Dear God: Get the hell out of our schools!

Joan says:

07:19am | 01/03/11

`Asking `God to get to hell`.... Weird how atheists continue to use religious terms such as heaven, hell, and invoke the name of Jesus at a time of frustration or anger.

TChong says:

07:19am | 01/03/11

Servaas - briefly outline, if you will, why your Jesus is any more real than Zeus, Shiva, Neptune, or DreamTime Serpent ?

HappyCynic says:

07:49am | 01/03/11

@Servaas

The theory of evolution is not an atheist idea nor is it a philosophical one.  It’s a scientific theory that attempts to explain the origins of life based purely on the physical evidence.  It’s time you learned to accept that and adjust your views according to the Bible accordingly.  Religion and evolution are completely compatible so long as they remain in their defined places.

The fact that you think evolution is somehow equal to a “Christian world view” is ridiculous in the extreme, especially considering that there is no physical evidence to support a Christian’s “world view”.

I’m a religious person myself (I’m Jewish) so I believe G-d did create the universe and everything in it, but I’m not so foolish to believe that Genesis is literal.  There is simply zero physical evidence to support a literal view of Genesis, indeed quite the opposite.  If it’s taken as allegorical then it becomes fully compatible with the theories of the Big Bang and evolution.

Show me where in Genesis there is a definition of how long “a day” is according to G-d (not according to us lesser mortals) and I might be willing to consider your moronic view of young earth creationism until then it remains one of the most idiotic ideas of the 20th Century and that’s saying something considering it’s a century that invented gems like spandex, fast food, eugenics, prohibition and communists.

Servaas says:

07:54am | 01/03/11

Or you can send your kids to an advanced country like South Africa where, as I heard from a colleague at work the other day, the teachers actually tell the kids straight forward that the earth is millions of years old, species evolved from lower life forms and what not.

He studies the arguments for and against the theories and tells his kids they can tell the teachers they’re lying or taking chances with their claims. Maybe you should follow the same example and explain to the kids how obviously true and likely the millions of years evolving of species theory is and tell them to take on their teachers.

Australia preaches young earth creation theories while South Africa preaches old earth evolution. My suggestion is to teach operational science (that’s the way it was done in older generations, and it actually produced quite a few top scientists) and tell the kids about the various origin theories and encourage self study - that is real secular education, teaching evolution as origin world view only is just as far from secular education as Bible school.

And why would you say a good, working government such as Australia’s should go out of their way to tell kids life is without purpose.

undertow says:

08:27am | 01/03/11

She won’t need to teach them foolish statements if they are getting scripture classes.

PTom says:

08:29am | 01/03/11

@servaas
What about hindu, muslim or buddist world view?

BTW Teaching of religion in school is not done by the teaches but paid outside group that go into school to stir the pot once a week and leave.

Are you also one of these so called Christian that oppose Ethic classes for those that don’t want their kids wrapped by religious Values.

Luke says:

08:58am | 01/03/11

@PTom

Scripture teachers are not paid.
They are volunteers.

Mark says:

09:12am | 01/03/11

Tracey, please do not confuse the Chaplaincy program with religious education. The chaplaincy program funds are for pastoral support not religious education. its easy to jump on the bandwagon and claim that the chaplaincy program is a huge waste of money because there should be a seperation between church and state but this is NOT the issue. Why is it that people get paid to spend 5 minutes writing an attack that they have not done any research on.

Tim the Toolman says:

09:27am | 01/03/11

@Mark

“The chaplaincy program funds are for pastoral support not religious education”

Oh, so they’re teaching about farmers etc…?  No?  Oh, maybe you mean Beethovens Piano Sonata No. 15?  No?  Or could it perhaps be, a term for the professional role of a member of the clergy?! 

It’s religious education, that’s all it is, covered up and disguised like a wolf in sheeps clothing.  Just one more reason to detest the duplicitous and insidious nature of religions.

Daniel Sinnott says:

09:44am | 01/03/11

@Serrvas

No place is perfect - South Africa is also the place where people were taught that vitamins could cure AIDS.

Bob says:

09:57am | 01/03/11

I think here that Spicer’s ability to stare at a camera has been confused with an informed opinion of both the role of chaplaincy and the nature of what is considered a religious ideology.

itmustbemagic says:

10:44am | 01/03/11

Yes, VOLTAIRE is the foolish one. HA! When can we look forward to the release of your book, Servaas?

Brian says:

10:50am | 01/03/11

HappyCynic - Communism came from the 19th century in its modern form, so did eugenics. Fast food has been around for millenia (Literally - in Ancient Rome the vast majority of food was eaten from street vendors, as most people did not have the means to cook in their homes), and prohibition of alcohol generally is a long-held muslim issue. Got to agree on the spandex though, it was a really bad century just based on that.

Matto says:

11:00am | 01/03/11

Servaas, you claim we should teach “various origin theories” as if they are all equal. They are not. Evolution is a scientific theory that is constantly studied and reviewed and is the the best model that is supported by observable evidence. Other origin stories are just that, stories, and will never change regardless of evidence. Teach evolution in science classes and origin stories in religious classes.

