with even younger girls at the school daily hoping to recruit them to the order.

I hope you find the opportunity to watch the program, it is rather revealing.

Dear Steele,

I'll certainly be watching Four corners this evening.
It does sound horrific from what your saying. And
I would not want my grand-kids going to those kind
of schools.

I wonder what on earth has happened to a religion that's
supposed to be about love, inclusion, and the more
idealistic higher moral values in life. What has happened
to that church? This version seems very warped.

mhaze,

"Private schools are allowed to teach their philosophy. Parents fork out significant sums to have their kids taught the way they want. And in a relatively free society they are allowed to do so ..."

Point being, that if these extreme religious schools are allowed to exist, they should not be funded by the Australian taxpayer.

They can subsidise themselves ... how about that?

As usual SR, you reach a conclusion and then go looking for something, anything, that will support the conclusion.

The SRS to which you refer is only part of the issue. Its the part that you think supports your conclusions, so you look no further. Yes, the various governments offer funding for non-government schools but its not at the level of government schools.

"While 4 out of every 5 school funding dollars comes from public sources, it is not evenly distributed across sectors. On average, around three quarters of funding for Catholic schools and less than one half of funding for independent schools is from public sources. In contrast, almost 95% of funding for schools in the government sector comes from the Australian Government and state and territory
governments... "
http://www.education.gov.au/quality-schools-package/fact-sheets/how-are-schools-funded-australia

65% of all students are in government schools but they receive 71% of all funding.

But this is only part of the story and this is where I'll lose you. Day to day funding of the schools which the government funds isn't all that is required to run a school. The school needs land, buildings, infrastructure, non-teaching support staff, head office administrators and a plethora of other costs. For example 87% of costs of the land and buildings for non-government schools is met by that sector. The government kicks in very little.

When all these other expenditures are accounted for, the non-government system picks up half the cost of education their kids.

You should aquaint yourself with what happened in Goulbourn in 1964 which kicked this whole thing off. Catholic schools in the area were so poor they couldn't survive without government help, which wasn't forth-coming. So they closed all their schools and sent the kids to the government schools in the area, which were all overwhelmed. The government folded like a cheap suit.

If non-government schools closed tomorrow the extra costs to the government would be enormous. You won't understand that.

Poirot,

"they should not be funded by the Australian taxpayer."

So the government shouldn't subsidise anything you disagree with? got it. The authoritarians in our midst.

Well, I did watch the repeat of the Four Corners program
last night which covered the Opus Dei schools in NSW and
what was happening there. I was shocked. There is no excuse
for what was being taught at those schools and as it
apparently is still going on - those schools need to be
held accountable. This has to stop - immediately.
No ifs or buts!

The obvious scars left on the students who have come forward
and spoken up are dreadful. A very sad state of affairs.
Action needs to be taken. Taxpayers should not be providing
fund for the torture of children - which is what this is.

mhaze,

"So the government shouldn't subsidise anything you disagree with? got it. The authoritarians in our midst."

Well, as it turns out, I do disagree with particularly weird cults pushing their dangerous dogma on to children in their formative years.

This lot of religious extremists are not affiliated with the Catholic School system in Oz - where is the oversight?

Hi Foxy,

When you have nut jobs telling young girls that the very effective cervical cancer vaccine (HPV) will turn them into sluts, and a old male teacher of 30 years telling young boys that raping women is natural for men, and the women are asking for it, then there is something seriously wrong. BTW watching pornography causes actual physical holes in ones brain, so this mob teach children. They are bigoted against gay people. One of my concerns is the rapid growth in funding for these elite schools from the Perrottet and Morrison governments.

Nazi Dom, when confronted with these allegations, in a political move he was quick to fob them off to the department, where he hopes such "nonsense" will be buried at least until after the election in March. This Primers philosophy is straight out of the Opus Dei handbook.

Dear Paul,

I hope that the investigation into these NSW schools
will be thorough and will produce good results for the
safety of the students. That concrete action shall be taken
and standards put in place that all schools be required to
abide by.

This is just one example of what has happened at one
private school section. Who knows what goes on in the
other private schools?

Perhaps another Royal Commission is needed here?

"Well, as it turns out, I do disagree with particularly weird cults pushing their dangerous dogma on to children in their formative years."

Well so am I, but we aren't talking about climate change ideology just now.

"where is the oversight?"

Where it always should be....with the parents.

mhaze,

"Where it always should be....with the parents."

So you're saying that anything dangerous or downright dodgy that is carried out in an institution is a parental responsibility.

That's not how it works in advanced societies.

I home educated my son for ten years, and even we had a moderator visit us once a year to note curriculum and progress.

If you set yourself up as an education provider and, in order to carry out your program, you apply or government funding, then scrutiny is paramount.

