George..The US is awash with 'people of faith', yet no amount of 'faithers' seems to lift the moral standard of their nation... they can kid themselves if they want, but all their belief in angels, hell, heaven and Ark dinosaurs fails when it comes to translating all that into 'moral action' on the ground.

They even regard something as basic as a universal health system as a sin, and demand that 'the poor folk' whom Christians say they have an affinity with and a duty to, in their service to Jesus and God, should go and die in the gutter, where they really belong.

Such a display of high morals indeed.

"I am pretty sure that in our society the influence of Church and its dignitaries ... in the public square has been diminishing over the last decades"... this is a yes and no one.

Yes, the ABS census figures indicate a change downwards of support for Christianity overall, and an increase in some to identify with no religion, but at the same time, maybe in response, within Australia, there has been a rise in influence, or proclaimed influence, via such groups as the ACL.

Messrs Jensen and Pell are redoubling their efforts to drag their flocks to pre Enlightenment, and groups such as Hillsong, and the AOG ilk, make squillions in businesses that run tax free, feeding back to increase their power and influence in the public square.

Politicians here feel the need to appear to be 'religious', but presumably fail to read the ABS figures to see how many they are aiming at.

Take, for instance, that seat of incompetence, Tasmania, now in election mode. The ACL organised an audience of 400 in a hall, with, they claim, the same amount in churches watching TV screens.

The ALP bloke declared that he'd been to Damascus and back as far as school chaplains went, he now thought they were great.

Thus adding to the power and influence of a small lobby group and assisting in their empire building.

Government support for religion is increasing, not diminishing, here in Australia.

TBC,
>>They even regard … a universal health system as a sin<<
There are opponents as well as supporters of Obama’s scheme among American Christian representatives.

Living now overseas I am less familiar than you with the Australian scene. I had to look up ACL in the Wikipedia, noticing that the “L” stands for “lobby” which according to my dictionary means “a group of people seeking to influence politicians or public officials on a particular issue”. As longs as it is done by legal means, I do not think you can prohibit that in a democratic country. You can support (or create) a lobby whose aims are in the opposite direction. As you know, both the Australian and (especially) American political scenes show an abundance of lobby groups, some more, some less influential, some more, some less extremist in their demands. To repeat myself, many lobbyists are disliked by many people.

Probably the creation of ACL (and similar movements in the US) was a reaction, the same as the emergence of “the four horsemen” Dennett/Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens on the other hand. And - as in physics - these reactions tend to swing the public mood pendulum from one extreme to the other. I think the question of who/what caused these turbulences originally is a “chicken or egg” type question.

Why should also the Catholic Church not be alowed to “seek to influence politicians or public officials” as long as they remain within the law, even if one does not call the Church a lobby.

I really do not think that Pell’s influence on Australian politics is stronger, than was (archbishop Daniel P.) Mannix’s, not even among Catholics, although in his time the Catholic Church played only the second (public and political) fiddle in Australia.

So I really think the Christian influence (in Australia, US or Europe) is decreasing on the whole, while showing local fluctuations, like the creation and rising influence (if that indeed is the case) of the ACL. A behaviour similar to that of the stock exchange (despite the recent crisis) though in the opposite direction.

George,

<<Thank you for the link to the TV programs featuring Dawkins in Australia ...>>

You’re welcome.

I figured, being overseas, you’d appreciate the link to the Q&A episode that was being spoken about here.

<<I think in a democratic society you cannot stop people from “perpetuating the notion that their beliefs are a no-go-zone...>>

I’m not suggesting that we, or the authorities, forcefully stop people perpetuating the notion that their beliefs are a no-go-zone. I’m simply saying that the fact that most Theists - even the moderates - perpetuate this idea is why they need to accept a part of the responsibility for the radicals out there who hide behind this no-go-zone status that religion has.

<<...as you cannot stop others from perpetuating their notion that religious education is indoctrination and “emotional manipulation used to coerce a child into believing what the parent knows the child won’t accept if they don’t get in there before critical thinking skills develop”.>>

I understand that the idea of indoctrination wouldn’t be an easy one for any Theist to accept, but it’s a part of religion and that’s just the cold hard truth.

Indoctrination involves repetitive rituals and teaching children unprovable assertions without letting them know that the assertions aren’t backed by any sort of objective evidence. Indoctrination is being selective in what one tells the indoctrinatee (if that’s a word) in an attempt to coerce them to believe as the “educator” does.

Even if the above didn’t apply in this alleged “education”, the fact that the parents have to get in as early as possible is also an indication that what we are talking about here isn’t just “education”. If it was, then it could wait, but it’s not, and that’s why it’s done as soon as the child can comprehend what is being said.

Continued...

