HREOC is currently taking public submissions (closing 31/01/09) for a report which has the potential to lead to severe restrictions on freedom of speech in Australia on forums such as this and elsewhere.
“Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st century” ostensibly seeks to ensure freedom of religion for all Australians, to promote “social cohesion, harmony and security” in accordance with NAP.
The likely outcome will be to recommend enacting a federal law equivalent to Victoria’s controversial Racial and Religious Tolerance Act under which people have been prosecuted not because their statements were proven inaccurate but because they “were inciting Australians to be fearful of other Australians, often their neighbours, thereby tearing the social fabric and reducing social cohesion”.
There are three strong indicators to support the belief that this report presages the introduction of a federal version of the Victorian law:
(1) This was promised by Labor shadow attorney-general Nicola Roxon on 4/08/04.
(2) The report’s commissioner Tom Calma warns in his introduction that “people must not be vilified or alienated because of (their) beliefs”.
(3) Gary Bouma, a researcher for the report, clearly indicated his support for Victoria’s draconian law in this forum on 21/01/05 (quoted above).
For these reasons I believe that the outcome of the report is pre-ordained.
Criticism of religion, whether accurate or not, will be criminalised.
This is consistent with the UNHRC resolution banning criticism of Islam on 18/12/08.
I urge all concerned contributors to this forum to make their own submission, however brief, to HREOC strongly indicating that our right to freedom of expression is non-negotiable.
All Australians should be free to engage in robust debate on all matters, including religion.
These freedoms WILL be taken away from us unless we stand up and fight.
The good news is that you probably won’t face criminal charges for posting any comments deemed offensive on this or other forums.
But this will only be because your comment will not be passed by the moderator who would also likely be prosecuted if your comments were allowed to be posted.

Hi KMB.... yes this kind of thing is more Orwellian than most of us imagine.

"Annan also defended an attempt by Islamic nations to insert anti-defamation language into an already controversial founding document for a new UN human rights council to replace the discredited Geneva-based UN Human Rights Commission."

The problem with this kind of thing..is that it's just a small step from this to 'defamation' of Islam being defined as ANY criticism.

Fortunately, in Victoria we can still criticize Islam or anything else as long as it is in good faith, reasonable and/or in the public interest.

What that means is, we have to be careful about how we say things..and where we say them. This legislation does not prevent truth being told.... but it does prevent it being told in a way which is deliberately designed to mock, and hold people in contempt.

It is still lawful to hold ideas in contempt which is all we could ask.
These laws do not prevent robust criticism of Mohammad's teaching or behavior. Even if people are offended.... there are some fairly tight rules on what vilification really is..and whether the complaint is vexatious or not.

A careful study of the trial of the 2 Dannies is just about 'required reading' for today's adventurous activist :)

The other side of this Law coin, is that it can work for others as well as it can work for Muslims or Jews. It's just that we don't usually reach for this 'weapon' in our warfare.

I'm still trying to get time to put together a 'hate speech' complaint about the Quran and hadith, which clearly and unmistakably vilify Christians and Jews. The same applies to the commentary by Ibn Kathir, and others. All publications are subject to these laws and it's about time we USED it to protect ourselves, and/or to rid ourselves of these silly laws.

KMB,
This is indeed something to keep watch on.
Although I do need to point out there is a difference between objectively discussing a religion and the hysterical attempts at rabble rousing by some.

Likewise there is a clear distinction between discussing an issue without resorting to abuse and ad hominem insults.

I wonder if you are confusing the two as a couple of posters on this site tend to do.
If I understand the articles I’ve read the emphasis will be on vilification.
One needs to be careful not to over interpret in effect throw the baby out with the bath water i.e. Just because someone is a Christian and that there are extremist Christians who interpret the Bible as justification for homicide/genocide (and there is ample quotations to that end) that all Christians and Christianity are psychopathic in nature. The same applies to all religions.
I suspect the intention of the law is to minimize the outburst from the obsessed and ill informed e.g. that woman in a hat’s ignorant/hysterical bile about the Muslim school in her area.

In the final analysis freedom of speech has always come with responsibilities and if those responsibilities are enforced I doubt that I personally will have problems expressing my questioning comments.

Having said that I am prepared to add a cautionary comment to the committee.

It seems to me that the major issue here will be the distinction between bona fide criticism and vilification. While I think that the Victorian act is a heavy-handed legislative band-aid that seeks to attenuate a deeper societal malaise, as Porky says it doesn't actually prevent legitimate debate:

<< What that means is, we have to be careful about how we say things..and where we say them. This legislation does not prevent truth being told.... but it does prevent it being told in a way which is deliberately designed to mock, and hold people in contempt. >>

If that is the outcome of any proposed Federal legislation, then I don't have any real problem with it. However, as Porky and his cohorts in this forum also frequently demonstrate, those whose aim is to arouse intolerance and hatred of others often cross the line between fair criticism and vilification.

It also seems somewhat hypocritical that Porky wants to mount a "hate-speech" case against an ancient religious text, while railing on and on about the deficiencies of the Victorian legislation.

Examinator and CJ,

I know that I am going to come off sounding decidedly old-fashioned here, but in one way I not only have no problem with this - I would actively welcome it.

Knee-jerk reaction of course is to bristle at any curtailment of one's so-called liberties. In the abstract I would be bristling away with the best of them. But then it's also a knee jerk reaction to react with animosity towards abuse of those liberties. And this is not abstract, but has developed into something that permeates everyone's daily life.

Despite reminders that rights and responsibilites are indivisible, there are members of the community who ignore their responsibilities:- who do, in fact, abuse our liberties. This has gone unchecked for so long such people now consider that this, too, is their right.

It actually shames me that, like naughty children who constantly ignore parental injunctions until punishment is necessary, the actions of the irresponsible have led to the necessity for legislation of what is, undoubtably, going to be cited as yet another instance of nannying.

Yes,the right to express an opinion is one of our most valued, but so is the right to personal dignity. It is enshrined in the belief that all people are created equal.

If the right to express a dissenting opinion also carries with it the "punishment" of being robbed of ones dignity, credibility and esteem, and contains the possibility of personal harm inherent in incitement to disgust, hatred,and the certaintly that all who are not with us are against us then, regrettably, someone has to step into the nursery to make sure we play nicely.

Romany, CJ
I agree and envy your clarity of thought on the topic.
Can I join your fan clubs?

CJ
As stated I envy your clarity of expression but I would ask isn’t baiting some individuals (the prime criticism against those posters) merely doing the same thing.
I believe they are entitled to express their views but I reject their methods.

Individual that tend to adopt this line aren’t really interested in discussion but are looking for confirmation of their behaviour. They would see opposition as proof that they are victims of left wing lunacy and in a perverse way proving that they need to be more extreme to make their point. For that reason I choose not to respond to posts that are clearly rabble rousing based on obsession, ad hominem or mind numbing dogma etc. Perhaps they might take the hint and modify their absolutist styles.

I think personalities are pretty well understood by the majority of posters on OLO.

I do note that as a general rule those who most often cross the boundary between discussion and vilification are those that tend to scream loudest about curtailing freedom of speech. When in reality they mean their ‘right’ (sic) to impose their emotionally, selective factually based views on others

Good People,

Here is a Media Release very pertinent to this topic sent off today:

Repression of expression

The story in The Guardian (UK) about the London bus slogan campaign gathered widespread attention in Australian media. Also in that report and unfortunately left out by our newspapers is that all metropolitan bus companies have rejected a similar program by Atheists in Australia.

President, David Nicholls said, "Are we so provincial and narrow in outlook that apart from banning such adverts, the local media refuses even to mention it?

As the originator of the London bus slogans, Ariane Sherine stated, "This is a great day for freedom of speech in Britain"."

The same cannot be said for Australia.

David Nicholls
President
Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc

Dear CJ.. and Romany.. about time we heard from you 2 again... I was beginning to think you were retired :)....

CJ.. if I do end up getting the time to do that EOC complaint re hate speech...the only reason I would be doing it is to DESTROY that very legislation which enables me to do it.

While it is a genuine issue of social concern to me.. the existence of the RRT itself is a bigger problem.

EXAMMY... my goodness you need some serious coaching here.... maybe ur referring to others about this 'rabble rousing'.... but in my case.. I get that a lot from Pericles but my response is the same to him as it is for you.

STUDY the texts and background! Now..you say that you reject the very idea of an absolutist approach to faith etc.. but where you are in error is that it isn't just about YOU (*pinch*)

1/ "You" are not representative of Islamic thought.
2/ "You" are not even aware that you are a target of the thinking I rant about.

If I can show the following:

a) Surah 9:29 (fight them who do not believe) and 9:30 "May Allah destroy the Christians and Jews" is understood by a significant number of contemporary Muslims just as it was written by Mohammad...

b) that his own companions understood those verses as I say..

c) That sincere Muslims in Melbourne (Saudi, Afghan, OMani) all agree that I'm correct in what I say....

Then I'd say the case is made. At least for 'those in the Muslim community sharing those views'.

It would be historically ignorant and bigoted to deny the direct connection of all those ideological milestones to the origin of the faith.

Your problem it seems, is that you look at the religion from a non religious viewpoint..and possibly a postmodern.

What you should do is base your view on fact rather than self indulgent emotion and shallow sentimentality.

Govts all around the planet fear the WEB since they have no control of it.Heaven forbid we could push for true democracy and have referenda electronically on important decisions.
This is the thin edge of wedge.We must fight it with all our might.

"Criticism of religion, whether accurate or not, will be criminalised." (KMB)

This sounds like hysterical overstatement to me. The ability to reasonably and rationally critique a religion is not in question. The ugly trend of vilifying and alienating a person or group because of their religious belief, however, is very likely to come under the spotlight and, like Romany, I welcome it.

Inspite of KMB's fear-mongering, there is nothing at all that I can see to fear from this HREOC discussion paper. Have a look for yourself. I doubt you'll find anything too sinster.

Some of the questions to be considered under the section on the Constitution, for example, are I think well overdue for national discussion, particularly that regarding the separation of church and state.

"The Constitution - Questions to consider include:

1. Is this section of the Constitution an adequate protection of freedom of religion and belief?

2. How should the Australian Government protect freedom of religion and belief?

3. When considering the separation of religion and state, are there any issues that presently concern you?

4. Do religious or faith-based groups have undue influence over government and/or does the government have undue influence over religious or faith based groups?

5. Would a legislated national Charter of Rights add to these freedoms of religion and belief?"

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/frb/frb_2008.html

Religion is encroaching more and more on all our lives. It's increasingly causing division within the community, and some religions in particular have far too much power and influence in the shaping and governing of our society. The time for a wide ranging and formalised discussion on these issues is I think well overdue.