Who's to say that these parents aren't as misguided as the purveyors of the dangerous rubbish in whom they entrust their children.

For Paul - To avoid cervical cancer, remain a virgin and give yourself to a virgin. Remain in one relationship for life.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=causes+of+cervical+cancer+in+young+women&cvid=51c84a27d58048778a80cfae2abf0e43&aqs=edge.8.69i57j0l8.20549j0j1&pglt=41&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=U531

CAUSES:
Majority of cervical cancer is caused by a virus called human papillomavirus
HPV spreads through sexual contact with a person who already posses it
Not all types of HPV causes cervical cancer. Some of them cause genital warts, but other types may not cause any infections
The risk factors include:
Multiple sexual partners
Having sex at early age
Sexually transmitted infections such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis and HIV/AIDS
Smoking

Poirot, you need to be reminded that those who pay thousands each year to send their children to private schools also pay taxes and are among the largest taxpayers. They have a right to see their taxes fund their children's education.

The program is a deliberate release by the ABC to damage the NSW Premier's reputation as he faces the election, and it is typical of the ABC's socialist agenda.

Josephus,

Did you even watch the program?

So al of the students who have come forward and
spoke about their experiences at the schools
lied and are part of an ABC plot to get the NSW
Premier?

And you want to be taken seriously?

For anyone interested here's a link on the myths about
school funding and how to bust them:

http://news.aeuvic.asn.au/in-depth/myths-about-school-funding-and-how-to-bust-them/

josephus,

If you are so concerned about cervical cancer - you need
to give the entire picture of the causes and also tell us
why the Opus Dei schools discouraged the girls at the
school from getting the free cervical cancer vaccine to
help prevent them getting it?

Makes no sense. Or do you also believe that the vaccine will
encourage the girl's to be sluts?

Jose'

Do you believe that the HPV vaccines should be freely available to girls as a prevention of cervical cancer, or like Opus Dei do you believe it turns girls into sluts, and like opus dei do you believe the vaccine should be discouraged on those grounds? The "slut" factor we could call it. Do you agree with Opus Dei that watching pornography causes physical holes in ones brain? Like a male teacher of 30 years standing with Opus Dei, do you believe it is natural for men to rape women, and women who are raped are "asking for it" due to their immorality, and such women should commit suicide.

Do the views of the founder of Opus Dei, Josemaria Escriva on Hitler, align with your views on Hitler, Hitler was "misunderstood" and couldn't be responsible for the murder of 6 million people. Do you agree.

If the girls are not having sex, they do not need the vaccine. Simple. If they are sleeping around then the chances of contacting diseases are high, so they should have the vaccine. Simple.

I'm not Roman Catholic, and I do not agree with their doctrine, but chastity is a virtue worth protecting

Jose'

I asked several questions of you, your broad reply that you are not a Catholic, and you don't agree with "their doctrine", is that all Catholic doctrine or just what is put forward by Opus Dei, which is not doctrine. I don't think the views of a fascists priest in Spain concerning Hitler are doctrine. You seem to be turning a medical issue into a moral one. The holes in the brain? The raping of women? Is that natural behaviour of men, caused by the immorality of women. You didn't answer those Opus Dei beliefs.

Dear Josephus,

I do not think chastity is a virtue but a defect. A sexually inexperienced person is more liable to make an unwise marital choice. A sexually frustrated teenager may find thoughts of sex make it more difficult for that teenager to concentrate on studies.

Why do you think chastity is a virtue?

I think that regarding chastity as a virtue creates an unhealthy control over a young person's behaviour. At the time in a person's life when he or she is most capable of sexual activity it forbids that activity. That is sick.

Dear Josephus and David F.,

You are both right.

Chastity is a virtue when one conserves their time and sexual energy for a higher purpose - study for example.

When one genuinely wants something else, such as to succeed in their studies, giving up sexual activities is not even much of a sacrifice, one then is just too busy and exhausted to even think about sex.

But when one's highest goal is pleasure, when they are still at that stage (as most are), forcibly trying to suppress one's sexual urges is neither a virtue nor works and can even bring on madness. Allowing sexual expression (without hurting others) will eventually exhaust itself and then some new higher goal will be discovered, whereas sexual suppression would also suppress the discovery of that higher goal.

Unfortunately, too many young people today are being forced into the "education" machinery just so they can later find a lawful job, which requires longer than ever training since machines take over the less-skilled traditional jobs. Many who are unfit for academic study are still dragged along in school despite having no genuine desire to study, frustrating themselves and disturbing others.

Conscious self-directed chastity is virtuous, but pressuring others to be chaste is not.