Politically Correct says:

12:17pm | 01/03/11

It’s amazing how politically correct it appears to be these days to verbally attack Christians, but so politically incorrect to say anything against Muslims.  It seems that freedom of speech these days is rather distorted.

iMitchy says:

12:23pm | 01/03/11

Tracey,
That was a really good read and certainly packed the punch that i would expect from an article on this site.
I’m an atheist.
I got married in an anglican chapel at the private school that my wife attended. My wife’s friend who also attended that school wished to be married in the same chapel but was refused because she had not been baptised, rather she had been dedicated by the salvation army. Not good enough. They did offer her a FREE baptism though - which she refused.
After 6 years at $20,000+ p.a. school fees, they refused her the right to use the chapel for 1 hour even though couples are to provide their own celebrant and make a donation to the anglican church. It seems that they didn’t want any more of her money. Members only.
This is the only reason why I agreed to have our daughter baptised. So that she wouldn’t miss out on anything due to my beliefs. We used the same chapel and anglican priest who wed us.
He is a good man and like me he agrees that any faith is good faith as it gives those who follow it hope, strength and purpose.
If religion is making people happy or helping them through tough situations then great. Many religious institutions are also extremely charitable so thats good too.
As for the two arguements for the origin of life, it’s no wonder than one begins with “The theory of” whilst the other ends in “ism”.
Creationism is laughable but I will always support those who wish to practice a religion. Just as long as they keep it to themselves.
It does not seem at all fair that christian schools are very abundant yet a variety of churches still wish to send their people into public schools to preach christianity. Imagine the uproar if people from the mosque were volunteering to host classes at public schools.
Some christians say that the children have the right to get all the information and can then decide for themselves, or that it is atheist brainwashing to teach them only evolution and sheild them from religious teachings.
Well, you have your schools so let us have ours. I had scripture classes at my primary school for 4 years, but due to almost every child bringing a letter from their parents stating that they were not to attend, the classes were cancelled. I thought that this kind of thing would have been common and that religious teaching in public schools would be banned by now. It is a real shame that it is still happening.
If I don’t want my kids to be taught christianity then where the hell am I supposed to send them to school?

Bob rynolds says:

12:24pm | 01/03/11

If you dont like australia and its school system based on its christian heritage,  find another country. If you dont like christian values, then stop benefiting from christian values, christian charities which support the poort and neglected , and goto work on christian holidays and therefore stop confusing your own children

Ruth says:

12:30pm | 01/03/11

With all due respect I think these comments miss the point entirely. Government schools should be promoting secularism. Value systems should be discussed in schools but within a secular framework. As such the teaching of ethics is a good beginning. This also avoids any discrimination of teaching towards Christian philosophies only which does not assist kids to develop a tolerance and understanding of other people’s cultural/religious beliefs. Thank you for raising this very important but not much talked about issue Tracey!

Lee says:

12:37pm | 01/03/11

Let the children choose when they are adults, to force feed them at a young age is wrong on so many levels. I requested to sit out the classes when my primary school held them. I would be told to sit outside on the coat racks and wait for the class to finish.

School is not the place for religion.

George says:

12:47pm | 01/03/11

Since there is no such thing as god, why is this lunacy still going on?

Non Christian says:

12:53pm | 01/03/11

@ Bob rynolds

“If you dont like australia and its school system based on its christian heritage,  find another country”

So unless you are christian you should not attend school and leave Australia is that right???

Get over yourself, “christian values” are not the only values, let people choose for themselves rather than having someone force their own beliefs on everyone else.

Tim the Toolman says:

02:26pm | 01/03/11

“It’s amazing how politically correct it appears to be these days to verbally attack Christians, but so politically incorrect to say anything against Muslims.”

I think you’ll find I’ll happily go to town on anyone who tries to tell others what to do, regardless of which variation of psychotic sky-wizard they believe in.

Ando says:

02:45pm | 01/03/11

Politically correct thinks we should be arguing whether muslim clerics should continue being posted in State schools as chaplins.

Captain Hero says:

03:18pm | 01/03/11

Essentially, what Happy Cynic is trying to say is that he/she likes to pick and choose what they like to believe in the bible. It’s interesting what people like to emphasise in interpretation just to suit themselves.

Dave says:

03:28pm | 01/03/11

@Joan
You are aware That Hel was originally a Norse godess? Weird how christians plagiarized so many of their beliefs.

BAG says:

03:31pm | 01/03/11

To those that believe in their “One and only God”, how arrogant can you be. Nearly all religions these day claim to follow the “one and only” God. You can’t all be right therefore you are all going to hell…. if it exists.

We have kept our kids (now 10yo and 7yo) out of scripture classes as we want them to make up their own minds when they are older. When one of them commented the other day “I don’t believe in God, he doesn’t exist” we endeavored to explain to her that she should make statements like that at her age as she wasn’t old enough to decide and was only just repeating what my wife and i believe, which is exactly the same as the child of a christian, jew or muslim stating that they do believe in God. They have simply been indoctrinated by their parents and their beliefs. They are too young to make up their own minds.

As for the chaplaincy program. The money would be better spent on trained counselors rather than untrained clergy with their religious biases.

HappyCynic says:

03:51pm | 01/03/11

@Captain Hero

No what I’m saying is that not everything in the Torah (I don’t follow that poorly translated version Christians like to bash) is meant to be interpreted literally because there may be no literal interpretation that makes any sense.

Christians have lost the true interpretation of the Old Testament precisely because they try to take it all too literally.  Perhaps I should direct my question at you, can you show me where in Genesis it defines how long a day is?

I admit it’s a rationalisation but you have to admit it’s a sh*tload smarter and less provocative than this largely unintelligent war between creation and evolution that’s just powered this article to 600 comments+.