Thank you Bronwyn for making my point. You accuse me of fear-mongering. Gary Bouma considers “inciting Australians to be fearful of other Australians” sufficient justification to criminalise them. Is my fear-mongering “tearing the social fabric and reducing social cohesion”? Which bureaucrat will decide? We have existing laws to protect people from defamation. We should be fearful of another layer of hazily defined “laws” protecting indefinable concepts which are not subject to strict evidentiary rules and which are enforced by unqualified bureaucrats. I recognise that the "Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st century" report is broader than the issue I specifically address, however in light of the quoted statements by Roxon, Calma and Bouda I feel that it has a hidden agenda which deserves to be brought out into the open.

The loss of freedom of speech cannot be stopped...so stop worrying about it.

Its going to happen and its the Holy Bible that tells me this.

For several decades One World Government has been looking for one man, just one single man to save the earth economy from the chaos.

One of my church elders calls him the REGULATOR.

His real name is the BEAST and soon One World Government will find him.

We read about this man in Revelation 13:16-18 where he "forces all of the people, rich and poor, slave and free to have a mark on their right hand or forehead. No one can buy or sell without this mark"/which could be a microchip because tech is heading that way...and in 14:9-11.

His other name is the ANTICHRIST.

Far worse than any Adolf Hitler, this one man will reign for a period of seven years before God disposes of him.
When he appears the last seven years of earth have begun.

In the end if you want to have a say you will probably have to print and deliver by hand.

Some good books you can get into about the ANTICHRIST are...

THE COSMIC CONSPIRACY BY STAN DEYO

NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY BY GARRY ALLEN

WARNING, SECOND WARNING, FINAL NOTICE BY BARRY SMITH (NZ)...three books.

THE BIBLE see REVELATION CHAPTER 13, CHAPTER 14, 1 THESSALONIANS CHAPTER 4 and 2 THESSALONIANS CHAPTER 2.

Christian bookshops also have much on the subject.

Your right Gibo,

It's already happening. Remember Danny Nalliah? Even if I don't agree with everything he say's I uphold his right to say it.

KMB

"Thank you Bronwyn for making my point."

Thank you KMB for disingenuously twisting my words. I most certainly was NOT making YOUR point.

As I said before, I see your fears as needlessly and hysterically overstated. And my opinion on that doesn't in any way threaten your freedom of speech either, if that's what you're driving at. Again, as I've stated before, I welcome the HREOC initiative and find your Henny Penny rantings completely uncalled for.

As pointed out by others here, freedom of speech comes with the clear responsibility to avoid vilification. The fact that new legislation is even being considered attests to the unfortunate reality that many people, yourself included, still don't understand this.

For the same reason that I support racial vilification laws, I also support, in principle, legislation to criminalise vilification on religious grounds. And I'm not talking about fair and reasoned criticism of religion. There is a distinct and encodable difference between the two, and the HREOC discussion is the ideal way to thresh out the inherent nuances and differences in positions and the wording needed.

I'm an atheist and actually detest all religion, but hold strongly to the view that people should not be victimised or marginalised because of their religious beliefs. Any laws intended to formally encode this will always be clunky to some extent. They'll be open to misinterpretation and will possibly add to the clogging of our courts as a result. They'll cause a backlash and stir up resentment from some, as is already being witnessed. In an ideal world we wouldn't need them, but in the divided fear-driven society we now inhabit, we unfortunately do.

You make your own case in future, KMB, IF you have one.

Leave me well out of it.

Hi Folks.

Well...I find myself in agreement pretty much with KMB but also Bronwyn's point about over "hysterical overstatement" regarding "criticism of religion whether accurate or not will be criminalized" is also quite valid if this assertion is based on the RRT2001(VIC) alone.

Such is not the case in Victoria even with this pernicious piece of law.
The problem comes in how it is INTERPRETED... and 'that' is where KMB's concerns lay I feel.

It was clearly interpreted by Higgins in that way, and only overturned on appeal.

If we take the law at face value, Section 9 (motive not a defense) then we have a seriously flawed law which is tantamount to confusing manslaughter with willful murder. The only difference might be one of 'motive'.

BUT..KMB is very right to be wary of that academic monster from Monash... personally my opinion of this man is so low that I dare not articulate it further.

It sounds sooooo enticing..does it not? "Making Australians fearful of other Australians"... good GRIEF.. this actually is the kind of lunatic mindset that some people hold. Whether we fear another Australian depends on WHAT those other Australians believe about life etc. IF...they happen to believe that opponents of Islam should be assasinated by any able bodied Muslim..then exposing such beliefs is a national duty not a crime.

Bouma's statement (if he said it) is tantamount to that of an empty headed village idiot who watched an old movie..heard a cool sound bite and thought he would simply repeat it. It has no substance, no meaning, no responsibility and no maturity about it.

KMB do you have a link for that quote of Bouma.. did he actually 'say' it or is that your understanding of his position?

The unconscious wit and flexible wisdom of Polycarp:

On Thursday:

"Fortunately, in Victoria we can still criticize Islam or anything else as long as it is in good faith, reasonable and/or in the public interest. What that means is, we have to be careful about how we say things..and where we say them. This legislation does not prevent truth being told.... but it does prevent it being told in a way which is deliberately designed to mock, and hold people in contempt."

Polycarp on Friday:

"...this pernicious piece of law."

Polycarp on Thursday:

"What you should do is base your view on fact rather than self indulgent emotion and shallow sentimentality."

Polycarp on Friday:

"... very right to be wary of that academic monster from Monash... personally my opinion of this man is so low that I dare not articulate it further.

"Bouma's statement (if he said it) is tantamount to that of an empty headed village idiot who watched an old movie..heard a cool sound bite and thought he would simply repeat it. It has no substance, no meaning, no responsibility and no maturity about it.

"KMB do you have a link for that quote of Bouma.. did he actually 'say' it or is that your understanding of his position?"

I've scrawled through several websites on
the HREOC discussion paper, "Freedom of Religion
and Belief in the 21st century."

I don't really see what all the fuss is about.
From what I've read - it sounds like a very
worthwhile and even handed project. One for
which the Human Rights Commission should be
congratulated. Their researchers are a
qualified team, they are asking for submissions
from a very diverse group of community representatives,
to cater for all religious beliefs and secular
points of view.

To me at least, the project does not appear to
be at all objectionable, or an impingement on anyone's
rights or liberties.

On the contrary - it appears to be a very intelligent
and fair project.

Foxy,

HREOC stands for Human Rights and Equal Opportunity.

Did you see mentioned in the accompanying blurb anything about Freedom ‘from’ Religion? If not, why not? Freedom ‘of’ Religion is only about the rights of the religious. I am not saying they do not need rights but those rights should be equal to the rights of everyone, not greater than.

And do you realise either three or four of the panellists have serious religious affiliations.

It may pay readers to investigate the AFA submission and those from other secular groups to get an idea on why the outcome of the Commission’s inquiry may not yield equality for all.

David

Dear David,

Oooops. No, I admit I didn't notice their
religious affiliations.

And that may place a different slant on
things altogether, as you suggest.

I'll have to go back and have a closer
look - and see whether there is any
kind of balance there. As well as
the backgrounds of all the panel
members.

Thanks.

Dear David,

I've spent ages scrawling the background of
Gary Bouma, Desmond Cahill, Tom Calma, and
Dr Hass Dellal.

I've read the articles by Gary Bouma on
Online Opinion, (a few years back), and I have
to admit that his being pro - legal
action for 'vilification,' is causing me
some unease. I'd have to know
more about his convictions in this area.

Tom Calma, is another one whose stands on certain
issues don't sit too well with me.
He's another question mark.

Desmond Cahill and Dr Hass Dellal seem very qalified.
So, perhaps two out of two - balances out?

Anyway, I think I'll wait until the final report
comes out in 2010, before I say any more.
I don't want to pre-judge things ahead of time.

In reference to HREOC... I thought they were
re-named the Australian Human Rights Commission
in 2003?

Foxy,

Here is a little more information about Desmond Cahill and Dr Hass Dellal.

"Desmond Cahill, Professor of Intercultural Studies at RMIT University, is one of Australia’s leading social researchers. In 2006, he was made an honorary fellow of the Australian Council of Educational Leaders for his work in immigrant, cross-cultural, interfaith and international education. He currently chairs the Religions for Peace (Australia), and represents Australia on the Asian Conference of Religion and Peace (ACRP). He led Melbourne’s successful bid to stage the forthcoming Parliament of the World’s Religions, the world’s largest interfaith gathering, and is now its honorary Program Director. He is a member of APRO and of the Victoria Police Multifaith Advisory Council." http://www.hreoc.gov.au/frb/frb_2008.html

"Dr Hass Dellal was appointed Executive Director of the AMF (Australian Multi-faith Organisation) in 1989, an organisation established to promote a strong commitment to Australia as one people drawn from many cultures. Dr Dellal has had extensive experience throughout Australia and internationally on multicultural affairs. He serves on a number of committees and boards and has prepared numerous reports, programs and conferences that deal in community relations, community capacity building, business, polices relations, youth issues, access and equity, cultural and religious diversity, skill recognition, cross cultural training, second language development, philanthropy, and the arts as well as research for policy development on behalf of government, community and private sector." http://www.australiaday.vic.gov.au/events_ambassadors_details.asp?view=377

Now the question jumping off the page, is where are the secular panellists to make for fairness?

This combination does not bode well for a just outcome for all Australians.

David

Polycarp,
I am quoting verbatim from Fair play and civility in interreligious relations by Gary Bouma posted on this forum 21/01/05:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2932
I find it disturbing that the person responsible for the above article will have significant input into laws governing the rest of us into perpetuity.

Bronwyn,
Vilification: To belittle through speech; to put down
source: en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vilify
You have called me a fear-mongerer, disingenuous, an hysterical overstater and a henny penny ranter. I’m coming over to your side. Perhaps we do need laws to enforce civil discourse.

Foxy,

I have made a mistake.

"Dr Hass Dellal was appointed Executive Director of the AMF (Australian Multi-faith Organisation) in 1989."

I inserted (Australian Multi-faith Organisation) for ease of understanding the AMF acronym as I assumed that is what it stood for. It should read (Australian Multicultural Organisation)

My sincere apologies for misleading you and other readers. At this stage, Dr Hass Dellaj’s religious affiliation or not is unknown to me.

David

David

"Did you see mentioned in the accompanying blurb anything about Freedom ‘from’ Religion?"