There's the Taliban, or "students", the ones who ask [spiritual questions]: it is well and good for them to be chaste because their lives are [supposed to be] about studying God and His ways. Their tragic mistake is in assuming that what is personally good for them is also good for society at large which does not generally share their higher purpose.

Poirot wrote: "So you're saying that anything dangerous or downright dodgy that is carried out in an institution is a parental responsibility."

"so you're saying...." http://youtu.be/1XMJTWD2mzs

That's a complete (and probably deliberate) misrepresentation of what I said.

Firstly, I find it both funny and somewhat abhorrent that you assume that any view that differs from yours is dodgy or dangerous. These are moral issues and there is no right or wrong answer...just differing views. But the authoritarian-lite never understands that.

Of course these schools need to be, and are, monitored by education authorities and need to meet minimum curriculum standards. But these aren't curriculum issues. There's no suggestion that these schools aren't teaching the 3R's so-to-speak to the approved level.

But parents send their kids to these schools for more than the 3Rs. And since they are paying substantial sums they are incentivised to ensure that the teaching is what they approve. Your assumption that they don't know that their kids are being led down what you consider the wrong path is just a false assumption.

Ultimately our society entrusts the raising of kids to their parents. We've seen societies where the state takes on that role and it never ends well. If the kids are being taught stuff the parents disapprove of then they have the option of removing the kids or providing the kids alternate views outside of school hours. Some of the kids did indeed receive the vaccines the school opposes.

Foxy,

Thanks for the article about private school myths. Since my argument was that private schools save the government significant sums and that this wasn't listed as a myth, clearly it must be true.

Thanks for your support

mhaze,

Wrong again. It's covered under Myth 4.
Go back and read it - you obviously missed it.

You're welcome!

Well one of us didn't read it thoroughly enough. Myth 4 says "“SENDING MY KID TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL SAVES THE PUBLIC PURSE. THE SYSTEM WOULD COLLAPSE IF WE ALL SENT OUR KIDS TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.”

But I, and for that matter no one else I know of, don't argue that the system would "COLLAPSE IF WE ALL SENT OUR KIDS TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.” Just that the costs to the government would expand dramatically. Nowhere in their explanation do they seek to refute the fact that kids going to private schools saves the government money.

Of course the whole article is like that...creating so-called myths that aren't really part of the claims and then disproving that which was never asserted. Strawmen abound.

Perhaps you should more closely read the stuff you rely on to tell you what to think.

mhaze,

Ah yes - but it also went on to explain further - which you
conveniently left out.

Go back and read the full explanations.

Also in the summation it states
that "If most kids went to government schools, the public
system would be better funded, much fairer and we'd waste
a lot less of tax payer money.

But it DOESN'T say government costs wouldn't go up....which was my point.

Of course, rather than relying on others to selectively give you talking points you could go to pretty much every education dept website to see that government funding for kids at non-government schools is lower than funding for kids at government schools. But I understand that checking for yourself is too hard

mhaze,

Is this the best you can do?

How disappointing.

Dear Mhaze,

«Ultimately our society entrusts the raising of kids to their parents.»

Read: society has not [yet] completely taken the kids away from their parents to indoctrinate them in its ways.

Should we say "Oh thank you, thank you, thank you"?
Should we kiss their dirty hands and accept the state's filthy money?

I understand that you are trying to defend why even religious private schools deserve money from government, but the true question is, why on earth or in heaven would they be willing to accept that money?
Why would they be selling their kids' souls to the devil for 30 pieces of silver?

mhaze,

"But these aren't curriculum issues. There's no suggestion that these schools aren't teaching the 3R's so-to-speak to the approved level"

What do we make of a school that teaches their young people they will literally develop holes in their brains if they masturbate - this lesson, replete with pictures of brains, erroneously identifying features of the grey matter as holes generated by such action.

I wonder what "approved level" box that sort of religo-science claptrap that would tick?

mhaze,

I disagree with your claim that kids going to private
schools saves the government money.

An analysis shows that:

Private school funding has increased at five times the
rate of public schools.

We're told that " government funding for independent
schools increased by $3,338 a student over a decade,
compared with $703 more per student for public schools."

The new analysis shows "predictions of a $74 bn shortfall
in money for public schools this decade despite the shft to a
needs-based scheme."

There's more at:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/16/private-school-funding-has-increased-at-five-times-rate-of-public-schools-analysis-shows

From the ABC reports which teachers were interviewed on the claim that pornography created holes in the brain, or was it immature schoolgirls?

It is a known fact that pornography gives false expectations and demonstrates multiple partners with no sexual security and commitment to real love and relationship. Men can imagine they thrive on multiple conquests, but it is destructive and has high risks of disease and abuse including a probable pregnancy for women. It has been demonstrated that girls are currently the largest viewers of pornography and have the highest incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, including poor self-image.