BAG says:

04:03pm | 01/03/11

Oops, that line in the post above should read “we endeavored to explain to her that she   shouldn’t   make statements like that”

tiger says:

04:53pm | 01/03/11

@dave… Hel was a Norse goddess yes… records or her tales date back around the 9th century according to your stupid wikipedia sources… The word ‘Hell’ has been been saturated in the bible which… let’s just end it there… go to sleep dave~!!

kate says:

09:28am | 02/03/11

@Joan: “Weird how atheists continue to use religious terms such as heaven, hell, and invoke the name of Jesus at a time of frustration or anger”

The connection between me “invoking the name of Jesus” and your imaginary friend is the same as the connection between you exclaiming “s..t” and a bowel motion.  ie, possibly historical connection, now, zilch.

Servaas says:

06:41am | 04/03/11

Chong: I did not say Jesus is more real that Zeus and the other guys you mention. If it is the question you pose however: based on historical records, the prophecies ‘my’ Jesus fulfilled and the testing of His claims and my relationship with him. I have not met Zeus or actually heard much of his teachings but I do not refuse to believe in his existence because of that.

HappyCynic: You being a Jew, what was Abraham’s view on the Genesis account? Further, what do you mean there is no physical evidence for a biblical world view? What that see around you physically and manifesting in society stands in disagreement to the Christian worldview? The Christian worldview is the exact same as the Jewish world view regarding origins so how can you be a Jew and disagree so greatly with me?

PTom: I do not necessarily oppose ethical classes, I am not familiar with ethical classes, when I went to school they just taught us normal subjects with a Christian-value based culture determining the moral standards of the school, it was a bit tainted because of the individual teachers though. No matter what you do the ‘values’ has some foundation which the kids will be wrapped in.

Daniel Sinnott: I agree, I was actually joking about the fact that a well-functioning country like Aus would desire to bring in the craziness we call an education here in SA.

itmustbemagic: Since does writing a book qualify one as not being a fool? Richard Dawkins has written a few books and still his arguments are utterly foolish - I think he’s just to proud to own up to the nonsense he speaks. Nice guy though.

Matto: Unfortunately it’s not true just because people say so and the kids see through it. If they start to question the theories presented to them you can’t tell them to shut and believe it because science said so. Many Christians went that route in the past and is the reason that many still think the creation theory has no evidence supporting it. You can’t practice science dealing with the past without bringing beliefs into it. Do you honestly believe that pure evidence lead people to develop theories about an old earth and the evolution of less complex creatures into more complex ones? As in they believed something else and then realised: oh no, the earth is old actually. Ideas and beliefs shapes science.

Leah says:

12:19pm | 04/03/11

TChong, you’re seriously demonstrating your lack of education with your question. Every historian and archaeologist knows Jesus was a real person. There is more archaeological and historical evidence for him than for Julius Caesar.

Whether he was God or not is a different matter. There is no debating, however, that he was an awful lot more real than Shiva or Neptune.

Tim the Toolman - as I know several school chaplains and several scripture teachers, I can tell you the two roles are very different. The amount of religious stuff chaplains are allowed to do is a lot more restricted than that of scripture teachers.

Tony says:

02:48pm | 05/03/11

Who says government schools should teach the religion of secular humanism? Did Isaac Newton, the father of modern science say that? No he was a committed Christian and an inspiration to Voltaire who translated his works into French. Some conveniently forget contemporary Roman historians such as Josephus who acknowledges Jesus of Nazareth. His teaching changed the world forever, otherwise it would still be eye for eye. He can still change hearts today. But the blind lead the blind and both fall into the ditch. It is the hardness of your hearts that deceives.

Brigitte says:

02:20pm | 07/03/11

I’ve never understood the argument that if you do not believe in God and heaven you have no purpose in life, or if you don’t believe in the bible you have no moral compass.

I would much rather know that people are being morally good because they choose to then because they are scared of going to hell. I believe that is a much more optimistic view.

And natural selection does not mean that we have no purpose in life. The complexity of life becomes much more impressive when we understand natural selection and the millions of years of death and adaptation needed to make species what they are today. Not believing in God does not make my life feel obsolete, but instead shows how every living animal contributes to the survival and evolution of their successors.You need a true appreciation of the time required for evolution to ooccur to be greatful for the lives we have now.

Gillian says:

04:05pm | 07/03/11

I would like to see all religions discussed in public schools, similar to the way other countries cultures are discussed.  No bias, no coersion, just information to assist with understanding other people and their beliefs.  But I doubt this will ever happen.  Everyone seems okay with the ideal that christian beliefs are taught in school, but I expect an awful backlash if a class on Islam was introduced.

If we are truly a multicultural society, surely our schools should reflect a multitude of beliefs

Servaas says:

08:05am | 01/03/11

I’ve been reading a lot of the anti-God articles published on the Punch recently and the one thing I realised about Australian culture, which I haven’t before, is that many of you guys seem obsessed with Catholic church as the true and only Christianity, very Catholic of you I must say.

And the other thing I find awfully strange is how many anti-God or non-Christian people attend Catholic schools. Why go to schools where the alleged brain dead people teach and wander the school yard? Why not put your money together and not teach about sky fairies (what schools teach about sky fairies anyway?). If you refer to God as a sky fairy, you obviously never listened and is still not listening to basic history lessons - seeming to be one who considers the historical accounts of Jesus, the prophecies that predicted his coming, the way the bible fits in with extra-biblical history and your conclusion is sky fairies! Back to school for you sir.

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

08:57am | 01/03/11

@serarse on the contrary servarse I am not anti god that is like saying I am anti santa claus or anti the tooth fairy, the reality is there is no such thing the are OK for a while until kids grow up and realise they dont exist.
Im also not anti catholic church it doesnt matter which omnipresent supernatural dictator you worship, they still dont exist and it doesnt matter which building you go to to prostrate yourself at their feet, church, mosque, synagogue it is all rubbish and fairy tales designed to have power and control over the followers thoughts and actions.