The recommendations from HREOC’s 1998 Report are to be evaluated in this latest discussion, and Recommendation 2.3 (Under APPENDIX 1) states that the Religious Freedom Act should include the "freedom not to hold a particular religion or belief".

I agree with your concerns though that the religious is being emphasised at the expense of the secular, but you'd hardly expect any less in a discussion paper entitled 'Religion and Belief', would you?

Of the content for consideration, numbers 2,3 and 5 in particular (on religion and the state and the interface of religious, political and cultural aspirations) lend themselves to some strong submissions from groups such as yours I would think, and individuals too of course.

Bronwyn,

“…but you'd hardly expect any less in a discussion paper entitled 'Religion and Belief', would you? ”

Well, I would expect, in a fair society that the title should be ‘Religion, Belief and non Belief’, and not relegate non belief to one small sentence in a sub section.

And speaking of sub sections, religion still considers it has an inherent right to indoctrinate children with the religion of parents. There is no protection for children here at all, if fact the right to indoctrinate is a point promoted.

“R2.3 the right of parents and guardians to organise family life in accordance with their religion or beliefs.”

Even the wording seems intent on deception. Does “organise family life”, very sloppy terminology, include indoctrination of rampant fundamentalism or placing the fear of hell in a child or limiting a child’s world view to one particular set of beliefs? It means all those things will be protected.

Is that fair on children? Is that fair on the society that the child will grow into, and then vote according to a particular set of beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are?

And yes, Bronwyn, you are very correct in that Sections 2 3 and 5 need attention by secular groups and individuals. I believe most secular people concentrate them on. I also think, religious folk should forget their special privileged status and concentrate on them as well and in a manner where no one is discriminated against. But most wont. That says a lot about religion, doesn’t it.

David

AFA
David,
I have great difficulty logically with special interest groups and from your last post AFA as anything more than a self serving background noise.

Organizations by definition express both an aggregated perspective of its members and therefore not necessarily reflect reality of the public at large.
Often to make its point the organization focuses on the extreme (few) to frighten the majority.

Your comment “…includes indoctrination of rampant fundamentalism or placing the fear of hell in a child or limiting a child’s world view to one particular set of beliefs?”
Is one such hyperbolic example.
The reality is that very few people fall into this category.
Under what reasoning are you going to impose your view of how children should be raised? To me this is either gross arrogance or naivety on your part. Reality dictates that almost every thing that a child sees in the home environment will influence be it watching mum drive while on the mobile phone, dad’s drinking to mum and dad going to prayers. The implication is you and your organization’s perspective being imposed on peoples rights. I would suggest that you are confusing personal rights with public policy.

I support the policy of keeping religion out of government/courts and state schools including ‘intelligent design ‘(sic) out of the curriculum. However beyond that AFA is simply another dimension of the problem.

On going organization’s primary purpose is to survive (the good of the group syndrome). This means the management team’s interpretation rather than the group as a whole or the issue. The longer the leadership individuals remain in power the more the organization reflects their idiosyncratic perspective.

An example of this is organization first is your first post. It has no direct relevance to the topic but was clearly like your avatar name intent on public profile/converts. In reality titles and organization names are irrelevant to the truth of what is being said therefore your message is probably a personal/organizational power play.
I fail to see that the answer to extremism is the other end of the continuum

CLEAR REASON why GARY BOUMA is NOT... repeat NOT QUALIFIED to have any input on the HREOC project "Freedom of Religion" (in my opinion)

I'm going to stick my neck out here.. but it needs to be done.

QUOTE. (Gary Bouma OLO)

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2932

<<Studies of effective mission indicate that uncivil, disrespectful approaches do not work and have, not surprisingly, a negative effect.
.... Neither Jesus nor the Prophet Mohammed behaved in such a way.>>
UNQUOTE.

There are only TWO possiblities which explain Bouma's last sentence:

"Neither Jesus nor the prophet Mohammad behaved in such a way"

with reference to:

"uncivil, disrespectful approaches" (to 'Mission')

1/ IS HE A DELIBERATE LIAR?
or
2/ IS HE IGNORANT and UNINFORMED?

EVIDENCE.

He asserts that Mohammad never operated in an "uncivil, or disrespectful approach" (in spreading Islam/Mission)

That is absolute, total unadulterated utter RUBBISH! (besides being blatantly untrue)

http://alislaah3.tripod.com/alislaah/id17.html (islamic source)

CITY OF TA'IF ARABIA. This city had remained in Mohammad's memory as when he was a militarily weak man with a message..he proclaimed Islam to the town...they rewarded him with stoning and mocking.

After he became militarily STRONG... he paid them a visit with an ARMY in 630... and besieged the city. His goal was that they embrace Islam.

Now..unLESS Mr Bouma considers "beseiging a city and destroying it's livelihood so they become Muslim" - an act of 'tolerant and gentle persuasion, dripping with respect and civility' then he lied, or simply does not know of this event which every OTHER scholar in this field worth the letters after his/her name DOES know about.

BOUMA also appears to be ignorant of the assassinations orchestrated by Mohammad in his quest to make Islam dominant..(Kaab Bin Al Ashraf)

So.. if Bouma lied he is clearly unqualified in my view.
If Bouma is uninformed of important Islamic history..he is also unqualified. Thus.. which ever way..he is not qualified I feel.

JESUS. It's worth noting also, that some of our Lords approaches could be given 'fail' by Bouma. "You are whitewashed Tombs/ WOE to you , scribes pharisees

Given Bouma's qualifications and experience, I'm more inclined to give credence to his views about religious history than those of Porkycrap - who is possibly OLO's most prolific purveyor of religious vilification. Certainly, Porky's "uncivil, disrespectful approach" to Islam and Muslims has an overwhelmingly negative effect on my attitude to fundamentalist Christianity.

Porky seems upset that a prominent Christian who opposes religious vilification should have some influence in the HREOC inquiry.

Porky shouldn't worry too much - if the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is a model for any HREOC recommendations, he and his hateful cohorts will still be able to vilify Muslims and anyone else they wish on the basis of their beliefs. After all, Porky is subject to the Victorian legislation now, and anybody who could be bothered could go after him under its auspices.

That they don't is both an indication of the law's impotence and the fact that people like Porkycrap are obvious nutters upon whom such efforts would be a waste of time, money and effort.

examinator,

The AFA bus rejection case is an offshoot of ‘Freedom of Speech Alert’, the title of this thread. The HREOC findings will go a long way in either allowing or disallowing us to advertise on buses. I could have started a new thread but the coincidence of the content of the Media Release and this thread, was too good to pass up. I thought it a pertinent adjunct and a way to keep those interested in the bus saga informed. If you think I have overstepped the mark, then all I can say, is tough titties.

I used the extreme examples and left it to the imagination, for those with one, to work out the not so extreme, but also not acceptable, others.

Atheism does not advocate imposing anything but a comprehensive worldview on children, especially not one that is ideologically based. Rather we advocate that secular schools, governments and their satellites keep religion out of the equation.

You might think it OK for parents to indoctrinate children with a specific religion, as many religious people do also, but Atheists do not. This is very hard to control and the best method is by secular government example which should get out of the religion game altogether.

Funny how religions are always crying out to protect the children from this that and the other, and they are the worst offender of abuse of children’s minds.

To what exactly am I trying to convert people? Let me answer that, as you appear to be confused. ‘Convert’ is a stupid word to use in relation to speaking of Atheism. One becomes an Atheist by ones own volition, not by religious-like indoctrination. What Atheists are attempting to convince people of, is that the use of reason instead of cultural dogma, could be a big help to them in increasing their enjoyment of life as well as fortifying democracy and making the world a safer place.

One big bonus of people accepting Atheism is the recognition that religions, with their false and unprovable claims are the problem and not the solution.

David

Dear CJ :) *turns the other cheek*.... not bad..I reckon with a bit of effort you could have come up with better Poly_vilification :)

KMB I've written a 9 page submission to the HREOC unit including many images to illustrate the point.(and one about Bouma)

FACTS. Bouma claims/asserts

Mohammad (and Jesus) NEVER indulged in:

"uncivil, disrespectful approaches" (to 'Mission')

Now..CJ.. do you honestly agree with Bouma? in the light of the verifiable facts I have presented from Islamic sources?

Do you call destroying the livelihood of people you are invading (which might also be called a genocide) 'civil'?

1/ Do you dispute the fact that Mohammad used this violent aggression to force the Thaqqif tribe into Islam?

2/ If you do accept this.. do you then disagree with Bouma?

3/ Does this unpalatable (verifiable) fact (the aggression)... not suggest that when Bouma says the exact opposite..that Bouma is either lying, uninformed or has a very VERY surreal view of 'civility and respect'?

Now come come...

CONSIDER THIS. If I vilify and hold up to public contempt the ideas of the 'Children of God' (Now known as 'The Family') because in the 60s they practiced and preached paedophilia.... would you equally condemn me as you did in your last post?

I assure you..if they were still around and had a high public profile.. I'd be ripping them to bits also.

If the ideas stink..... then the people who follow them..or support them also stink. The thing is, in Islam, most have a personalized sanitized view of Mohammad.. and when you confront them with the reality, they simply cannot believe it. So.. in their case they are blissfully and innocently ignorant. BUT..if it is pointed out that he did such and such.. (evil things) and they STILL support and follow him...they deserve every bit of public contempt and ridicule and vilification that such ideas deserve.

Polycarp,
Well done on the HREOC submission. You make me feel as if my “Freedom of Speech Alert” was worthwhile. You may be interested in the linked article:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/080305a.html
which compares and contrasts the philosophies and actions of the prophets behind the world’s two most dominant religions. It may go some way toward explaining the choices of their respective adherents. Perhaps Gary Bouma would profit from reading the linked article? Even an atheist might benefit in terms of establishing a hierarchy of religious offensiveness. Not all religions are the same.

AFA,
David,
Thank you for your response.
I think it's disingenuous of you to claim that you seek no conversions why then the organization and why seek overt publicity? It is simply weasel words to on one hand claim no overt goals…just presenting an alternative and then to seek to influence by unrealistic examples and advertising both of which are aggressive tactics.

Just in case you missed it I am an atheist, I prefer secular humanist to differentiate from AFA which is logically *advocating* a non religious (belief structure).
I believe in public debate on public policy issues and that is where I draw the line.
There is a clear line between public policy advocacy and seeking private confrontation.

To offer public commentary on personal issues like child rearing etc you must hold the view that you know best without supportive scientific facts that appears an arrogant combative position.