I trust the men posting here have told their wives of their secret partners

Josephus,

It was the schools that provided the false photographs
of the brain. The girls were simply relating what they
were being taught. And providing lies and misinformation
should not be on the schools agendas. Surely you do have moral
scruples and would not want your children educated with
falsehoods and lies?

But what the heck - you probably believe in pregnant virgins
and snakes promising fruit-based diets.

josephus,

Go start your own discussion - please.

Stop trying to divert mine.

You're becoming a real pest.

So as I said before - Shoo - go away!
Or I'll take out the Mortein!

Foxy, I neither believe in your aspersion of pregnant virgins and snakes promising fruit-based diets. I imagine you are quoting your understanding of ancient records included in Genesis - which in fact comes from Babylon and also represented by the Dragon in Chinese belief.
The serpent represents false religion, or deceptive beliefs. Jesus used the analogy.

As for the virgin you should talk to your Priest about that, as Mary was a young unmarried girl bearing a child to be especially raised for a mission to Israel and the World. The practice of mensurating virgins being pregnant first happened in ancient Egypt where they were artificially inseminated to ensure the child born was the next Pharoah. This was to show the hymen was not severed till birth. We used artificial insemination all the time to heifers on the dairy.

Hi Foxy, all's good in my world, how's your's, don't we have some on here.

A fundo christian, like Proud Boy Jose' can tell us what the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians were up to 5,000 years ago, but he can't tell us how many paedophiles have been uncovered in HIS CHURCH in the 21st century! Nor what they done with them, me thinks they are still in the congregation. Amazing! This bloke should put up, or shut up.

Dear Josephus,

Mary got pregnant in the way most, if not all girls, get pregnant. Not wanting to admit the circumstances she made up a story that the superstitious people of that time and this time would accept. Her cock and bull story fooled a lot of people and is continuing to fool a lot of people.

People who believe in religion believe their religion is the true religion. There is no true religion.

Yes, how unfortunate, Mary got the cervical cancer vaccine, and it turned her into the village bike.

Hi Paul,

Mary may have even indulged in pornography and ended up with
holes in her brain. Which would explain a lot. (smile).

Dear David F.,

Sorry, I know that you do not enjoy corresponding with me, but so long as you continue to besmirch religion with incorrect statements I must protest, whether you respond or otherwise and irrespective whether I enjoy it or otherwise:

«People who believe in religion believe their religion is the true religion.»

This is not true of Hinduism.

Swami Vivekananda declared in his speech to the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions:

"I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true. I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth."

“As the different streams having their sources in different paths which men take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee.”

"...a declaration to the world of the wonderful doctrine preached in the Gita: “Whosoever comes to Me, through whatsoever form, I reach him; all men are struggling through paths which in the end lead to me.”"

- http://www.artic.edu/swami-vivekananda-and-his-1893-speech

Hi Yuyutsu,

I will respond, are organised religions tolerant? There is ample evidence they are not, as often as not. Hindus in India were extremely intolerant of Muslims, resulting in the deaths of thousands, there are lots more examples throughout history. As my Old Man would say; "A bloke who believes God is on his side, is a dangerous man, like God he believes he can do no wrong."

Dear Paul,

«are organised religions tolerant?»

This is almost like asking, "are organised religions religions?"

If they are not tolerant of God's children then what hope have they of approaching God?

«Hindus in India were extremely intolerant of Muslims»

It is not the Hindu religion which is intolerant.
It is not the Muslim religion which is not tolerated.
It is some Indians who identify as Hindus who are intolerant of others who identify as Muslims, because Muslim occupation has devastated India.

«"A bloke who believes God is on his side, is a dangerous man, like God he believes he can do no wrong."»

God does not take sides.
Those who do wrong will reap the painful consequences regardless what they believe or not.

Hi Yuyutsu,

When do we stop making excuses for the organisation by blaming the short comings of some particular individuals within that organisation. The KKK was not racists against African Americans, it was individuals who simply identified with the organisation, (members) that were racists, they identified with the general culture and philosophy of the organisation. At some point the members and the organisation are indivisible, so both must be held to account for the actions of the individuals.

"because Muslim occupation has devastated India." Maybe David will take up that point.

Dear Paul,

Hinduism reinforced the caste system in India that made
it nearly impossible for people to move outside of their
social system.

Dear Paul,

The KKK did not claim to seek God.
They were a racist organisation, not a religious organisation, and unlike Opus Dei, nor even claimed to be one.

---

Dear Foxy,

The caste system as known by the West is a social distortion and not a part of the Hindu religion.