Elizabeth says:

10:13am | 01/03/11

Asking `God to get to hell`.... Weird how atheists continue to use religious terms such as heaven, hell, and invoke the name of Jesus at a time of frustration or anger. JOAN….BULLSHIT!!! It’s people like you that need the LOGIC in their brains read…..Thanks Sir Ronald for some great comments.

Rassie says:

10:25am | 01/03/11

I feel very sad for your poor children. How can a parent tell a child there is no greater design for life and all life is, is to die?
No matter what you think you know or how misguided your views may be Ron, you can and will never force your views or believes
onto your kids, they will have to make their own choice eventually just like you have made yours and be accountable for them. Just like you.

Danno says:

10:28am | 01/03/11

Why is it that you anti Christian people always get so personal in your attacks, is it because inside you do think that there is some credit for God but your selfish (I live for me only and I will do what I want in this life) attitude is stopping you from actually wanting to learn more about God (i.e. read the Bible) before you make stupid comments. Not many dictators will send their son to die for you and create you so that you actually have a free will and intelligence to make decisions. You believe that the universe as vast and complex as it is, and human beings as complex and well designed as we are, all came about by accident and by chance (and pure luck). Now that’s faith in ‘chance’ if anything, and who are the ones being brainwashed? At the end of the day, if you are right and there is no God, then we will all end up as dirt, but if you are wrong, then that’s a different story. For those that don’t believe in God, then don’t use the words “Jesus”, “Hell”, “Heaven”, “forgiveness”, “mercy”, the list goes on as these are all associated with God. At the end of the day, irrespective of what is taught at school, it is up to the individual to make the decision, another gift that we have. God won’t mess with your brains, society (without God) does a great job at it already.

Tom says:

10:50am | 01/03/11

@Elizabeth - Do you want logic? How about the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy/mass cannot be created or destroyed. This restriction means that everything you see around you cannot come from nothing. If you had an empty, sealed cardboard box (represents the Universe), what are the chances of you opening this cardboard box, under the laws of thermodynamics, and finding something in there that wasn’t there before? Logically, the only way to find something in that box is if it was put there by Someone not contained to physical laws…

I’m fine with the Singularity and big bang as concepts/means to and end - but c’mon people, how can you possibly think that it is illogical to believe in God, when you yourselves believe that in the beginning, there was nothing - which exploded.

acotrel says:

11:23am | 01/03/11

@Tom.  The first law of thermodynamics is irrelevant.  We’re all a figment of God’s imagination!

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

11:27am | 01/03/11

@rassie dont feel sorry for me or my kids all are high achievers and have a compassionate caring balanced view of the world they have been exposed to all teachings and have made vaild informed choices which by and large we keep to ourselves, except when we see utter rubbish displayed.
@Danno if you read other comments I am not anti god as I previously said I am no more anti god than I am anti santa claus or anti tooth fairy how can you be anti anything that doesnt exist. Also Danno I use those words because they exist that is like asking you dont use the word secular or atheist and i didnt realise that the words forgiveness and mercy were strictly for use by christians. Whilst we are on the subject perhaps you could get all the evangilists and other zealots to stop knocking on my door when I am trying to relax wanting me to see the light, make a donation or buy a magazine that is going to open my eyes to the real way. Funhny as an non believer I dont feel the need to go and knock on others peoples doors to push down their throats how excited I am that I dont believe or ask for donations to a non believers cause try to sell them a magazine proporting my views, no I keep them to myself until I see some of the rubbish I have read on this blog.

anna says:

11:31am | 01/03/11

Why is it so important that everyone believes as you do? Does your ego need that much of a boost?
And seeing as though you lump God in with the tooth fairy, do/did you let your kids believe in ‘it’? What about Santa claus? A bit hypocritical don’t you think?

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

12:06pm | 01/03/11

@anna opinions are like arseh….. anna everyone has one and yours is just as important relevant and useful as mine no more no less it is just my opinion and you dont have to believe what i believe.

James1 says:

12:21pm | 01/03/11

anna, I am going to assume you are a Christian.  Does not the Christian god tell us not to lie?  In any case, whichever religion you are they all say not to lie.

I will assume also that you have told your children or those of others that Santa and the Tooth Fairy exist, or at the least have not disavowed them of such a belief.  Or in other words, I am assuming that you yourself have lied.

Who is the hypocrite?

Daniel says:

12:24pm | 01/03/11

@anna: The difference is kids grow up to realise Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are imaginary, yet people are quite happy to keep believing in god…

Chris L says:

12:27pm | 01/03/11

@Danno, just how personally insulting have we been Danno? Have we called you “selfish” or"stupid”? Perhaps referring to the religon you follow as fictitious feels like a vicious personal attack to you, but I don’t think you’re being objective about that. I think it’s more personal to use the insults in your post, but I’m not going to let that bother me.

I’ll keep using common use terms such as “hell”, “mercy” and sometimes common phrases such as “god knows” for as long as you keep using terms such as “free will” and “universe” and using things like computers and the internet.

PS. No respected scientist has ever said life came about by accident or chance.  Read up on Natural Selection and Abiogenesis to see how life may have come about the way it is. Please note, these are scientific theories, they fit the existing evidence when they were formed and have continued to fit new evidence as it is discovered.

