...Continued

<<I certainly did not label any child Marxist or Christian; there are only children growing up in Christian, Marxist, atheist, etc families, and the right of parents to educate their children in a world-view of their choice, provided they do not contravene the law.>>

Yes, but those children growing up in Marxist or Keynesian or Atheist or any other household aren’t having beliefs engrained into them through a weekly congregation, or a rituals like baptism. Nor are they being told that an invisible being has a special place for them to go when they die if they don’t believe.

We’ve been through this before.

<<I only expressed my opinion that it is better to encourage both atheist and theist moderates, than to pour oil on fire by advocating a mirror image of the fanaticism, intolerance, sweeping accusations etc of those one rightfully disapproves of.>>

Of course it’s better to encourage the moderates (although I’m not sure how you could possibly have an atheist extremist - certainly not in the same sense as Theist extremist), but that doesn’t seem to be working.

Despite the 9/11 attacks, most Muslim moderates continue to sit in silence about Islamic extremism. Despite the Pat Robertsons, the Jerry Falwells and the James Dobsons, most moderate Christians continue to ‘sit on their hands’.

The day I see most moderates band together and say, "Enough is enough. Shape-up or ship-out", I'll take back what I've said.

Until then, I stand by it 100%.

Examinator,

Could you please explain what you mean by “the principals” and “the human reality”? You haven’t made that very clear.

<<BTW human existence is full of brutality (extreme and systemic) for non religious causes Nationalism, National pride come to mind Conquest etc.>>

I realise that. So what’s your point?

None of those get the special consideration; the untouchable, taboo status; the undeserved and unearned respect that religion gets. I go back to what I said to George about the labeling of children.

Another example can be seen here on OLO.

When it comes to Left/Right political issues, it can be a no-holds-barred slanging match filled with insults flying back an forth.

But as soon as someone criticizes religious view, then you’re suddenly being ‘intolerant’, ‘rude’ or ‘arguing from extremes’.

It’s an appalling double-standard and it’s exactly the kind of double-standard that Dawkins et al point out.

I’m not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.

<<Are you suggesting the US actions in innumerable wars are religious based?>>

I have never said, or even Implied that all wars are religious. In fact, I think I’ve made it pretty clear why I am singling out religion here. If you’re still not getting it, then I suggest we discontinue this conversation.

I have no idea what the rest of what you addressed to me was all about, but it’s interesting to note that you couldn’t back any of the claims you made about Dawkins that I called you up on.

So my initial, and main point, that you were misrepresenting Dawkins, still stands.

As for the following addressed to TBC...

<<Man unfortunately is more than the sum of his bits...>>

I believe Fractelle addressed this beautifully the last time you said this when she replied:

“As for being greater than the sum of our parts, we all are, but so is my computer.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150079)

Well said AJP and I like the Fractelle line too.

I was cut off, in full flight, for some time so here is 2/2 of my first post:

The boy scouts were designed quite deliberately as a nationalistic, religion based force of coercion to 'connect' with the 'youf' of the day and provide a direct link into the armed forces, as well as the spiritual forces of the day.

These days Baden Powell would be suspected with his behaviour towards boys, some of which continues to this day in the fabled 'scoutmaster' antics.

One on trial now for encouraging two children to have sex in front of him... what badge would that be for I wonder?

And scouts supported Christianity when it started, wash your mouth out for even thinking any other religion is worthy of a scouts support!

"...it's when specific religious doctrine or government policies are at stake, the relationship between church and state can be antagonistic"... but Christians are always antagonistic to our nation-state, believing they are serving another sovereign, not ours, and are building another nation-on-Earth, not our nation-state of Australia.

Their belief is a fifth column action, white-anting 'the national interest' for their own 'nation'. They are treasonable, without wishing to sound like Peter the Believer.

Yes, religion is in oaths, but should not be, as someone has already said.

How’s this for the Truth about religions: http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/03/11/coast-cancer-faith/

I have a sister-in-law in a wheel chair, who went to Lourdes for a ‘cure’. Cost her many thou$and$ and she came back still in it.

How come the ACCC and the world community lets the Vatican off with its dodgy claims but (quite rightly) closes this man down?