“All the reformers in India made the serious mistake of holding religion accountable for all the horrors of priest-craft and degeneration and went forth to put down the indestructible structure; and what was the result. Failure! Beginning from Buddha to Ram Mohan Roy, everyone made the mistake of holding caste to be a religious institution, and tried to pull down religion and caste all together, and failed.”

http://hindupost.in/history/swami-vivekananda-caste/

Dear Yuyutsu,

You quote nonsense to buttress your nonsense. The statement, "We regard all religions as true." is more nonsense. Religions are contradictory. To regard all religions as true is to assume a contradiction can be true.

Yes, I don't enjoy nonsense, and that is more nonsense.

Hi Yuyutsu,

The KKK, one of the oldest hate groups in the US, by their
hoods, and robes, and artifacts, signal (and often embody)
the racist ideology of the Klan, along with their particular
brand of Protestanism and Nationalism.

Robes, fiery crosses, and even the American flag were/are
all material objects employed to convey their "gospel" of
white supremacy.

The Klan's religious nationalism, its vision of a white
Protestant America, became tangible in each of these artifacts,
and each artifact reflected the order's religious intolerance.

Nationalism for "100% Americanism"", Protestant Christianity,
and white supremacy became inextricably linked in these
material objects - and what the Klan stood for and believed in.

As for the Hindu caste system?

While the caste system originated in Hindu Scriptures,
it crystalized during British colonial rule and has stratified
society in every South Asian religious community in addition
to India.

It is present in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, the
Maldives and Bhutan. While the caste system originally was
for Hindus, nearly all Indians today identify with a caste,
regardless of their religion.

Hi Yuyutsu,

The Ku Klux Klan is a religion in every aspect of the meaning of the word. The Klan draws strongly on the ethics and philosophy of White Anglo Saxon American Evangelical Protestantism. The membership see itself as justified in action by the principles of their interpretation of Christianity. Other Christians may not agree with Klan members interpretation, in fact many other Christians find it reprehensible, but never the less they are just as Christian as any other.

Dear Paul,

«but never the less they [KKK] are just as Christian as any other.»

I haven't done that research, but if what you say is correct, then it would imply that being a Christian does not require any moral/spiritual qualities, thus Christianity itself would only be some social movement, not a religion.

---

Dear Foxy,

«Robes, fiery crosses, and... were/are employed to convey their gospel" of white supremacy.»

Suppose I were to wear a bishop's robe with a big cross, that would not make me a Christian - or would it?

«Protestant Christianity,
and white supremacy became inextricably linked in these
material objects»

While you may not know how to unlink these two:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory;
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats;
And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left."
[Matthew 25:31-33]

«While the caste system originated in Hindu Scriptures,
it crystalized during British colonial rule»

And the two aren't the same.

The Hindu scriptures, when addressing castes, simply observe the factual social reality, just like the chemist observes the structure of atoms: no atoms are better than others, but some prefer to share their electrons, some prefer to grab electrons from other atoms and some prefer to remain by themselves.

Similarly, different people are by nature suitable for different types of activities. Ignoring this fact, at one's peril, activates the Peter Principle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

The modern-era theory of castes is a distortion, an exploitation of science for selfish motives by forcibly and foolishly assigning people their caste based on ancestry alone.

---

Dear David F.,

«To regard all religions as true is to assume a contradiction can be true.»

The doctor tells one patient to eat more oranges and another patient to refrain from oranges. By following the doctor's advice, both get healthier.

This reminds me of the bloke who was on a vegan diet
and told his colleague during lunch in the cafeteria
at work -
not to order a meat sandwich. His colleague said -
"But I like meat." The man said- "No. It's bad for you.
Don't eat it!" The colleague said - "I will eat it.
I like meat." And so the argument went. Until finally
the colleague in frustration asked "How long have you been
on your vegan diet?"

His friend replied - "Two days!"

The dumber you are the more you think you know.

Science tells us about the world around us.

Religion tells us about the world that isn't around us.

For people who want to deny the world around us religion is the answer.

For people who want to know about the world around us science is the answer.

For some ignorance is bliss.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "The doctor tells one patient to eat more oranges and another patient to refrain from oranges. By following the doctor's advice, both get healthier."

The above is not a contradiction. The two patients are different people with different needs. A competent doctor advises each patient what is best for that patient. It might serve you well to read the following.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_logic

Missionary religion in general does not consider what is best for the individual or group. Christian missionaries with the power of the state and military have forced their religion on native peoples who generally have a religion of their own which may be better for them than Christianity.

Dear David F.,

«The above is not a contradiction. The two patients are different people with different needs.»

And this is exactly the case with religion.

The end result is health, the combination of medicines can be quite different.

Hinduism offers 100's if not 1000's of options for different people, but does not discard the potential benefits of other religions as well which may suit other people better.

«Missionary religion in general does not consider what is best for the individual or group.»