Sir Richard says:

12:38pm | 01/03/11

@ Sir Bradnam , funny that the moment you are confronted with a n argument you pull out the grude words as to refer to Servaas as serarse, you are the real arse you fool. Evolution, science and religion have a common thread that link them together.
Your problem is a combination of arrogance and ignorance, sorry no cure for that , you will have to live with it in your boring life.
As for Tracey Spicer, she should stick to what she knows , reading news from a TV monitor , you have no knowledge or credibality of the topic you are commenting, stick to your knitting

Damo says:

12:57pm | 01/03/11

Jeez you talk it up mate, you and your high achieving kids, your rescue business, who gives a toss. Does that make your opinion more important or correct, to me you sound just like a massive tool. Your obviously really funny too with the “sir” in front of your name, classic comedy.

Lee says:

01:07pm | 01/03/11

@ Danno and Tom

So because science can’t, at this time, explain the cause of The Big Bang, your explanation is “well it must have been God!!(ie. A theoretical deity whose existence has no proof whatsoever)”  Hmmm… Who’s being illogical now?

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

02:13pm | 01/03/11

@Sir Richard I have a very energetic unboring life to be honest full of friends sport, travel and family so dont pretend you know my life. I am niether ignorant nor arrogant I serve on a not for profit board donate money to charity and do one day a week for people who need assistance in there life all i do happily for no remuneration and i am not a believer.
On top of that I have time to run my businesses and mentor people in a business role.
The biggest problems with christians( all believers really) are that they expect everybody else to see what they see and cant understand it when people dont, they dont have a sense of humour and take everything far to seriously. My case in point is your little speil, I dont take it personally that you dont agree with me..

Matthew says:

02:13pm | 01/03/11

Servaas, it’s not a requirement for teachers to be catholic when they work in a catholic school in Australia.  Quite the opposite.  And most people send their kids there because those schools get so much funding from the government, unlike public schools.

People say Christianity because it’s often the most visible.  The truth is that athiests treat all religions (that have a super human being/s as a “leader”) with the same contempt.

Matthew says:

02:23pm | 01/03/11

Tom, clearly you’re missing the number one rule of Science that overrides all other laws, theorys, rules and test results.

Nothing is ever 100% proven.  It’s impossible to test for every case and therefore every rule can be changed/overridden when necessary.  It’s the questions that are important in Science, not the answer.

HappyCynic says:

03:06pm | 01/03/11

@Tom

Amateur.  The Big Bang theory does not violate the first law of thermodynamics and here’s how.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows for the creation of a particle-antiparticle pair out of a vacuum which violates the law of conservation of energy and allows such violations for a very short time. This phenomenon has observable and measurable consequences, which have been tested and confirmed.

The net energy of the universe is actually zero if you assume the universe is a closed system (like a box) the negative gravitational potential energy actually cancels out any positive potential energy from matter in the universe and does so EXACTLY!!

In the inflationary scenario, the mass-energy of matter was produced during a rapid initial inflation.  The field responsible for inflation has negative pressure, allowing the universe to do work on itself as it expands.  This is allowed by the first law of thermodynamics.

In other words, no energy was required to “create” the universe.  The zero total energy of the universe is an observational fact, within measured uncertainties, of course.

Damo says:

03:25pm | 01/03/11

More talk ups, and now hypocricy . You are a believer, though you believe in evolution, but you are a believer (the ones you have the biggest problem with). If a monkey turned into a man today it does not mean it happened thousands of years ago, likewise if Jesus turned up today it would not prove he was here thousands of years ago. Science can only be proved through observation and then re-testing again and again. You believe in evolution, this requires alot of faith because it has not been proven its a theory, (missing link is still missing) ,you do believe in something just like everyone else.

Tim the Toolman says:

04:21pm | 01/03/11

@Damo
“You believe in evolution, this requires alot of faith because it has not been proven its a theory, (missing link is still missing) ,you do believe in something just like everyone else. “

No faith.  You simply don’t understand what a scientific theory is (I hope).  You’re thinking of an idea (i.e, before it’s even a hypothesis).

Evolution has been tested and survived thousands of times so far.  No faith required there.  If it’s wrong, please posit another theory that stands up to such rigorous testing (it MUST be testable).

Joan says:

05:43pm | 01/03/11

Sir….. R B…....  Sir???  (delusions of some phoney grandeur)  you think Sir makes your comments very important .?.. Ha!.  And to Elizabeth…....... the only thing sensible thing you wrote were my words the rest was crap…. zilch

iMitchy says:

05:46pm | 01/03/11

@ Tom,
“how can you possibly think that it is illogical to believe in God, when you yourselves believe that in the beginning, there was nothing - which exploded.”

Okay, firstly, many people who believe in God believe in evolution over creationism. I don’t think the theory of evolution has any bearing of whether or not there is a God, its rival is Creationism - a fantasy devised by fanatical religious types who take the Bible to be literal.
Secondly, the big bang theory does not say that there was nothing which exploded, it says that there was singularity which expanded.

I have never met a Creationist who used anything more than “evolution hasn’t been proven” to support their theory. Well it doesn’t. The basis of Creationism is that it cannot be proved or disproved as there is no evidence whatsoever for its validity, as is the core principle in the existence of God also.
I would argue that there is enough evidence to support evolution as to completely rule out Creationism.

@Rassie,
“How can a parent tell a child there is no greater design for life and all life is, is to die?”

This is the whole reason for religion in the first place. I put it to you that “if we didn’t die, people wouldn’t give a fuck about God” (fantastic Ben Harper quote who is by the way, a christian) and religion would have never been invented.
I also put it to you that religions can develop over time as people want them to and can be forgotten about all together. It is man-made.
God didn’t create intelligent life, intelligent life created God.