To make a statement about child rearing then dismiss the obvious implications by claiming to limit it to school curriculum is either naïve as exampled in my last post or smoke and mirrors tactics.

If my life in the trenches has taught me anything it has to be that everyone is different, has different abilities and needs that includes belief structures. One of the biggest tragedies of the human race is the consequences of belief structure subjugation by more aggressive beliefs. The hegemony of aggregated reasoning simple ignores these essential individual differences that make us human.

Having said that Public policy is by virtue designed to deal with multiple people it by definition must be base on objective standards to benefit the mass and as such it is open to lobbying.
Cheers Examinator ant

examinator,

I am not arrogant, combative, disingenuous, use smoke and mirrors, aggressive and I do not use weasel words. This is all in one post with other suggestive negatives thrown in.

Get a grip on yourself: you are losing the plot.

You think it is all right for the AFA to exist but we must not say anything in the public arena.

You are lucky enough to be an Atheist but you would allow the indoctrination of children into a religion. I guess you do not understand Atheism or religion very well. You may have been cocooned from the realities of life and think everyone else has been as well. Who knows what you think on these matters.

No one is saying that people should not be able to hold any belief they wish. How many times do I have to repeat that? Or do you only read what ties up with your own ideas on Atheism. Which are very basic at best. It might be a good idea for you to read a little on Atheism before you attempt to represent it unfairly.

Stop big noting yourself because you are not impressing me, nor many others I suspect.

And for god’s sake stop using the language as a tool to confuse. Most of us can understand any concept presented if stated clearly and concisely. You do neither of these in much of your writing, and I think on purpose, as you have run out of ideas. There is another possibility but I am not going there.

The following example is plainly obfuscatory pretentious piffle and nothing whatsoever do with Atheism:

“The hegemony of aggregated reasoning simple ignores these essential individual differences that make us human.

Having said that Public policy is by virtue designed to deal with multiple people it by definition must be base on objective standards to benefit the mass and as such it is open to lobbying.”

David

David,

I think what may be clouding the issue is that perhaps sometimes in your writing you tend to conflate your personal persona with that of your organization.

For example: you’ve written more than once that Atheists don’t believe in supernatural beings. Perhaps that is true for the other members of your group. Perhaps it’s true for many atheists. But it is certainly not a blanket which covers all of those who don’t believe in a god or gods.

Perhaps, when you are quoting the view of your particular organization, it could be made clear somehow that you are only speaking for that organisation and not for everyone who either denies or does not believe in god/s?

For instance you say “What atheists are trying to convince people of…”

A statement like that could almost sound like proselytizing! Neither I nor any of the people I know are trying to convince anyone of anything in regard to their spiritual beliefs. Yet the statement as it stands infers that: atheist all do something; I am an atheist: ergo I too must do it, yeah?

I’m sure as well that I wasn’t the only person to be confused when you told Examinator that his own personal belief system was “very basic at best” and that “It might be a good idea for you to read a little on Atheism before you attempt to represent it unfairly”.

Atheism isn’t a creed or even a belief, as you have so often pointed out. It’s a lack of belief. Really, what is there to read up on there? He doesn’t believe in a god/s. Neither do I. Neither do you. End of story, surely? All the reading up comes years before most of us finally accept our inability to believe in god/s. As to what our other beliefs are – well that varies from individual to individual, doesn’t it?

All of which, I guess, Examinator phrased more succinctly with: “Organizations by definition express both an aggregated perspective of its members and therefore not necessarily reflect reality of the public at large.”

examinator

With the greatest of respect ol buddy, I think you've been a bit harsh on David and the AFA.

Special interest groups mightn't necessarily reflect majority opinion but that in itself doesn't mean that their views are not worthwhile. In a democracy such as ours, where apathy towards all things political is the norm rather than the exception, interest groups play an important role in raising the profile of certain issues and stirring public debate. The passion and single-mindedness of their members can be alienating to some, but many others welcome the information they provide and the chance they offer to view issues from a different perspective.

You or I probably wouldn't have picked up on it, but I actually think David is quite correct to question “the right of parents and guardians to organise family life in accordance with their religion or beliefs”. What rights exactly is that meant to enshrine? The examples David gave might appear extreme, but I think it could have been his choice of wording as much as anything.

When you stop and think about it, the number of parents who either bring their children up to accept religious fundamentalism, or tell them they'll go to 'hell' if they 'sin', or teach them that THEIR religion is the only one that's right, is in all probability quite high. Children should have the right to grow up free from religious indoctrination. As a child who wasn't fortunate enough herself to do so, I know from cold hard experience the extent to which it can negatively impact on your life. I would in fact describe it as a form of child abuse.

As to the relevance of atheism to this thread, I think it is very apt in a discussion on religion and faith to also consider the rights of those who choose not to believe. I agree with David that ‘Religion, Belief and non Belief' would have been a more inclusive title for the paper.

I still welcome the HREOC initiative, but like David would prefer to see its terms of reference widened.

Romany,

I understand that which you are saying about mixing my views with that of the AFA. You correctly point out that Atheism does not have tenets or creeds and in fact is just a position that as there is no evidence for gods or supernatural realms, Atheists do not accept they exist.

That is the one and only point of agreement between the majorities of Atheists. I can go further and state that the majority of Atheists do not accept as real any paranormal proposition as being real for the same reason. Of course, there are exceptions to this (Not many by my experience) and some Atheists believe in all manner of spookiness outside of physically known laws.

But, 21st Century Atheism is not just about there being no god, it concerns itself with the problems that belief in deities and supernatural elements cause to individuals, humanity and the planet as a whole.

People who perceive this problematical side of religions come together in groups, in this case the AFA and attempt to inform society of them.

My part in the equation is to establish what members of the AFA and those not in the organisation wish to emphasise publicly. Now, of course, this will not cover all Atheists but I am reasonably sure I reflect the views of a very high proportion of Atheists. Atheism is not on a steep increase in at least Western Nations just because lots of people suddenly have recognised there is not god.

Its reasonably recent sudden rise in popularity is because there is a common recognition that indoctrination of children is wrong and it leads to poor political choices affecting everyone.

When I state someone should read about Atheism, I am saying more than read there is no god, but investigate the link between religion and dysfunctional governance.

I am open with my views and anything said on this Forum I have repeated organisationally. We do not have a mass exodus from the AFA as a result.

The tendency of detractor’s unreasonably and desperately nit-picking AFA posts provides a false view.

David

THREE CHEERS for Romany and Examinator who have *picked* David and the ATA like the proverbial nose :)

SPOT ON!

Of course..that Bronny would LEAP to David/ATA's defense was a foregone conclusion. (sorry Bron but ur so predictable)

I'm very glad that Exammy and Romany have the suffiiently objective perspective which enables them to see what they saw in David's posts.

I strongly encourage all to have a look at KMB's link comparing Jesus to Mohammad.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/080305a.html

The loud voices in many streets in the world today are coming from violent people.. with Hijabs and Palestinian/Muslim scalves on.. and things like "Go back to the ovens Jews" being said by even young women.

Sadly.. many socialist voices (specially in Greece) are joining both the violence and the vilification.

At the source of them we have Marx and Mohammad.

Bronwyn, David,
Your point is well noted and accepted. In hind sight I may would raised my points differently. Although Romany did get what I was driving at.

I did not intend to attack David personally but to point out the out the logical flaws, incomplete reasoning (consequential) of the position of AFA (or any special interest group).

AFA has a right to debate PUBLIC policy for the reasons I gave but he/AFA doesn’t have the right to wade into PRIVATE choices that is proselytizing. Logically if it is inappropriate for other organized groups (including Religious) to delve into this area with misinformation etc and selling on emotion then it must be wrong for the alternative. This logically extends to the text of his bus ad i.e. is the ad trying to sell sleeping in on Sundays (Fridays Muslims, Saturday for Seven days and several other groups) or does AFA have an other agenda? Anti religion is the obvious choice.
[BTW me sheltered upbringing Not bloody likely? My mum is a seven day, my wife a Catholic & my eldest daughter a Jewish hippy, 2 are Secular and 1 Anti everything including religion. And you thought the Osborn house was “interesting” :-) ]

As I also said in a number of posts individuals have different abilities and different needs …some NEED the emotional security etc of a supernatural God, some have well defined discernment skills others don’t. The AFA aims as expressed by David don’t seem to take account of it.

I also Question why David feels the need to sign in as an organization in an individual chat room. I suspect it’s to increase his credibility (i.e. the view expressed are that of a number of people). As someone said to ‘Anti live exports and intensive farming’ site holder “having a web site doesn’t make you anymore right than anyone else.” As I said the truth is its own justification.
Organizations’ P&P are by definition not personal and as such open to criticism. Had David written as an individual I would have taken a different approach.
Continued....

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/isma/media/speeches/21may2004_reality.html

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/about/publications/annual_reports/2003_2004/index.html
Australias Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission have a duty of care to protect everybody - not just Muslims.
With the vast amount of funds poured into civil libbitys from Saudi we do need to be watchful.
Lets not have a country where only Muslims have a right not to be discrimated against lets include ALL Australians.

It would be very dissapointing if this action were not made by the Minister for broadcasting to bring forums into line with Australian Laws.

At the moment the Federal Government claim they have no control over the net?

So if your a journo or a editor you can be sued for defamation if you write something that doesnt comply with Australian laws but NOT if its on the net.

Take OLO as just one example. Our organisation has been defamed by members of an extremist veggie groups but because they use false names its very difficult to police.

As it stands with forums the authors also have protection from proscution under the privacy act.

This leaves you and I in the difficult position of then having to sue the forum owner.

I agree especially forums must be brought into line with the rest of our laws.
I do NOT agree however it should be only regarding religious postings.
The law is the law and its time the Federal Government got their act together instead of leaving it to others.

Even If it was another election promise.

What about everybody else?

Bronwyn and David part two

Child rearing is clearly a personal issue and to comment as he did without any public policy facts his statement was way over stated, unsupported and most likely to be seen by others as personal criticism (I did)… Therefore biased personal opinionated attack as such it holds no factual or intrinsic weight except to the individual making the statement. As a reason to change public policy is a furphy an emotional trigger appearing to be designed to divide/alienate rather than discuss.

Keep in mind I might agree but there are a number practical issues that haven’t been thought through if AFA is aiming at changing public policy.
• Who, where and on what basis is the line to be drawn
• How are you going to legislate
• How are you going to enforce it.
These of course don’t even come close to dealing with the rights of the individual.
I still say to make the point he did then cover it with the flimsy if not fanciful notion that secularity of state schools would counter extremist families’ indoctrination.