Fair enough. Your original remarks, to which I responded, referred to religion in general, not to Missionary religion (if at all Missionary activities can be considered religious, but I think that this is not the kind of topic you like getting into).

Here is another excerpt from Swami Vivekananda's address at the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions:

"Sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descen­dant, fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful earth. They have filled the earth with vio­lence, drenched it often and often with human blood, destroyed civilization and sent whole nations to despair. Had it not been for these horrible demons, human society would be far more advanced than it is now. But their time is come; and I fervently hope that the bell that tolled this morning in honor of this convention may be the death-knell of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen, and of all uncharitable feelings between persons wending their way to the same goal."
http://www.artic.edu/swami-vivekananda-and-his-1893-speech

Dear Yuyutsu,

Hinduism can make pleasant sounds of tolerance. Its record of such atrocities as suttee and its present record of intolerance toward Muslims and Christians belie those words. Modi does not preside over an enlightened and tolerant country. He has offered asylum to refugees with the proviso that they are not Muslims. For Hindu atrocities against Buddhists https://velivada.com/2017/10/31/hindu-violence-buddhism-india-no-parallel/

Buddhists have a record of intolerance in Sri Lanka toward the Tamil minority.

Hinduism is not too different from war prone Christianity under the banner of the Prince of Peace. Domination of a country by religion often results in intolerance and violence. Nazi Germany carried out the ultimate expression of Christian Jew hatred.The present State of Israel is moving away from democracy.

Many religions with a history of violence have those in their ranks who condemn the violence. They usually are voices crying in the wilderness. In general religion stinks.

The elimination of religion would not inaugurate an era of peace, but it would remove one cause of intolerance, violence and persecution..

Dear David F.,

These terrible tribal practices that you describe and I mourn too, are not religion, but mostly derived by nationalism, then also by greed.

I have already explained to you time and again why that is so, but it seems that you have no interest and/or patience to hear me on that matter, so I shall leave it at that.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I get a bit tired of your assertions that religious practices that you don't like are not religion.

Religion stinks.

Hi David,

What is it in organised religions or within people that makes some adherents act contrary to the stated principles of the religion? There must be factors that are of greater influence than these principles.

Dear Paul,

It's not complicated. Religion is somewhat like any other commodity that's hyped. The advertising is full of lies, and the reality, unlike other commodities, is explained away as God has his purposes which you don't understand.

Unlike commodities under control of ethical constraints, you don't get refunds for an unsatisfactory product. If you don't meet your beloved parents and Aunt Matilda after you die you don't come back to complain.

Religion generally blesses the efforts of the military in each country. If, like Franz Jaegerstatter, a heroic Catholic, you feel what the Nazi government is doing is wrong, 'responsible clerics' try to persuade you to support the government. Eventually Franz was beheaded, but since the Nazis lost the war he may be made a saint.

In other businesses you get refunds if the product is unsatisfactory. Churches, mosques, synagogues or temples don't give refunds, but they may dole out part of the takings in charity.

It's a very effective business model.

Dear Paul,

«What is it in organised religions or within people that makes some adherents act contrary to the stated principles of the religion?»

So many people are attracted to all kinds of powerful organisations for all kinds of reasons, without actually having any interest to begin with in what these organisations stand for (or are supposed to stand for), in this case, religion.

Then even when one does have some interest in religion, there are many traps around in the form of swindling organisations which claim to teach and promote religion, but never do and teach whatever they want instead in the guise of religion.

Yes, religion is very much a case of "buyer beware, this product comes with no guarantees or warnings" One can never ascertain if one is getting the genuine article or a cheap phoney imitation. Would you buy a used car under those conditions? Me thinks not, but millions buy religion with no conditions, just a promise of a hereafter.

Dear Paul,

«Would you buy a used car under those conditions?»

At the end of the day, if you need a used car, what else can you do?

You check around and make the observations to the best of your ability, but eventually you have got to buy from someone.

If this is any consolation, the most common reason for being defrauded is that you defrauded others in the past.

And the most common reason for being swindled with a cheap phoney imitation of a religion, is that you have similarly swindled others in past lifetimes.

But if you truly want God badly and sincerely enough, then you will detect some alarming signs when approaching something fishy that would lead you the other way.

«but millions buy religion with no conditions»

The ones who go out to buy a religion (whether or not they find one) are a minority.

As I mentioned in my previous post, most are not even interested in religion, thus are not disappointed: they just wanted to belong to a big and powerful organisation and they got just what they wanted!

Dear Yuyutsu,

Why do you think there is a God or god?

Dear David,

«Why do you think there is a God or god?»

I am happy to respond, though this is a change of topic: you actually just introduced two different new topics because God is not a god.