I’m happy for you to follow a faith if it is constructive but the children of atheists do not want your pity. I bet they actually feel sorry for you because unlike them, you only have one storybook.

Chris L says:

06:51pm | 01/03/11

@Damo “the missing link is still missing” - it’s not the same missing link Damo. Everytime a new fossil is discovered to show the transition between states instead of acknowledging that this “missing link” has been settled the religious people just point and say “now there are two smaller missing links”.

Simply put, the faithful can try to argue against the science but there is no amount of evidence they (you) will accept compared to your belief in an unknowable, undetectable and unproven deity that supposedly always existed and suddenly decided to create a universe and dictate rules to it.

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

08:51pm | 01/03/11

Elizabeth and Chris L it warms my heart to know there are other normal people out there that dont need the crutch of some glorious afterlife that exists as a crutch to get them through life. If it is going to be that good why arent they in more of a hurry to get there.
They just need to go back to watching Hillsong and other evangalical crap and leave the normal people alone.

Servaas says:

06:51am | 04/03/11

Ah, Sir Ronald!! You’ve cleared it all up for me now. You said there is no god, then obviously there isn’t one. How fantastic! Thanks for sharing your wisdom with me. I always thought there was a god but then you, omniscient Sir Bradnam, came along and freed me from my stupidity.

No Christian can possibly think for themselves or done anything to prove they have at least some mental capacity but fear not Sir Bradnam is here! O Sir Bradnam, your intellect to know there is no god astounds the nations. Imagine a stand off between you and Stone Cold Steve Austin: Because Stone Cold said so! Because Sir Ronald said so! Because Stone Cold said so! Because Sir Ronald said so! .. who will ever decide the winner.

Not anti-God? Better explained then: against the idea of god existing.

Come on sir, come on.

Peter says:

10:45am | 04/03/11

Oh would it not be good if our children were taugh the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Lets take out the ridicule, the mockery, false teachings, derogartry opinions out of the dicussions. Lets teach our children how to discern, how to think for themselves. Lets us lay all the available evidence before them so they can decide. The best defence against a false theory is to expose the opposing theory’s faults and short comings by simply presenting the truth. For example, simply set out in order with supporting evidence how the human eye or heart or lungs or body evolved and let the religious education teacher, teach their theory of creation with their supporting evidence . If you treat each as a theory taught with their supporting evidence you will expose one as false. That will simply pull the rug out from under them. There can only be one true history of this universe.  It is either evolution by chance or creation by a supreme being. Just a thought, if I cannot see, touch or hear something my self, how do I know it is true. For, example I am told that Columbus discovered America yet I have not met the man, nor was I on his ship, nor have I seen any actual verified documentation to prove his feat and yet how many of us accept this account of his travels to be true. My point is, how often do we accept a report to be true with out actually verifying the matter for ourselves. What we choose to believe, with or without the evidence placed before us does not make that account to be true or if we choose not to believe make it false. Example, how many people have been convicted in court and put to death because of false or misinterpreted evidence. The best defence of either theory is to continue to present the facts with the supporting evidence available and to simply rebuf any opposition with simple facts and not broad sweeping retorts.

Steve Davis says:

11:14am | 04/03/11

Oh yes Mr Bradnam, you are an esteemed authority on the existence of a creator aren’t you? Your comments show an unbelievable depth of arrogance, stupidity, ignorance and gullibility. I am glad I’m not an adolescent benefactor of your wisdom, the thought of being in possession of an attitude like yours in my later years would be a pretty frightening prospect.

Peter says:

03:56pm | 04/03/11

Mr Sir Ronald B mentions such things as having an unboring life, high achivers, compassionate caring, balance view of the world etc. To be scienctific we must have a standard by which to measure boring, achievement, compassion, balance etc. What is your bases for judging your life to be balance, boring or caring. Who sets those standards? Did you or someone else. Why should you or someone else set those standards? Who are we to condem another persons point of view. Who says it is wrong or right to take another persons belongings or life - for that is how some people survive. Can we judge them by our standards? Can we impose our belief upon them to treat baby girls and boys equally? Can we condemn someone for stealing or killing another because we believe it is wrong? Remember, is it not the rule of evolution the strong triump over the weak so why show compassion to another? You say we all have rights - what is rights? What is wrong? By what value sytem do you live and why is it better that the next.

Uncle Fester says:

11:16am | 21/12/11

@ Servaas - True!  I agree that there is scope for many more religions than the Catholics.  Personally, I am a Pastafarian, devoted disciple of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Blessed I have been to have been touched by his noodly appendage…...

Craig says:

08:02am | 01/03/11

Ok, i’ll bite. In my experience Christianity and compassion are not related. Sure, some Christians are good people, but many, especially the evangelicals are really not at all nice. And you want to see self centered, check out a Hill Song gig.

Bill Door says:

08:10am | 01/03/11

What? Christians only have compassion? I’m sure Fred Hollows would disagree with you. That is if he wasn’t really plant food.

Eleanor says:

08:16am | 01/03/11

I’m an atheist, FM, and I’m compassionate. I do this because it’s the right thing to do, not because I’m motivated by the fear of my immortal soul and the prospect of spending an enternity in Hell.

In fact, it could be argued that atheism is more moral than Christianity - technically, we have nothing to gain personally from compassion and respect. The religiously devout, however, need to do this or else go to Hell.