When all is said and done special interest Organizations are usually primarily concerned about the organization and the interests’ of the individuals that make it up.

My ultimate point to AFA/him was that a lot more thought was needed before going down that route.
Hence I limit my comments to the impersonality of logic and public policy. If I do delve into personality/private it is mine as an example only or to offer positive intentions.

PS I lost sight of David’s proprietary emotional investment in AFA and hence his confusion between the two. Sorry.

Cheers examinator ant

People,

Allow me to make a few salient comments:

I speak as the head of an organisation as generally those comments are in relation to a Media Release by that organisation or a follow on from such.

I also do not use a pseudonym making me accountable for what I say.

Religious persons on this Forum express views of their particular slant on Christianity or other religion. The examples where they are not representative of the actual adherents of that religion are many. Contraception, same-sex orientation matters, voluntary euthanasia, abortion, sex education, science etc are some of note.

But this does not stop our religious friends from expounding the official religious viewpoint even though it may not be representative of adherents.

There is no other way to speak of the mental child abuse of children concerning religious indoctrination than what is plainly observable.

How many people would, as Dawkins points out in ‘The God Delusion’ say it was OK to ‘train’ young Aztec girls and boys to accept their own sacrificial deaths? Would those victims choose a different course if in another culture? How many on this Forum think it is OK for children to attend madrassas schools? How many think that indoctrination into creationism is also OK?

Would any of the above children choose having their minds distorted in such manners if given a choice when they could think as mature adults? Trouble is then it too late. Now, these are the extreme examples but AFA experience is that the threats and promises by religions, even ones considered mild, can stay with a child forever as a hindrance to rational thought. The old saying of, “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic” explains it nicely.

Instead of getting stuck into Atheist stating religious indoctrination being mental child abuse, what do religious and non religious people think of the above examples and why is their particular case an exception. ‘Because we have the true religion’, is not an answer as all religions say that.

Attacking me might make some feel good as opposed to answering, but it proves my point.

David

Just in case there is anyone else who doesn't understand civillized discourse please let me make the following clear: -

I did not in any way, shape or form intend - to use DB's rather vulgar analogy - to "pick" on David.

There appeared to be a cause of misunderstanding. I attempted to clarify it. The reason I did so was because I too had at times been confused. My reason for doing so was to perhaps prevent further misunderstanding. Period.

I'm certain that this was understood by those of us concerned with this (very small) matter.

Just to make this entirely clear however:

I have no interest whatsoever in scoring points against anyone else.
I do not contribute to threads in order to stir things up.
I am not motivated by unkindness to others.
I strongly object to being made to seem as though associated with BD in this - and, sadly, just about every other - matter

Polycarp,

If you're going to join the cheer squad, I'd play down phrases such as "... ur so predictable" and "suffiiently objective perspective". (I'll let your illiteracy pass this time.)

To accuse others of predictability is a bit ironic coming from you of all people. And I've never had occasion in the past to be impressed by your objectivity.

"Even an atheist might benefit in terms of establishing a hierarchy of religious offensiveness. Not all religions are the same."

Not all religions are the same? Ah, now we're getting to the nub of KMB's thread.

HIS religion, Christianity, is of course superior to all others, particularly Islam, the most nasty of them all, and it's his 'non-negotiable' 'right' of course to proclaim religious superiority and denigrate 'the other'.

If we still had any doubt, BD's enthusiasm should convince us completely as to the real motivation behind this thread.

examinator

Regarding the indoctrination of children, I think the obvious policy response IS for government to fund and strongly support universal and secular public education. The current mushrooming of private religious schools, their curricula containing who knows what bizarre doctrines, needs to be completely wound back. All children should have the right to a free and open education, where their only teaching on religion is from an objective, comparitive and historical perspective, not the force-feeding of the divisive dogma of one particular belief system.

This would go a long way to alleviating the need for any legislation to intrude into the home sphere, which I think most would agree with you would be an unworkable and undesirable situation.

“When I state someone should read about Atheism, I'm saying more than read there is no god, but investigate the link between religion and dysfunctional governance.”

I agree totally with this sentiment. I’m much more concerned with halting the encroachment of religion into public affairs that I am in getting hung up on the god debate, though that is interesting too. One recent publication exposing the enormous and growing power of churches and faith groups over Australian public policy is Max Wallace’s “The Purple Economy”.

"21st Century Atheism is not just about there being no god, it concerns itself with the problems that belief in deities and supernatural elements cause to individuals, humanity and the planet as a whole."

This is another statement of David's that has it in a nutshell for me. Yes BD, I'm a 'predictable' little parrot, I know! :)

Polycarp,
Anything to deal yourself into regurgitating your irrelevant dogma?
Note: I said that your proselytizing intrusion into private issues are unacceptable too. Your public policy views have even less rationality that of AFA.

AFADavid,
Your not using a pseudonym doesn’t mean that you are any more responsible for your utterances than I. You simply have a different agenda. I still get tossed off if I go beyond the bounds or sorted out by others smarter than me on OLO.

So far I have addressed your child thing 3 times on philosophic, logic and pragmatic grounds and you persist with unrealistic examples to justify your judgemental perspective.
Would I (or an Aztec maiden) have been happier or had a better life if raised by atheists how can anybody objectively know, that’s clearly the stuff of SF/fantasy.

Child abuse? Plainly observable? On what basis? I don’t see the cause and effect details in suicided or child depression figures. There are a lot of happy Catholics, Christians and lapsed Catholics are many.

As for your madrassa challenge it depends on which one and what is being taught. It is also relative if your choices are poverty (no hope) and some education (some hope) It’s a no brainer. I seem to remember Aus aid supports some that are successful. Again judgemental view shows up as factually dubious.

It is arguable that the natives of PNG were happier over all with their primitive beliefs that had purpose (world order) than what they currently have…nothing. This is clearly evidenced by the runaway poverty, crime and discontent. Agreed Christian missionaries have a lot to answer for. Culture is a package not a pick and choose.

My 84 yo mum is happier knowing she is going to god than your alternative. People already have the choice to believe or not depending on their NEEDS.
This means your view is relative … with the same value of ON, FF and religious fanatics on OLO.
BTW Two wrongs don’t = a right.
In the final analysis people aren’t necessarily better off with someone else’s’ brand of World order perspective.

Bronwyn,
I find it amusing that people who bristle at the suggestion by a Christian (which I’m not, by the way) that not all religions are equal ignore the demonstrable fact that Islam claims absolute supremacy over all religions. Next level down in the Islamic religious hierarchy, “the people of the book”(ie Jews and Christians) may live in Dar’ al Islam provided they pay dhimmi tax (jizyah) whereas the polytheists and followers of other religions must convert to Islam or die.
“The real motivation behind this thread” is to warn Australians of the threat posed to freedom of speech by HREOC’s report. The Islamic connection relates to its increasing global efforts to stifle freedom of speech through legal and other means. Legal activities include multiple actions through instruments analogous to HREOC in many western countries (Islamic submissions to the HREOC report should make interesting reading). The Organisation of the Islamic Conference is pursuing a ban on all criticism of Islam through UN resolutions.
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1316871&ct=1987983
Jordanian courts have sought to extradite and try the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders for producing a film which almost exclusively quotes Muslims to make the point that Islam poses a threat to freedom.
Non-legal means include intimidation, threats and actual violence. Note the Islamic response to the Danish cartoons. Ex-muslim (non-christian) critics such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan (both women) are under threat of death for their outspoken views. The examples are innumerable.
I can understand how multifaith experts such as those researching the HREOC report go along with the canard that all faiths are equal. Their careers would grind to a halt if they questioned this premise. The rest of us, with access to the internet, have no excuse.
Bronwyn,
For possibly the most concise resource on Islamic law and teachings go to
http://www.cspipublishing.com/
For ex-muslims’ views on the religion of peace go to
http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm
For a daily body count of victims of the religion of peace go to
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
There's a whole world of information out there just waiting to challenge your preconceptions.

KMB:

"I find it amusing that people who bristle at the suggestion by a Christian (which I’m not, by the way) that not all religions are equal ignore the demonstrable fact that Islam claims absolute supremacy over all religions."

Why select Islam to make this obvious point? By definition, all religions - based as they are on faith not rationality - claim theirs is the one true religion, and therefore supreme. Can you imagine anyone going to worship at their church/chapel/mosque/synagogue/temple/casino not believing that theirs is the supreme place of worship or that some other faith that they don't believe in is absolutely more holy than theirs?

So the question is not about belief in the best religion but how religious fanatics of any 'faith' will handle diversity of faiths. Serious problems arise when fanatics hear the voice of their true 'god' urging them to destroy 'unbelievers' or those who worship 'false gods'.

examinator,

There really is no need to be so defensive in attitude. This is a discussion not a hate session. (For me anyway)

If a pseudonym is not important, then the corollary for you is to get rid of the ‘examinator’ name, and use your real name.

I have portrayed extreme examples of indoctrination but added those of a lesser nature as well. Did you miss that part?

Who said anything about Atheists raising children? I merely pointed out instead of specific religious indoctrination, a wide world view would be preferable if it is expected that a child will reach an optimum of its potential. This is not rocket science.

As for an Aztec child being raised by Atheists instead of sacrificed at a young age, what would you choose. I know what I would. I suppose you realise this is getting bizarre.

My experience agrees with the opinion of Bernard Shaw: “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.”

I ask, to which madrassas would you be happy to belong? Please, no cultural relativity in the answer.

Again, I ask, would you rather be a Papuan before missionary involvement or after? Please think about the implications of answering.

And, once again, I ask, would your mother have preferred whether to think she is going to god or see life as it is. She most likely never had that choice. If your mother was indoctrinated by a religion, which leads her to think that position, is that ethical? Atheists and other rational thinkers say it certainly is not.

Atheists are promoting choice for adults as to whether to believe or not in the supernatural. What do find so repugnant about that?

If someone is provided an upbringing as outlined my Bronwyn and they choose a religion, then Atheists would fully support that choice.

It is difficult to see from where you are coming, or in fact, going.

David

Spikey,
"Why select Islam to make this obvious point?"?
Because Islam is the only religion where the "fanatics hear the voice of their true 'god' urging them to destroy 'unbelievers'" and then carry out their god's commands...
by flying commercial jetliners into skyscrapers,
by remotely detonating mentally retarded women in crowded markets,
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UHNN081&show_article=1
by decapitating school girls
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4387604.stm
etc, etc, etc

Indeed KMB... Spikey seems oblivious of this absolutely fundamental point.