So first about gods (with a small 'g'), that's the easy part:

I don't have a particular opinion about their existence - maybe they exist, maybe not: for all I care, thinking of them makes a good devotional tool (as an analogy, counting sheep is a good tool for falling asleep: does anybody care whether these sheep exist or otherwise?).

Now for the more difficult part: God.

Just first, a grammatical remark: since you worded your question with the 'a' article ("why do you think there is A God"), the strict answer is that I do not think so at all, because 'a' must precede an object and God is not an object.

Never mind, let's proceed without being so strict with grammar, ignoring that 'a':

My difficulty is in understanding what you mean by "there is".
I must assume that you were not merely referring in your question to God's existence, a trivial question which I already answered in the negative neither once nor twice (and I do hope that your memory at 97 is still sharp as ever), making it perfectly clear that God cannot exist.

Thus I am perplexed what exactly you mean by "there is".

As far as my own understanding of "there is" goes, "there is God" is a nonsensical and recursive construct, because is-ness itself (and likewise am-ness and are-ness) depends on God.

Anyway, I could go on and on, speculating over what I believe you mean, but it will be more helpful if instead you can explain yourself what exactly do you mean by "there is".

Dear Yuyutsu,

I expected that I would get more verbiage without an answer, and that's what I got. Everything that exists is either a form of energy or an object. If God exists God is an object or a form of energy. Since you state God is not an object it must be a form of energy. To me God is neither a form of energy nor an object. It is a human fantasy and does not exist. The Greek, Roman and Norse gods were Greek, Roman and Norse fantasies, and God is a current fantasy. Eventually humans will disappear with all their fantasies.

I hope humans can discard that fantasy as they have discarded the Greek, Roman and Norse fantasies.

More to the point.

Is there God(s)

Hi David and Yuyutsu,

One thing that indicates to me that God the physical or God the spiritual, detached from human kind, are a figment of human imagination, is the way in which God's personality has changed in human terms over a very short period of time. A few hundred years ago it was "God The Vengeful", a hateful God, always at the ready to inflict retribution on all transgressors of his word, a God with no compassion for the sinner. Then somehow in a short space of time God changed, today its, "God The Loving" full of love, compassion and forgiveness. One God with two distinct personalities. How can that be? It indicates man manipulates God's personality to suit his own thinking at a particular point in time.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I reread your post. You wrote "I must assume that you were not merely referring in your question to God's existence, a trivial question which I already answered in the negative neither once nor twice (and I do hope that your memory at 97 is still sharp as ever), making it perfectly clear that God cannot exist."

We agree that God cannot exist. My memory at 97 is not as sharp as ever. I am trying to read Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason', and it is a struggle.

Dear David F.,

«We agree that God cannot exist.»

I don't know whether we do:

Whereas I claimed all along that God cannot exist, you still seem confused and undecided about this issue because you said:
«To me God is neither a form of energy nor an object. It is a human fantasy and does not exist.»

But human fantasies do exist. Do they not?

«The Greek, Roman and Norse gods were Greek, Roman and Norse fantasies, and God is a current fantasy.»

The Greek, Roman and Norse presumed-deities are gods with a small 'g' (a topic I addressed in my previous post), thus have little to do with God.
Here again you claim that God is a fantasy whereas fantasies (current or otherwise) do exist (or at least did).

---

Dear Paul,

«Is there God(s)»

I do not understand this expression - what do you mean by "God(s)"?

«God the physical or God the spiritual, detached from human kind, are a figment of human imagination»

God does not exist, neither physically nor spiritually, neither in heaven nor on earth nor in human minds - is that not enough? Or are you perhaps claiming that a figment of human imagination created the heavens and the earth?

«God's personality has changed in human terms over a very short period of time.»

So you believe that God has a personality?

«It indicates man manipulates God's personality to suit his own thinking at a particular point in time.»

Man cannot manipulate personalities that do not exist, but man has always been manipulating their own thoughts, they constantly do and will continue to do so as long as they exist. Is that surprising? What has this to do with God?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I don't see God as essentially different from the Greek, Roman and Norse gods.

A bit of light relief:

You say that God exists
I say that isn't so
You seem to think it's really true
It's something you just know

I say think whatever you like
I really do not care
I've got science on my side
Of which you're not aware

So when we both leave this earthly domain
Who'll be the last to laugh
The one who believes he'll never rise again
Or the one up in the skies?

God is inferior to the Greek, Roman and Norse gods. I have reflected on my last post. The Greek, Roman and Norse gods had mates, and those mates moderated each other. God has no mate, is overloaded with testosterone and has inspired intolerance, persecution and wars. The Roman, Greek and Norse gods were not exclusive. One could worship Mithra and also Jupiter. Getting rid of God and getting back to polytheism would be an improvement. Getting rid of both would be a greater improvement.