AliceC says:

08:25am | 01/03/11

You don’t need to be a Christian to be compassionate.

dex says:

08:26am | 01/03/11

Since when does teaching compassion involve complete fantasy? Morals are not instilled by God, merely by our evolved social conditions. Children need to deal with real world situations, be taught real world ethics and generally learn how to interact with their peers/teachers/adults without a backlog of BS. I really feel sorry for kids put into christian schools who are too young to realise they are already being brainwashed. Get ‘em while they’re young I guess. Great article Tracey.

undertow says:

08:33am | 01/03/11

I think you’ll find the god fearing as self-absorbed as the godless. Perhaps more so, because the primary goal is to gain entry into the heavenly afterlife, rather than create their own slice of heaven in the here and now.

Pieman says:

08:36am | 01/03/11

‘Christain compassion’ - so no one from any other religion has compassion?  Atheists have no compassion?

Nice try - but no.

Mayday says:

08:36am | 01/03/11

Compassion is not and does not belong to Christians alone it is part of being human.

Tim the Toolman says:

08:57am | 01/03/11

“christian compassion”

Huzzah, the oxymoron of the day has arrived!  What’s next?  Islamic humour?  Buddhist gender equality?  Norse pacifism?  Hari Krishner oath of silence?

Luke says:

09:05am | 01/03/11

@Eleanor

“The religiously devout, however, need to do this or else go to Hell. “

The whole idea of Christianity has nothing to do with rules and what you need to do to get to Heaven. Without sounding too preachy, Jesus died on the cross so that we may be FREE from all of that.

What the? says:

09:14am | 01/03/11

If God does not exist then Morals are relative. If the Universe popped into existense uncaused by nothing, then everything thereafter is just one big lucky accident, You and I are just a bunch of random cells evolved to a higher order. Where do morals fit in? Absolute morals do not exist. Society apparently determines morals but each society has their own view of morals but everyone will say what Hitler did was wrong…why? Why is the Australian view on morals right and others wrong. If you keep to your Atheism and be consitent, this life has no meaning, no purpose and is just one lucky cosmic accident. But I still can’t get over the fact you believe that things just pop into existence from absolutely nothing.

Tim the Toolman says:

09:31am | 01/03/11

“But I still can’t get over the fact you believe that things just pop into existence from absolutely nothing. “

Yet you choose to believe, on the basis of no evidence, that your god is the right one out of the thousands humanity has invented, and somehow managed to avoid “popping into existence” himself, with no explanation of how this could be etc…

Right.  You’re the one grounded in reality here…

Luke says:

09:32am | 01/03/11

@Tim the Toolman

“christian compassion”
Huzzah, the oxymoron of the day has arrived!

Explain why almost all non-profit organisations administering compassion are faith based agencies?

Danny says:

09:56am | 01/03/11

What the?, your are on the right track. Life has no meaning or purpose other than you make for yourself. Morality is drawn from a humanist perspective. I wouldn’t like something being done to me so ethically I should not do it to someone else. That is not to say that everyone chooses their own actions and values but we do live in a society that has guides (laws) to the morality of our actions. Most people work within these boundaries and get punished if they don’t.

As for the big bang theory, going on the EVIDENCE it is the best theory we have as opposed to “god did it”

Tim the Toolman says:

10:08am | 01/03/11

“Explain why almost all non-profit organisations administering compassion are faith based agencies? “

Largely a historical legacy, actually.  It’s no different to “corporate responsibility”.  You screw people over 95% of the time and then yell about how great you are the rest of the time (and get the associated tax benefits…religions love their tax benefits).  That, and probably the whole “I don’t want to burn in hell” motivation.

Elphaba says:

10:25am | 01/03/11

Didn’t morals evolve along with our unprecedented large brains?  Formations of communities was vital for survival, and we couldn’t form a community without a set of morals.

Morals were in existence long before religion…

Brad says:

10:27am | 01/03/11

@ Danny

Who’s to say God didnt create the big bang?

What the? says:

10:37am | 01/03/11

@ Tim the tool man.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe had a beginning.
3. The universe has a cause.

Which premise is wrong there?
The Big Bang points to there being a beginning of the Universe. If your view is that the Universe just popped into being from nothing and by nothing, then that is not reality at all. Give me an example of something coming into being from absolutely nothing?
Therefore, something caused the universe to exist 13billion years ago. What ever ‘caused’ the universe to exist cannot be contained in it’s own existence. Time, energy and matter were created at the Big Bang (common scientific stuff here), so what ever was prior to the Big Bang must be timeless, spaceless and obviously powerful enough to bring a Universe into existence.
But, if you believe that a Universe can come into existence uncaused, from nothing and by nothing, then your reality states that the chances of a donkey popping into existence into your lounge room reading the latest womans day is in reality a possibility for you as this is mathmatically more plausible than for a life permitting Universe to do the same.

That toolman is your reality, but I bet you don’t believe it do you.

Mr Right says:

10:54am | 01/03/11

Luke ’ Explain why almost all non-profit organisations administering compassion are faith based agencies?’.... arr mate I think you’ll find it’s all about tax.. a not-for-profit organisation gets certain tax breaks, but if it’s religious they pay no tax and profits can be passed back to the church, you will also find that the religious non-profit organisations do actually make a profit, but they funnel this profit back into the ‘umbrella organisation’ aka the church.  have a chat to an accountant for one of these organisations and you will ‘see the light’

Danny says:

11:18am | 01/03/11

Brad, interesting theory you have there. What evidence do you have to support it?

Tim the Toolman says:

11:18am | 01/03/11

“That toolman is your reality, but I bet you don’t believe it do you. “

Yes, actually, it’s as close to an approximation of what I understand happened, based on available evidence.  There is evidence, mathematically, of stuff popping in and out of existence all the time, within our universe.  On top of that, I don’t actually propose what happened…all we understand currently is that there was nothing, and then there was something.  There may have been something before the nothing, but it’s impossible (currently) to tell. 