He would rather pick on my typo's than address issues.

Spikey.. I'll keep this short and simple...

Core value of Christianity "God so loved the world" John 3:16

Core Value of Islam "Fight those who do not believe" 9:29

Do you see it?

Go one.. read it again... just in case.

In both the Hamas Charter and events on the ground in Gaza now..you are seeing 9:29 in action. It was 'in action' way before the Israeli's invaded. Every rocket fired would fulfill that verse.

Try.. just for once.. to actually look critically at this primary difference between Islam...... and Christianity (and pretty much every other religion)

That difference is the call to violence.

Hey Polycarp and KMB,

If only it were that simple. How can you be so blind to the Christian Crusades? Or child rape by Christian clergy? Colonial oppression and slavery in the name of Christianity? The Inquisition? The Reformation? Witch hunts? The burning of 'heretics'? The civil war in Northern Ireland? The most recent genocidal religious Balkans War?

There are none so blind who...place total faith in a few words from the Bible while ignoring centuries of religious violence including that perpetrated or condoned by Christians and Christian teaching.

Perhaps you've read Mark Juergensmeyer's "Terror in the Mind of God. The Global Rise of Religious Violence" (University of California Press, 2000) which was published long before 9/11?

Or Regina Schwartz's "The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism" (University of
Chicago Press, 1997) where she argues that along with Judaism and Islam, Christianity is a monotheistic religion, and therefore, an exclusive and violent religion.

Hi there Spikey...

I don't ignore any of those events.

The problem with each one of those events is... you need to analyse them more deeply. Each one has it's own characteristics that differentiate it from the others. But let me place an umbrella statement over them all, and that is, you still (hard as it might be for the secular mind) need to link/compare/contrast them with the Teaching and life of Jesus in order to evaluate them in regard to Christianity as a faith or set of doctrines.

If we don't do that, then we might similarly condemn secularism or humanism by the actions of those who claim they follow it. Agree?

1/ CRUSADES.
-Growth of Muslim world/Shrinking of Byzantine empire
-Prohibition of Christian pilgrimages to Holy land by the Muslim Caliph.
-Desire for extended temporal and spiritual influence by the Roman Catholic Church.
-Looming military threat from the Muslim world to Europe/Byzantium.

2/ INQUISITION.
Post Islamic Spain, it was considered neccessary to be absolutely certain of the loyalty of every person to Christendom.

3/ CHILD RAPE BY CLERGY. There are no 'factors' here..it's just plain wrong by any measure, specially the direct condemnation by Christ.

4/ COLONIAL OPPRESSION. was nothing different from inter-tribal oppression but on a larger scale. See what happened in India/Pakistan/East Bengal when colonial 'oppression' was removed?
5/ SLAVERY. Yes.. this one can be linked to the Bible. It was argued from those within the status quo (holding slaves) that the concept was not condemned by the Bible (and indeed it is not specifically). I argue though, that the spirit of the NT is totally against such an idea.
5/ REFORMATION.. huh? that was a GOOD thing. Reforming the Roman Catholic Church from such ideas as 'Indulgences'=selling certificates of forgiveness.

6/ WITCH HUNTS. please read the detailed history there for Salem. It was about interfamily power struggles.

CONCLUSION. Christ and His Word stand alone in History as the epitomy of Grace and Peace and reconciliation of man with God and man with man.

You are all missing the point. All forums should fall under our laws of the land. Australian courts.
Right now they dont.

Yes we need to fix that but it should be under the control of the Australian Government and not just about religious threads but ALL comments made.

Why should forums be allowed to act outside our basic laws?

Nice everybody seems to think because our organisation is working to support RSPCA QLD regarding live animal exports it should be allowed to be subject to defamation .

Tell me people is that because you view Animal Welfare as less important?

i will just use the general topic as a soap box..,freedom of speech is a missnomer,

we see daily pathetic accusations casting dispersions[like the athiest/polly thiest,quoting their own words back at them only,sees them rewrite it in other ways[or go silent]

poly will see the speck in others eyes,and the athiest..[thiest]..cant get that his'disbelief'is only another form of belief,..anything people hold religiously makes them blind to their own plank..[and i make no claim to be different]

today's issue for me boils down to the twelve tribes..[one of which was named israel..[i would make it its own topic but my track record stands at 1 out of 5..,which effectivly tells me not to bother

the thing is god made to rise..'one'dust..[from the waters of the deep]..no doudt poly would sat it was chistian..[or israel-ian..[and the athiest..[who cares;it was a evolution..[but he cant prove it..and evolutionist's cant either]

[god didnt make'names'of different countries/religions,[we did]and why we did is perhaps more relitive than what part we came from or what we chose to believe..[or deney]..jesus did come to heal OUR fathers divided house,..not create yet another'religion'

[see that all land is holy..[all people are gods people]..any belief can be'believed'..as well as disbelieved..,but not deneyed..[it is a free chosen'belief..[this i believe,thus my belief is not for your debate]

the 12 tribes that wandered in the desert..[of which israel was only one]..[do not the other 11 tribes deserve their own homeland too?..do not they too have the right to be heard..[or are they all dead?.[does god say'only.israel and you'others'arnt my people?

[how did the israel-ites become the priest'class'?]..and david chose no class[but he being its head]

god had one people,[made up of 12 tribes?..israel was one of them 12 right?..how come one claims the whole'holy.].[unholy ground?,..as well as the weopon of antisemitism..[the real root of this topic]

how come one war class has claimed the WHOLE holy land?

mate im lost in all this[im sure others are too..,how did 12 tribes come to unite under one trible name?..who control freedom of speech issue...[who are heard in every debate]

[yet drug users dont]

Polycarp
“3/ CHILD RAPE BY CLERGY. There are no 'factors' here..it's just plain wrong by any measure, specially the direct condemnation by Christ.”
The Catholic church clearly believes there are factors here. It commissioned a comprehensive, independent research study into this issue by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/
The report revealed that 4% of priests were involved and 81% of offences were male on male, with 90% of those being on boys between the ages of 11 and 17. Their response has been to purge practitioners of diverse sexuality from their ranks.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=39700
Islam also purges practitioners of diverse sexuality from its ranks albeit using more drastic means.
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.2506821385

Bronwyn,
I understand your view where we differ is in the analysis and attribution of the root cause of what is a real concern. I argue that a belief in a supernatural God is in the individual a personal right. Intrinsically it is as benign as fantasizing about seducing some movie star. (We all have/need our selective fantasies to survive.) The wrongness comes when we/I do something about the fantasy.
Therefore the issue that needs needs attention is the actions of individuals and groups in breaching the PERSONAL RIGHTS of others. Ergo their efforts to pervert public policy. There is a clear line.

Schools, governments et al should not be influenced or seek to influence either way. In a social science class context how personal ideas are often used to pervert public policy are valid as are discussions on AFA policies to do the same thing. The emphasis should be on the act/efforts of perversion is the problem not the belief them selves (human rights issue). Otherwise we are delving into social engineering and the pit falls of that entails.

AFA David,
My words have failed me I am not in the least defensive as that would imply that I'm taking the ”slings and arrows” personally...I am simply not.
I don’t see that a robust examination of my views is anything but that. I can take as good as I give and then some.
Please don’t confuse defensiveness with either desire not to alienate or my contempt for ad hominem attacks in lieu of a reasoned discourse.

Emotional truth/happiness is in the minds of the individual where it belongs.
Who know if I would have/could have been happier in pre missionary PNG is pointless unknowable speculation.
Your Quote is simply a questionable generalized assertion imposing his opinion/judgement on others. Consider a 16 YO who then became a Burma railway survivor and the effect it would have had on him… his drinking in part was to help him cope with the ever present demons of the past. The CONSEQUENCES of his drinking was the problem not his seeking relief.

Ploycarp:

"Hi there Spikey... I don't ignore any of those events. "

The burning of 'heretics'? The civil war in Northern Ireland? The most recent genocidal religious Balkans War

examinator,

I would appreciate your “robust” responses on a number of issues, as they have not been forthcoming.

You seem to be missing the point. The AFA has no policies on education, only that religious indoctrination should not be included in any curriculum. Classing the AFA stand on this as social engineering is mischievous nonsense.

The Papuan example was a question intended to elicit thought. I would choose neither of the alternatives, given a higher level of knowledge. I thought you would twig to this. I was wrong.

Bernard Shaw’s quote is the closest thing to an axiomatic statement one could get. It is unacceptable to induce delusional happiness…period! Mature adults choosing, with full understanding, well it’s their life, but it could still be dangerous to the rest of us.

The Burmese Railway analogy is good. The solution is to prevent the Burmese railway situation from happening, the same, as we must prevent the ideological indoctrination of children from happening. They are both wrong. And both can have adverse consequences.

There must be no public policy supporting such indoctrination. If that were so, private ideological indoctrination would be stigmatised, thus limiting its present widespread nature.

Currently, that is not the case and Australians, as a generalisation, consider indoctrination as either good, as it is not properly understood or at the very least, benign. This is why Chaplains have crept into the state schools system. This is why tax payer dollars from everyone benefits only religions in enormous amounts. The problem is not that religions are charitable with the money; it is that the money is not all used for charity and religions are not accountable.

I think you had better start spelling out in clear and concise words, what problems you have with either the AFA or me on these matters.

If your answer is that, you have explained it all before, because you certainly have not sufficiently for the sake of clarity, our interaction is finished.

David

davidian athiest>>we must prevent the ideological indoctrination of children from happening.>>

yes we must..especially when retards like you are trying to sepperate children from their parental beliefs,..who are you to forbid anything[just because you were molested dosnt mean all religion is bad

there are evil athiests wanting to teach children about godlesness...even to the point of banning them from learning it..[are you going to shut down catholic/jewish schools?

fair enough to keep[religion out of public schools..[but you retards allready done that]..but when you remove a parental right,freewill choice your going further than mere god hating,..how will you re-ducate the children,..put them on prozac..,beat them till they recant?

[you have an unhealthy obsession about children..[are you a front for child molesors?]..you cant prove evolution yet persist in pushing this deception as well..[the darwinian bias has root in many areas,..from genetic/exterminating to racism..[will you be banning that too?

