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.