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'.