Seneca, a wise Roman, said, “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”

God took over from gods because rulers found getting people to accept that rulers were placed there by God secured their rule. Religion is the handmaiden of tyranny.

Dear David F.,

«I don't see God as essentially different from the Greek, Roman and Norse gods.»

From this comment as well as from your subsequent post (Tuesday, 7 February 2023 10:00:39 AM), may I cautiously suspect that you could be confusing God with the Biblical god of the Jews? My apologies in advance if that is not the case.

When you first asked me, "Why do you think there is a God or god?", it has not even crossed my mind that you could be referring to that particular god.

This complete misunderstanding could possibly explain your persistent negativity towards God and religion.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Where did Christianity go wrong?

Two of the sayings of Jesus are instructive:

Matthew 12:30 “He that is not with me is against me;” Those words make an enemy of those who do not follow. I do not wish to follow Jesus, but I do not wish to be the enemy of those who choose to follow him. Those words make those who do not follow him an enemy.

Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

The above sayings express intolerance, a disregard of the family and aggressiveness. Jesus, like his father, had an excess of testosterone.

Christianity went wrong at its beginning. Could God have had Jessica instead of Jesus – a daughter instead of a son?

A daughter might be less aggressive and not make a dichotomy between allegiance and enmity. A daughter might have more regard for family. A daughter might not have been crucified. Instead of a cross Christianity might have as logo the MacDonald’s symbol upside down which resembles two full breasts.

I might follow Jessica enthusiastically.

Dear Yuyutsu,

My negativity toward God and religion is because I think it is harmful nonsense, and humanity would be better off without it. It is crap.

Dear David F.,

I am not representing Christianity nor have I any inside information why Jesus said this or that, assuming he actually did say it and assuming that his words were not been taken completely out of context. I suggest that asking a Christian priest or scholar instead could provide you with better answers to these questions than the guesses I can provide.

«Jesus, like his father, had an excess of testosterone.»

I know nothing about Joseph's chemistry and genetics - do you?

«Where did Christianity go wrong?»

In my humble opinion, when it considered the excellent, yet private, spiritual advice which Jesus gave to his close disciples in particular contexts, to constitute universal teachings.

«My negativity toward God and religion is because I think it is harmful nonsense, and humanity would be better off without it.»

Nobody should ever argue with you about the content of your thoughts and the fact that you think what you think.

Nevertheless, that "God" which you think negatively of has little to do with God and that "religion" which you think negatively of has little to do with religion. That "harmful nonsense" which you think negatively on is nothing but some tribal customs and superstitions, completely unrelated to God and religion.

You asked me about God and so I answered you about God, not about Judeo-Christian beliefs and traditions.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I do not like the term Judaeo-Christian as it does not reflect reality. Judaism and Christianity are two separate religions which contradict each other. I have read about other religions such as Jainism, Zoroastrianism (which does not seek converts), Islam, Hinduism (which is really a bunch of different beliefs), Buddhism with its different traditions and schools, Sikhism, folk religions. My older son studies religion and has written about as he is a professor of anthropology. From my reading and talking with my son it appears all crap. You have assumed falsely that I only know about Judaism and Christianity. My knowledge goes beyond that. God and religion are crap.

David f, has no real idea of social and cultural relationships which are the behaviors and boundaries developed over thousands of years. He calls is excreat which indicates his level of understanding.

Dear David F.,

«You have assumed falsely that I only know about Judaism and Christianity.»

No doubt you know about other religions as well (more precisely, about other organised groups, their beliefs and customs, who make blanket claims of being religious), but the particular god you seemed to refer to today (7 February 2023) at 9:02:47, 10:00:39 and 11:29:48 AM, cannot be identified as any but the Biblical god, accepted by both Jews and Christians.

I observed this at 10:48:30, thus remarked accordingly.

«My knowledge goes beyond that.»

Your knowledge seems to be limited to gods (with a small-'g') and the human beliefs and customs surrounding them.

Knowing about gods (with a small-'g'), including this particular one, just similar to knowledge of material sciences, while they can both be useful and interesting, teaches nothing about God (with a capital-'G').

josephus,

Arguments about God:

You say that God exists
Some say that isn't so
You seem to think it's true
It's something you just know

Others tell you what you don't like
But they don't really care
They've got science on their side
Of which you're not aware

So when folks leave this earthly domain
Who'll be the last to laugh
The ones who think they'll rise again
Or the ones who know they can't?

That is the conundrum that none of us can solve
We're going to have to wait a while for this to be resolved
The only thing at present that everyone can do
Is admit that none of us really knows what happens to be true

This is a question arising through the ages
So far it hasn't be solved by any famous sages
And much as we'd all like to really know what's true
It's not about to be made clear and made for all secure.

It certainly won't be solved on these pages.