And how come the ABC, and Rudd, assert that Scientology is a fraud, but not all the rest?

Believing in little green men from Mars is no sillier than believing in 'rising from the dead'.

After all, Scientology has been to the High Court, and won, and none of the others have.

Two posts in a row is as bad as flaming, so forgive me please but I had to post this from Dr. Nalliah at Catch The Fire Ministry, concerning the Q&A.

It's good to know that Burke and Bishop are equally blessed by the Dr.Pastor isn't it?

And I think I mentioned the cock crowing three times before Fielding spoke.... seems CTFM shares that view, probably for different reasons though.

"Pr Daniel stated, 'I watched this program yesterday as I missed the original broadcast.

"Sitting by my computer I was absolutely shocked and appalled at how Steve Fielding of Family First responded to the questions.

"On the contrary I was very impressed by both the Liberal & ALP politicians who spoke up very boldly about their Christian faith.

"Julie Bishop especially needs our applause and appreciation for being very bold in standing up and supporting the teaching of the Bible in all schools across Australia.”

Just wait til Rudd adopts the Bible angle from Abbott too, along with Abbotts hofpital boards, although we already have Bible lessons in class in Qld in Y1-7.... "Qld, the smart state".

No mention of preying on Dawkins soul, but he is now busy praying for Derryn Hinch, following a tempestuous interview with 'the beard'.

Dear TBC,

You argue so well, and I Congratulate you
for that. You seem like a passionate man
who cares deeply about things.

I care deeply as well. Perhaps I'm not
putting it well. So I'll quote from the
book written by Father James Kavanaugh,
"A Modern Priest Looks At His Outdated
Church."

"Faith has passed from the passive and
complete acceptance of a body of truths to
the honest search for total commitment.
The world has become man-centered, meaning-
centered, and the individual measures the
traditional truths in terms of personal value.
He/she refuses to accept irrelevant sermons,
a sterile liturgy, a passe and speculative
theology which explores publicly dry and
distant formulas, a law which does not explain
its own origins. He demands a pastor who
reaches him in honest dialogue. He/she will not
be bullied by an authoritarian demand...nor by
moralizing which ignores the true and complex
context of modern life..."

I guess what Father Kavanaugh was pointing out
was a soul-searching plea of a Christian for an
evaluation of what is Christian, and what is
simply tired and imperious tradition.

He apparently did not believe that the present
structure of the Church was an adequate representation
of the Christ of Gospel and history. In his book
he asks for honest dialogue, an open hierarchy, and
a Church which doesn't have all the answers or expects
people to walk in the wooden cadences of frozen
categories.

Of course there are valid criticisms to be made of many
religions. And as a Catholic - I have many frustrations
with my Church. Cardinal George Pell is a church leader
who makes me cringe - he's about exclusion - and he
shouldn't be. However, my religion is my personal belief -
and as I said earlier - I have no intention in trying to
convert anyone else to it. I shall follow my conscience,
demand meaning and relevance from my Church, and continue
to "live and let live!"

George:
"Squeers,
If you are referring to my post, please note that I was not objecting to AJ Philips’ justified criticism (to put it mildly) of religious extremists (his “loonies”) but to his sweeping statement about religion and its adherents moderate or not. As there are all sorts of people who are (or claim to be) atheists, there are also all sorts of people who are (or claim to be) Christians or adherents of another mainstream religion".
I wasn't referring specifically to your post--I find your philosophical/theological position eminently reasonable. But this is now also political, which for me should mean bipartisan---secular.
I do question the usefulness of the "moderate" position you ascribe to Foxy and Examinator, and indeed the implication that I or TBC or AJP are extremists (loonies) on one side of the divide. Political tolerance means support and more of the same.
The symbiotic relationship between government and Christianity (hegemony) has thrived on tolerance for far too long and has to be torn asunder. People may indulge their mystical whims to their hearts' content, in private or in church, but not in government, the exchequer or state schools. This is not extreme, but perfectly reasonable, as designed in constitutional separations of church and state in the archetypal democracy.
I still stand by my disenchantment with Dawkinsesque liberal rationalism--his talk on RN this afternoon was nothing more than marketing of his new book--which has nothing more to add, I gather, since his "The Way Things Are" of twenty odd years ago.