...Continued

The sad thing is though, that if the parents don’t get in early enough, the best they can hope for is a tragedy in their child’s life. After all, what happy healthy and well-adjusted person just decides one day that they’re going to take up religion?

It’s always a sad story of a person’s life hitting rock bottom that brings them to God. If this God existed, then I would think he’d be powerful enough to reveal himself to people who aren’t just in a vulnerable and fragile state of mind.

You keep pointing out the laws and the freedoms that democracy stands for, but if you feel so secure in your beliefs, then you shouldn’t need to keep hiding behind the law by mention it and the what real democracies accept.

<<You asked for “atheist extremists” and I gave an example. I never claimed they were extremists “because of their atheism”.>>

I realise you never claimed that they were extremists because of their atheism. But you had earlier said “...encourage both atheist and theist moderates”, which to me, suggested that you thought that there could actually be Atheists out there who “extreme” about their Atheism.

On another note, in my experience, it is a common tactic for Theists - particularly Creationists - to wrap their opponents up in semantics in order to distract them (and the onlookers) from their original point, and I certainly don’t want to think that an intelligent Christian like yourself would have to resort to a tactic like that.

So I just want to point out that the main reason I entered the discussion on this thread in the first place, was to show that Examinator’s contempt for Dawkins was unfounded and irrational. And considering he spent most of the time dodging, weaving and obscuring; and considering too that the coherency of his posts rapidly declined towards the end there, I’d say my mission was an overwhelming success.

That being said, I also think that my side point about moderates needing to accept some of the blame for the radicals still stands.

George... "There are opponents as well as supporters of Obama’s scheme among American Christian representatives", always the glass half full view in your quest to be 'tolerant', even in the full glare of 'the bleedin obvious'.

Be honest about this... there are Americans who do not believe in angels too, about six of them according to Pew Surveys. The overwhelming majority of Americans clearly regards any form of universal health care as being 'the work of Satan', or was that Stalin?.

Why bother with Wikipedia, where a favourable angle will be offered, since it would have ben written by ACL. Go to their web page, see their fake TV shows with about 10 viewers, posing as a massive commercial TV system, read their literature.... wikipedia is the last place to look for objective info.

I agree with you about the scourge of 'lobbyists'.

The Vatican, and all other religions, are not 'lobbyists' at all though, in the same sense as the ACL, or the AIG for instance.

Religions are given very special status: tax free, rates free, inspection free, unaccountable, secretive,able to discriminate where others would be before the courts,distort children's thinking, abuse children with impunity and so on.

Even 'real' lobby groups do not do that George.

Religions also pretend to know, even been the path to, high moral values.

Oh yeah? When, and where I do wonder, did this positive side appear?

Ah, the blood sacrifice TBC... pull the other one please.

Just listening to the latest ABC RN news outpourings of moral turpitude within the Vatican's child abusing soldiers-of-Christ, clearly God sent to me just as I was thinking about the very high moral standards Christian display as Christians representing Jesus on Earth.

What a laugh!

Except for the squillions of people abused by these guardians of our moral behaviour.

Be TOLERANT TBC, do be tolerant, please.

AJ Phillips,
Thanks for challenging me again to more carefully formulate my own views.

>>the radicals out there who hide behind this no-go-zone status that religion has.<<
There were blasphemies, if that is what you mean by no-go zones, that protected the status of the Christian religion. Today blasphemy has become an empty word - things sacred to Christians are ridiculed in a form unimaginable decades ago, but nobody pays much attention to it - so I do not understand what it is that the radicals are hiding behind.

>>Indoctrination involves repetitive rituals and teaching children … assertions (that) aren’t backed by any sort of objective evidence.<<

Well, “repetition is the mother of learning“, and I am not sure at what age can a child understand - without being totally confused - what it means that an assertion is not backed by “objective evidence”, except by a simple explanation that this is what mum and dad believe, though other people don’t.

If the parent cannot tell this to his/her child, then the problem is with the parent, not with the Christian (or other world-view) education. Besides, there are many things I learned before I could claim to be able to think critically - not only the Ten Commandments or the Bible stories - as data on which to base my critical questioning later in my adolescent and adult life, when my parents (or e.g. my science teacher) lost their unquestionable authority. Even the most sophisticated program cannot achieve much without input data.

>>After all, what happy healthy and well-adjusted person just decides one day that they’re going to take up religion?<<

Do you think all those listed for instance in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_atheists_and_agnostics converted solely because they were “unhappy unhealthy and ill-adjusted”? I think, the reason they usually give is “search for meaning and purpose in their lives”, as meaningless as this might sound to some. However, I agree that for those who look for such meaning it is simpler to build on the world-view they were educated into (religious or not), if they can. (ctd)