<<They are both wrong...And both can have adverse consequences.>>both tie into your darwinian mind meld delusions

<<There must be no public policy supporting such indoctrination>>

that washes both ways..[that of all the issues you pick on religion reveals an unhealthy obsession,..revealing inherantly you are a huge danger[not only to yourself but to children..[your biggest most constant obsession..[your every second post obsesses on children..[get over it you pervert..grow up.]

your own words<<I think you had better start spelling out in clear and concise words,what problems you have with>>...with CHILDREN believing in a loving god,...why your obesssed with children,..and working your delusions into every post,..your obession is plain to see,..please explain why

if you have proof of no god please present it

while your at it prove evolution..and prove that religion has no redeeming features

of all the issues you could fret about..your picking on peoples faith IS NONE OF YOUR BUISNESS

if there is a crime expose the criminal..not lable all with the same biased delusional brush..you are a coward ,and obsesivly/delusional,

you fear shadows and fight what you call a non egsistant being,..you have fairies in your garden mate,..and still have not proven any of your theories to be based in fact

Golly Spikey.. are you going to list every event in history until you score a hit ? :)

Come come.. those things ALSO have 'factors'.

Did Jesus burn his disciples when they got it wrong?
Did he advise his disciples to burn others who got it wrong? or..did he mention more about reconciliation?

Ireland.. political more than religious.. if Catholics and Protestants can get along fine together outside the political mess.. (there were interfaith fellowships during that crisis) doesn't that tell you something?

When any society is totally structured on religious lines.. any non them will seem a threat.

Once again... in alllll of these.. you are just trying to sling mud on Jesus by the misdeeds of those using His glorious name.

None of that will enable you to evade your personal responsibility before his throne of Judgement and Grace... and until you look at the Lord Himself.. all you will see are the 'weeds' rather than the "wheat" (Parable of Jesus)
The choice is yours Spikey.
You can be a piece of grass totally outside the ploughed field... a weed growing in it..looking like a Christian..or.. a stalk of wheat.. rooted and grounded in Christ Himself....producing fruit many fold.

KMB..glad to hear the RC church sorted out some of this.

David,
You claimed not using a pseudonym equates to being (more) responsible for your words. I it had more to do with promoting your organization a pseudonym wouldn’t work. I pointed out I suffer the same responsibility as you.
Would using my name change anything? No, I’m not promoting a group.

My mum had no committed religious views while I was young. That happened after Dad was killed (I was 16). She is far more content today.
The Burma railway survivor/drinker was my Dad not an analogy. Given what he had to cope with I think it would be presumptuous/ignorant of anyone to equate that axiom to him. It also (wrongly) assumes as do you, (‘mature adult’) a universal equality of needs and skills. Experience in crisis intervention tells me because YOU don’t need the fantasy that means others don’t.
the crux of your Papuan question is which is better (religion or no religion) having lived through the consequences of people who once had belief in spirits and now have nothing I’m not so sure that the rationalist view is necessarily better.

**The nub of my concern is that the belief isn’t the problem, it’s excesses that people/groups do with it is the cause of the grief. People have a right to chose for their families**. The fact that you want to delete RI from (church schools) is an implied policy but a policy none the less.
The govt system couldn’t cope without church run schools.
There are many reasons people send their children to Church run schools. These schools are compelled to teach a standard curriculum to gain govt support. RI should be extra curricular. I dispute the validity of the Jesuit claim of lifetime ownership today
BTW I went to a Lutheran Boarding school where Indoctrination was steroidal. I and all my contacts from those days are atheistic in out look.
We do agree that governments/ public schools shouldn’t be influenced by or promote either side.

On second thought we should just agree to disagree
Cheers

Golly Polycarp,

It's not fair and reasonable to expect you to respond to examples of Christian violence when you've said there's none. Too awkward.

Go easy on the weed and grass old son. You've had better days with your metaphors.

examinator

“On second thought we should just agree to disagree”

That seems like an idea whose time has arrive. ;))

David

Quite so, Spikey.

<< You can be a piece of grass totally outside the ploughed field... a weed growing in it..looking like a Christian..or.. a stalk of wheat.. rooted and grounded in Christ Himself....producing fruit many fold. >>

Or you can end up a totally rooted fruit loop, as our fundy brethren frequently demonstrate :)

Examinator,

in one area at least, I think you are being too mindfull of the divisions existing on the forum and tactfully refraining from coming down on one side or the other, however, mipela tink taim bepor, em i gutpela moa. Em i trutok!

(Apologies, people - couldn't resist).

"Or you can end up a totally rooted fruit loop.."

LOL. Very droll, CJ.

And you're on the ball, as always, too Spikey.

<< You can be a piece of grass totally outside the ploughed field... a weed growing in it..looking like a Christian..or.. a stalk of wheat.. rooted and grounded in Christ Himself....producing fruit many fold. >>

I hate to be drawing attention to it for the third time, but what a little gem this is. Poly you've outdone yourself.

And to think I missed seeing it. Perhaps I should stop scrolling through your posts after all. There obviously is the odd speck of gold to be found in amongst the dross.

And Romany, I could probably comment on your post too - if I knew what it said!

I had promised myself that I would give myself a rest from Boaz' twisted history while here in Europe, but I can't let this one pass unremarked.

>>Ireland.. political more than religious...<<

Yesterday I passed this analysis by a Northern Irish (Protestant) friend for comment.

He simply said that anyone who could make this statement, believing it to be true, must never have been to Ireland, or spoken to a Northern Irishman.

He then went on (and on, and on - he is Irish after all) to tell a dozen stories about perfectly ordinary families, with no political agenda, who had been brought up to hate others purely on the grounds that they followed a different brand of Christianity.

His observation on the following Boazism?

>>if Catholics and Protestants can get along fine together outside the political mess.. (there were interfaith fellowships during that crisis) doesn't that tell you something?<<

"Ask him this. Why are 'interfaith fellowships' needed between people of the same faith?"

I won't comment on Boaz' earlier attempts to explain away the Crusades etc., but would add...

The sooner Boaz comes to accept that the fabric of Christianity contains significant faultlines, in exactly the same way as do other organized religions, the sooner he will learn the compassion that he so consistently and conspicuously lacks.

*waves at Pericles*... thought u'd fallen off a cliff or something!

Perilous.. try this to your Irish friend.

1/ "Would you say you have a personal relationship with Christ Jesus?"

2/ "Does that relationship (if he has one) lead him to hate people?"

3/ If he says yes.. than ask him to show you from the Bible (Gospels) on what such hate is based?

I AGREE.. "religion" causes the problems. Because people who form themselves into groups can be insular and antagonistic to non them..... UNLESS the values they live by... are based on love, compassion and justice.

I continue to say that the Irish trouble was based on partly history.. particularly that of your English mob oppressing the Irish.
From 'that'...and the Northern Irish/Loyalist stance of part of the country.. it follows naturlally that this historical injustice would be translated into human attitude and behavior.

That it is 'human' rather than Christian is verified by comparing such behavior with the Gospels and the Lord Himself.

It always comes back to that (Spikey.. r u paying attention here?)

HEY Spikey.. see you at the 'FREE GAZA' RALLY next sunday at the State Libray.. 2.00pm.. I'll be the bloke with the sign saying:

PEACE 4 GAZA
NO HAMAS ROCKETS.

or maybe

NO HAMAS ROCKETS=
NO ISRAELI BOMBS

I wonder how the 'Anti War' mob will cope with 'balance' :)

It's amazing how their view is blinkered. -It only sees Israeli wrongdoing.

If I achieve nothing else.. it will be to show the utter hypocrisy of that movement. (and maybe score a thumping from an over zealous protester:)

As always, Boaz, your response is to avoid the issue, and change the subject.

>>1/ "Would you say you have a personal relationship with Christ Jesus?"<<

The religion in this context is Christianity. The two subsets of Christianity that we are talking about are Catholicism and Protestantism. These two factions have been at each others throats in Northern Ireland for centuries.

Their quarrel is, and always has been, religious, and has outlasted any number of political changes.

Both sides claim God to be on their side. Both believe in Jesus. Both insist that the other lot are bound for hell. Both inculcate their children with a deep and abiding distrust in the other, based not on geography or history or politics, but on the beliefs that they hold.

As my friend said, if you believe that the hatred is anything other than religious, then you simply don't have a clue about the reality of the situation.

It is also worth pointing out that the six counties consistently exercised their democratic right to be ruled from Westminster. So much for "your English mob oppressing the Irish". What sane body would vote for a continuance of their own oppression?

Incidentally, I happen to know that my friend does not have "a personal relationship with Christ Jesus", having become bitterly opposed to the practice of Christianity in his neighbourhood over a twntyseven year period.

Christianity is not immune from the habit of people throughout the ages, to use religion as a weapon.

Accept it. Live with it. Learn from it.

Get off that high horse of yours, in which Christianity evades any blame for the atrocities committed in its name, and start to understand that such an attitude is bigoted, inflammatory and downright dangerous.

Pericles,

This continual attempt to embellish good parts of the Bible, leaving out the distasteful, shows a mindset far remove from reality and possibly not accessible to reason - Which we should all celebrate! (Small plug for AFA advert :))

The New Testament promotes - women as second class, that demons inhabit humans, that demons are the cause of sickness, that animals can be treated as objects, that by analogy it is OK to slay people, that hating everyone except the mythical Jesus is acceptable, that there is no such thing as the environment, democracy, medicine or science, that voluntary euthanasia is allowable if you are a half god, that homophobia is permissible, that it fine to scapegoat the Jews, that punishment for the wrongs of others is good although totally ethically unsound, that allegedly curing a few lepers and not alleviating the immensity of suffering in the world is compassionate, that compelling others to accept the mythical Jesus is preferred and telling fibs about the return of the mythical Jesus in the lifetime of those supposedly writing the NT has merit.

Inseparable from Christianity is the Old Testament. Suddenly, the irascible tyrant Yahweh transforms into the mythical ‘gentle’ Jesus in the blink of an eye. Followers forget they are one and the same ‘thing’.

The OT is full of so much irrationality, brutality, unfairness, injunctions to kill disbelievers; made up stories and other junk which adherents of Christianity can cherry pick the to their hearts content to believe whatever they wish. The many sects prove this beyond doubt.

Every one of these sects (All religions were sects as some stage) has the correct method of interpreting these ancient, none too enlightened words, and each would impose their version on society if the opportunity arises. Each wish to drag humanity back the days of superstitious rule and each has no conscience about doing just that.

Meanwhile, the average person who believes in a god has a rosy eyed view about all the before and in doing so, accommodates the fanatics in gaining political power by methods outlined previously.

David

Romany,
Eek! For a moment I thought I was having flash backs! from bui? :-)
Long Taim bepor mi got savy long dispela tok. Dispela taim mi got liklik savy long rit em tok tasall. Clearly I'm VERY rusty these days.

