Religious education and religious indoctrination are different.

Religious indoctrination puts forth a religious doctrine as truth.

Religious education sets forth an explanation of a religious belief without a value judgement as to its truth or falsity. Religious education in a religion different from that of the student's parents can be like learning another language as a tool to understanding how people using a different language think.

There could be a survey of the books different people regard as scripture. Many students are even unaware of the history of the religion of their parents. History is too often taught as a narrative of battles, movements and changes of governments without an account of the social matrix in which these events came about. Religion is an important part of that matrix.

Most people in Australia subscribe to God-centred religions. Australia is in the neighbourhood of eastern Asia where most people do not follow theistic religions. Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Taoism and Jainism are such religions. Most Australians don't even know the names of those religions. To our north is the most populous Islamic country in the world. To deal more effectively with those countries we should learn about their religions.

Together with learning the languages of those countries enough about the religions of those country could be learned so the student could know what they were about. Comparative religion as a subject is often discouraged because of fear. Believers in a religion may fear that if students learn about another religion they might adopt it. That is possible. Should one keep to a religion because of ignorance of alternatives? Believers in a religion may fear that if students learn about other religions they will abandon all religions. That is also possible. There is a risk that in exposing students to new ideas they may make unexpected decisions. However, that is one purpose of education. Make students aware of new ideas, encourage them to think about those new ideas and develop ideas of their own. Let them come to their own conclusions whether we like those conclusions or not.

The failure to educate a child in the social wisdom and values of a society is child abuse.

I witness more heartache and pain in children's lives who have no adult guidance and boundaries. For instance the religious value of "Thou shalt not steal"; a child will act from self centered motives and has no boundaries of others property. They will feel no conscience to take from others for themself because an adult has not set boundaries and consequences. Warning a child of consequences teaches them boundaries.

We have a 16 year boarder who has a friend at school that has had 3 abortions in the last 12 months. This firend ought to be warned of the long term consequences to herself and society of her actions.

Parents have abandoned their responsibility to teach children social behaviour and boundaries. Religion is supposed to be the behavioural practices acceptable to the good function of a society.

Dear TRTL...*ouch* :)

your last post was nice..

The one ripping me to shreds and feeding me to the Tazzie devils was a bit.. radical :)

But..UR RIGHT.. on one thing.. when I speak about a position being 'theologically flawed' yes...it is definitely from a Christian standpoint.

The same goes for when I 'harp' about u know what. Please have a look at Galatians 1:8 and see what I COULD be saying, louddddd and clear.

If anything..I'm exercising restraint.

Bear in mind though.. sometimes I'm not 'harping' as will be seen by a post of mine in the Camden School thread.. responding to John Dorey who says he has not read the Quran. I quote it, and seek to explain why Jews and Christians might view things that way.

So..responding to new people in good faith should not be seen as 'harping'...k?

In the mean time, keep up your incisive posts which keep me in line 0_^

Philo wrote:

"The failure to educate a child in the social wisdom and values of a society is child abuse.

I witness more heartache and pain in children's lives who have no adult guidance and boundaries. For instance the religious value of "Thou shalt not steal"; a child will act from self centered motives and has no boundaries of others property."

One can certainly agree on the value of educating a child in the social wisdom and values of a society.

However, his following statement is contentious. A child reared by religious values is no more likely to be honest and regard other people's property with respect than those who are taught that it is simply more reasonable to live that way without any appeal to the supernatural.

Ernest Hooton, the Harvard anthropologist, examined the social attitudes of various segments of US society. Among the most religious were prisoners. I know of no evidence which yields a positive correlation of honesty and respect for property with religious belief. If anyone on the list knows of such evidence please cite it.

BOAZ_David wrote:

"But..UR RIGHT.. on one thing.. when I speak about a position being 'theologically flawed' yes...it is definitely from a Christian standpoint.

The same goes for when I 'harp' about u know what. Please have a look at Galatians 1:8 and see what I COULD be saying, louddddd and clear.

If anything..I'm exercising restraint.

Bear in mind though.. sometimes I'm not 'harping' as will be seen by a post of mine in the Camden School thread.. responding to John Dorey who says he has not read the Quran. I quote it, and seek to explain why Jews and Christians might view things that way."

You viewed the Islamic position on Original Sin as theologically flawed. However, it is unreasonable to lump the position of Jews and Christians in that area. The normative Jewish position is to regard human beings as born with a clean slate. The guilt for the sin of Adam died with him.

What is your source for lumping Jewish and Christian opinion in regard to Original Sin?

My source is the commentary of the late Rabbi Hertz, chief rabbi of the British Empire, on Genesis. What is yours?

You never cite any reliable source for your beliefs concerning Jews. The New Testament is not a reliable source in that area since the new religion was trying to distance itself from the 'true faith'. Jews do not accept either the validity of the New Testament or the creedal statements of various Christian councils.

I agree with your statement that the position is 'theologically flawed' from a Christian standpoint. However, your original statement on the subject omitted the qualification "from a Christian standpoint." Please stop your illegitimate lumping of Jews and Christians together. You have neither the right nor the knowledge to speak for Jews.

Steele,

Link 1

Dear oh dear a u-tube video the ultimate in credible information!

I was expecting a Christian boot camp or something like TRTL. It showed someone talking not an event.

Some old codger apparently takes time off from a Halloween party to claim he is a neuroanatomist and as such knows how useful the relevant flap of skin is. As far as I can figure he translates the size of a baby foreskin to an adult (I’m guessing that to fit in with the other information there is a little exaggeration) and basically hints that the relevant flap of skin is a big sexual organ in an adult. This then is developed into claiming that uncircumcised men miss out on a huge amount of sexual pleasure.

Unsurprisingly a few issues leap to mind. But hell it was a u-tube video so what would you expect.

English sexologist Dr Chartam observed that a certain self circumcision happens as men age. The foreskin normally shrinks from babyhood to adulthood. In some cases it shrinks dramatically. I am aware of an uncircumcised man whose erect penis was indistinguishable from a circumcised penis. Likewise I viewed the flaccid penis of another man whose uncircumcision was not apparent. Dr Chartam described a category who have a foreskin that shrinks so much that they wear it back like a circumcised man. Accordingly, extrapolating an infant foreskin to the foreskin on an adult penis seems like an extremely dodgy endeavour.

The next thing is the “fact” that because of this sexually charged thing (which is the misrepresentation of the humble foreskin) was removed the circumcised men are missing out on something. I am aware that the self reports of men circumcised as adults that it makes no difference are discounted by the loopier anti-circumcision enthusiasts as lacking candor. The belief that circumcision ‘toughens up’ the gland to the extent that longer lasting sex is possible is more mainstream. However neither insensitive penis theories hold water. The issue was objectively resolved by physiological measurement in a Canadian study last year.