Dear david f,

First of all, I do not like the word proselytize because of its many negative connotations.

Thanks for the information about the situation in Queensland. (I did not understand the relevance of Charlemagne’s reign). I have to admit I spent my time in Australia in Melbourne, and did not know much about Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s - as it was then - Queensland. From here, in Germany, “the controversy over creation and evolution” is mostly seen as an American - excuse me - absurdity.

You quote something from 1984, and then say that teachers who object to teaching (something you do not describe, but obviously not belonging to science) may not be teaching biology in 2013. Is this really the contemporary situation? Are children of atheist parents really actively proselytized into becoming Christian? Are children of Christian parents actively encouraged not to believe in God on the grounds that it clashes with science?. The emphasis in both cases is on “actively”, because in my opinion a child is necessarily influenced by the popular teacher’s personal beliefs or unbeliefs (“and what do YOU think Mr or Mrs Smith?”), ethnic background, their preferences for this or that music, sporting clubs, etc.

I know from this OLO that there is a problem with the funding, or even just presence, of (Christian only) chaplains at public schools. If they are there to act as counselors for every child, they ought to have qualifications recognised by state authorities. Like any other counselor, or psychotherapist as they are called here. If I have to visit a dentist, I want him to be qualified as a dentist and I do not care about his religion. It is different with the psychotherapist, where professional qualification is a must but also his/her world-view orientation is relevant. The more so if the “customers” are children.

These are just general reactions. From what you write it indeed looks like the evangelical or fundamentalist Christians have an undue influence in Queensland.

>>However, when there is compulsion involved it is a violation of human dignity and freedom.<<
I absolutely agree.

George,

You are confusing yourself. Here is how this part of the conversation began.

You said, “…Otherwise, I can just refer to my post to david f concerning different opinions about this Pope even among educated atheists.”

To which I replied, “none (atheist) have ever expressed an opinion of agreement on substantial misgivings supported by the Pope.”

Then, at the beginning of your last reply, you strangely said as it was not mentioned by me, “I never said the atheist thinkers,” I'm unsure why you said that.

Anyhow, the support from atheists you intimate exists is from two people, Marcello Pera, Juergen Habermas with your last link not working.

Marcello Pera had a book, ‘Why We Must Call Ourselves Christians’ prefaced by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Without using any exaggeration, such a view amongst 99.9% of atheists would be classed as nonsense. It’s great how any idea is available on the internet no matter how bizarre.

Leaving Pera aside and going on to Habermas, here is an overview of his ideas and they actually reflect very closely the thoughts of many atheists.

“Habermas argues that in order to engage in this dialogue, two conditions must be met: religion must accept the authority of secular reason as the fallible results of the sciences and the universalistic egalitarianism in law and morality; and conversely, secular reason must not set itself up as the judge concerning truths of faith. This argument was developed in part as a reaction to the conception of the relation between faith and reason formulated by Pope Benedict XVI in his 2006 Regensburg address.”

http://www.amazon.com/Awareness-What-Missing-Reason-Post-secular/dp/0745647219/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358872597&sr=1-7&keywords=habermas

These ‘two’ opinions, Pera’s being way over the top and Habermas’ which reflects an atheist view on a secular state in part do not answer my criticism that, “none (atheist) have ever expressed an opinion of agreement on substantial misgivings supported by the Pope.”

David

George, that is quite bizarre.

>>First of all, I do not like the word proselytize because of its many negative connotations.<<

But... but...

Your opening post says this:

>>Do our atheist friends here agree that not only those of the “secular community” but also of other, religious, persuasions should not be fearful of seeming to proselytize?<<

And the title of the entire thread is:

"Being fearful of seeming to proselytize".

Now you tell us that you are unhappy with the terminology that has been key to the entire discussion.

That is like starting a thread on discrimination, then after 157 responses, tell people that you are uncomfortable with the word "discrimination"

No wonder then, that the arguments on this thread have been so difficult to make sense of.

David (of the AFoA),

I thought you asked sincerely for information, not to start a ping-pong of opinions:

>>Maybe you can head me in the direction of the “educated atheists” who agree with the Pope and to what they actually agree about.<<

I obliged, and I now regret having wasted my and your time. Anyhow, relax, nobody wants to convert you, not even to change your opinion about the Pope or Habermas' reasons to dialogue with him.

Pericles,

You have a point here. My original paragraph was something like:

First of all, I do not like the word proselytize because of its many negative connotations. However, Susan Jacoby, the atheist author of the article, used it, and it did not look like she meant it to be negative. My point then was to use the term in exactly the same sense as she, see also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5580#153188.

I removed the second and third sentences in order not to exceed the 350 words. Probably I should not have.

George,

I am very relaxed but I admit to being jumpy when logical progression is not followed. This can create a situation where endless or circular argument can be the outcome.

I think we have arrived at a place on this particular matter where clarity is far greater than it first was.

David