I am here to exchange views not to preach. I was concerned in the last exchange that I was painting myself into a didactic role i.e. become part of what I detest.
I genuinely believe that neither side has a mortgage on the truth.
I try to get people to consider the alternatives and to examine their assertions.

As to your ‘taim bepor’ bit like I said it is relative to how you judge ‘gutpela moa’ and for whom specifically. Were they happier (content at peace with their world order), simpler quite probably but heath, nutrition wise etc perhaps not. Over all compared to now I could argue that for many nugins ‘taim bepor gutpela moa'.
Either way I still maintain that white man/religious missionaries have a lot to answer for. In context I don’t see that atheism works any better for them.
AFA arguments logically appear wedded to the debateable judgemental opposite.

Polycarp,

The more you write the more wrongs you commit.

First we had the false dichotomy of 'Islam/violent: Christianity/peaceful'.

Then you gave us your patently ludicrous outsight on the Irish troubles: more 'political' than 'religious'.

Now you're trying a new outrageous dichotomy between 'human' and 'Christian'. (Every Christian I've ever met was human. How about you?)

You've got more twists and turns than the Great Ocean Road.

Why don't you admit, for once, that like the rest of us you sometimes get things horribly wrong? It might feel good sometimes to admit that your dot-point view of world history is woefully inadequate and that the Bible is a strictly limited resource in helping us interpret world events since it was written.

Examinator,

I feel shame actually for the "civillization" we felt it our duty to introduce all over Melanesia - but I do agree that, having done so, there is nothing much to choose between either of the two alternatives on offer here: Christianity or Atheism.

I wonder how many people even know that the Trobriands were once known as The Islands of Love? We made them ashamed of this and of their own culture through missionary activity, but just as ashamed when we only offered them exploitation of their sexuality as an alternative.

I don't think there is much to choose, as I said, but I do think that, if we are talking about concern for actual physical well-being then the humble diddiman has a better track record than the missionary.

That said, I guess one could, off the cuff, provide a host of anecdotal evidence of individuals whose behaviour completely negates that conclusion.

Sure, I think it's interesting to exchange beliefs and allow discussion but I don't think anyone's conviction of their own "rightness" should make everyone else wrong.

People,

It is a false dichotomy to use the term Atheism and Christianity in comparison, as the former is only a reference to those who get by without a god and the latter is a ‘belief system’. Another issue is that Christianity is only one of the religions on the planet.

For those who want to deny this, the obvious response is to state what the ‘belief system’ of Atheism is? I’m interested to know.

As an Atheist, I can point out the misgivings of religions because I am non partisan on the matter. But to call the pointing out of the foibles of religion a ‘belief system’ is very nonsensical.

David

Romany,
Amen sister amen.
I remember two incidents in the 60's that emphasize your point clearly.

The first resulted in 'cargo wars' where several people died it stemmed from the bible quote. "I go to prepare a mansion for you in the home of my father" (or something like that). As you know pidgin as many of the 800 languages in PNG are literal and have neither superlatives nor abstractions. Given that white families lived in 13-14 Square houses and the servant family quarters were a one room brick, concrete floor/tin roof shed attached to the laundry down the back yard. Their pay, $1+ a month, a bag of rice and a case of bully beef! So you can image the confusion/ resentment this caused when translated. There were armed tribesmen demanding their mansions now.

The other was when a Communist went around espousing equality and that there was no need for 'their spirits' (religious/cultural controls) as this was holding them back from achieving their true selves. I don't object to the equality but the denying their 'spirits' took the lid off their traditional control over the youthful hotheads. Again several innocents died.

Clearly the nugin people’s choice was then as now a belief in a wealthier God or no belief in Gods therefore no culture. What many 'civilized' people don't understand that the ‘spirit world belief’ did more than comfort it laid down everything from sustainable environmental living, genetic diversity in mates, a code of behaviour, individuals’ identity and their place in world order…all in one.
To these people and those who need religion atheism with its denial of the existence of supernatural forces (beings) as an alternative is a belief without the comfort of boundaries etc.
This is echoed by Polycarp and others (wrongly) assert that without a belief in God (religion) an individual has no rules morality etc. Clearly this is logical nonsense but to indigenous peoples it is all one package. Nugins without a concept of abstracts this is more acute.

examinator,

We seemed to have moved on.

You rightly point out the plight of civilisations that have not been exposed over a long period to higher ethical thought and how that is an unfair equation in relation to societies with advanced knowledge achieved over centuries. This more sophisticated knowledge has also come at a huge cost.

And I think you are saying, with which I agree, that if left alone and not supplied with just one part of advanced Western culture (Religion), indigenous people would have been relatively better off.

Western nations have wreaked a terrible toll on the New World because of greed supported by the zealous desire to ‘save souls’ at any cost. Which of one those imperatives were more important is hard to ascertain but in any combination, it was recipe for total disaster. Maybe greed alone might not have produced the same results. We will neve know.

It can be argued that religion was a necessary part of social evolution as and explanation of nature before science took root. It can also be argued, successfully, that religious rationalization should no longer retain a privileged position in that explanation.

My contention on this is that religion, when it becomes powerful, unlike science, has a tendency to repress new knowledge. This big difference possibly kept civilisation from advancing for longer than necessary. The examples of present day backward looking religions (All are to various degrees) confirms this beyond doubt as does the rapid rise of justice and equality where the teeth of oppression have been slowly extracted from them. The same is the case with all fanatical ideologically driven systems.

Some maintain that it is other religions causing all the troubles afflicting humanity but when confronted with the reality of their own, a wall of apologetics or silence is the response. All religions react in this manner.

David

David AFA
Out of respect I am responding.
No sale!

My position hasn't 'moved on' in your context. The principal at stake is still the same. I maintain that your application of Atheism is the both (in effect) a belief (a state of consciousness) and your approach has the agenda of gaining converts hence your difficulty with boundary between private and public. To hold your views logic dictates you must believe you views are superior to those who believe in the supernatural) ergo is aggressive.

I was responding and extending a mutual understanding with ROMANY in that the problem with Middle class White (educated) perspective is that they fail to understand the full import of indigenous world views (beliefs). These views are so intrinsic to them that any change has the effect of leaving them in atheism or unfulfillable Christian promises (confusion) at the village level.

Your comment on holding back science/civilized development supports my argument that your view reflects your cultural and philosophic blind spots.

On what basis is the white perspective superior? Their civilization has been stable for 60k years. If the purpose of a civilization is to for a balance (oneness) with their environment and produce happiness (contentment) for its members. Logic dictates theirs delivers and has done so for 60K+ years …can we say the same?
Nugin science is not static as you imply it is added to constantly their methodology and purpose are different.
Since white man arrived their life style diseases diabetes, obesity etc have increased exponentially as has their population, pollution and exploitation. (Hardly what a 3rd world country or the world needs).

In essence I was saying that your perspective of No (as opposed to anti) God is very conditional (relative) and highly qualified even in or 1st world culture.

Like I said agree to disagree.

examinator,

Oh, I see, you haven’t moved on at all. Amongst the unnecessary wording, you say my version of Atheism is a ‘belief’.

A ‘belief’ in what exactly? A ‘belief’ in reason maybe, a ‘belief’ in logic or a ‘belief’ in the fact there is no credible evidence for the supernatural.

Because I hold there is no evidence for a god, somehow that makes my stance aggressive and considered superior by me. You state this even after I explain the very simple mechanism responsible for humans holding beliefs. Those mechanisms tie up with the known facts and are undeniable. I think your have a problem with your own feelings of superiority and you surely are more aggressive than me.

I don’t believe many Atheistic missionaries descended on the New World promoting there is no god. Indigenous peoples were left in a state of confusion about their world view and to blame half of the problem on Atheism is ridiculous.

What are my cultural and philosophical blind spots when I am only pointing out consequences of limited knowledge?

I find your placing the word ‘superior’ in inappropriate context a little ignorant of you and it is meant only as a crowd pleaser. More knowledge is preferable to less knowledge is not a position that invokes such a word. More knowledge for an Aztec child would have that child not choose to be sacrificed. More knowledge for a child indoctrinated with creation science would have a child not choose that falsehood.

“In essence I was saying that your perspective of No (as opposed to anti) God is very conditional (relative) and highly qualified even in or 1st world culture.”

This is the kind of sentence you come up with and is reminiscent of your posts when you are in panic mode and it really is rubbish. Explain that sentence so I may make proper comment.

The obvious reliance on having the last word is one of your weaknesses, but the last word only goes to the best argument. You have failed this test and do not deserve a final say.

David

David, You have great unerring faith that Science never suppresses new knowledge. I have no such faith in Science or rather those that have the power over scientific discoveries...

The good news is the proposed Act says you have the freedom not to hold a particular religion or belief. Appendix 1 R2.3

On to other things. This Act could create more problems than it says it needs to solve.
It proposes the prohibition of female genital mutilation while male circumcision is not mentioned. Surely those who believe in female circumcision will use this (and their 'cultural belief') to prevent its inclusion in the final Act, so why bother with its inclusion?

It proposes to legalize blasphemy. What sort of society would suggest it is polite and respectful to condone blasphemy? Does this mean we will soon hear 'For Mohammed's sake' in the streets and on the airways of Oz because there must be no discrimination?

Witchcraft and fortune telling is to be de-criminalised. When was someone last sent to jail for being a witch?

Artistic work will remain exempt from religious vilification laws as long as it is reasonable and in good faith; but who is to be judge of this? The panelists on the review?

All that will happen is more work will be created for the legal profession ..... and taxpayers money will be spent by those with no funds to sue.

WWG,

I think you mean, you consider those with an interest to do so, can distort the practical application of science. Science as a means of discovery is still the best method humans have.

The HREOC paper is only about ‘recommendations’. We will have to wait and see how it all pans out before making assumptions and interpretations of the conclusions.

Thankfully, I think there are a reasonably fair number of submissions from secular individuals and organisations included on and going to be included on the final list. Not all of the recommendations will be accepted, but a few will.

As the words expressed in Lucretius’ famous poem, ‘De Rerum Natura’ - On the Nature of Things – state; “By degrees They melt, and are no more the things we know.”

Lucretius’ was speaking of things but the same is true of ideas. Small successes eventually lead to large changes in social constructs. The evolution of ideas is a slow business in human lifespan time but rapid within the context of historical progress. How fast depends on many variables, as well as how quickly the irrationally unjust concepts are recognised and excluded.

Obvious mistakes in the resultant HREOC Act, as you have pointed out will cost by way of lawyers and I would ad - injustice. The next Commission will then look at these. There is no rule that says the present re-evaluation will be an instant fix for everything. But it is far better than not having one.

David