The difference is, I’ll admit I don’t know…but what I can say, is that there’s no reason to believe it was a god, and certainly no reason to believe it was one particular human invented god, out of all the others, is there?  Is there any evidence it was your god rather than, say, the aboriginal myth?  Or the ancient greeks, or Norse, or thousands of others of mythological ideas on what caused all this?

What the? says:

11:55am | 01/03/11

@ Tim the Toolman,

Thankyou for your honesty in saying that you do not know. Whatever was prior to the Universe is a phylosophical question, not a science question since science can only deal with material things, not phylosophical arguments. The things created from nothing that you alude too are sub atomic particles created in the Quantum Vacuum. Scientifically speaking, the Quantum Vacuum is not nothing, rather it is a mass of energy bring into existence and destroying particles. This is the theory that Stephen Hawking proposes, basically that Gravity has always existed. This theory alone allows for the donkey argument I made before.
From our current evidence, the Universe began to exist and it will always lead us to an un-caused cause to create the universe. Antony Flew was a famous Atheist that many Atheists loved but had the decency to follow where the evidence lead him. He took an objective look at scientific evidence which eventually lead him to become a Deist. The Atheistic crowd crucified for thinking such things.

As for why Christianity,, Hindu, Islam, that is a another subject altogether but one that is easily answered by careful objective study looking at the evidence yet again.

Toolman, I have only appealed to basic scientific rules with no religion, based on that alone, God cannot be ruled out, but is more plausible than not.

Anne71 says:

12:57pm | 01/03/11

Compassion is not the sole preserve of Christianity, funky monkey. Buddhism, for example, is very much about compassion for all living things, human and non-human. And Buddhists didn’t feel the need to slaughter and torture millions of people throughout history in order to force their beliefs on others.

Another athiest charity worker says:

01:05pm | 01/03/11

There are lots of religious charities because they have the money. There are also plenty of non-religious charities doing great work if you care to look.  As for everything needing a creator ... who created god then?

Tim the Toolman says:

01:39pm | 01/03/11

“Scientifically speaking, the Quantum Vacuum is not nothing, rather it is a mass of energy bring into existence and destroying particles.”

That would be slightly incorrect based on my understanding.  The particles appear into the quantum vacuum, but they do not come from it.

“From our current evidence, the Universe began to exist and it will always lead us to an un-caused cause to create the universe.”

That still requires an original mover which exists somewhere outside of space-time.  But what created that?  And what created that?  You can’t simply call into being a god, and say that it makes sense. 

“one that is easily answered by careful objective study looking at the evidence yet again.”

I’d be interested in hearing what evidence there is for any one god over another.  To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence for anything supernatural right now.

“but is more plausible than not. “

I disagree.  If you approach the problem without deciding first that a god is a valid theory, then there is no way a god would ever come into the mix, based on evidence, much less a very specific god (who was part of a pantheon in the start anyway, so, I don’t know where we go from there) of a very specific mountain.

Shifter says:

01:55pm | 01/03/11

@Danny - what evidence do you have to refute Brad’s theory?

It’s an interesting call, and one that I like mainly for the global harmony sake of things (yes, there is a god, no he hasn’t done much except for set off a big bang and maybe perhaps threw meteors at dinosaurs for fun), but it’s a theory that is equally hard to prove and disprove hence promoting a certain amount of faith either way.

Your name:Chris says:

01:56pm | 01/03/11

@What the? -  Surely you are claiming that God just ‘popped into existence from nothing’???

Snoogens says:

02:27pm | 01/03/11

@ Toolman,

“That would be slightly incorrect based on my understanding.  The particles appear into the quantum vacuum, but they do not come from it.”

You need the Quantum Vacuum for the particles to exist, without the Vacuum, the particles cannot exist.

“That still requires an original mover which exists somewhere outside of space-time.  But what created that?  And what created that?  You can’t simply call into being a god, and say that it makes sense.”

Your assumption that whatever was prior to the Universe must of been created is false. If time begins at the creation of the universe then whatever is outside of the universe is eternal. Eternal means no beginning, no end. We must arrive at an un-caused cause.

“I’d be interested in hearing what evidence there is for any one god over another.  To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence for anything supernatural right now.”

I’m talking about Theism, not about religion.

“I disagree.  If you approach the problem without deciding first that a god is a valid theory, then there is no way a god would ever come into the mix, based on evidence, much less a very specific god (who was part of a pantheon in the start anyway, so, I don’t know where we go from there) of a very specific mountain. “

I totally disagree, as with Antony Flew. The evidence all around is pretty clear that everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist thus the universe has a cause. Evidence for a universe popping into existense like magic doesn’t exist I’m sorry, it’s actually worse than magic, at least with magic you have a magician.

Danny says:

02:35pm | 01/03/11

@ Shifter, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

The possibilities of the “cause” the big bang are many. There is no reason to say it wasn’t the flying spaghetti monster either but I have no evidence to support that theory.

LC says:

03:29pm | 01/03/11

@ What The

“1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.”

So then answer me one question: Who/What created god?

If the answer is “God has always existed” then how does that make any more or less sense than the opinion that the universe has always existed?

If the answer is “God just appeared out of nowhere” then how does that make any more or less sense than the opinion that the universe just appeared out of nowhere?

Tim the Toolman says:

04:00pm | 01/03/11

“You need the Quantum Vacuum for the particles to exist, without the Vacuum, the particles cannot exist. “

Yes, but where do they come from and wqhere do they go, that was my point.

“Eternal means no beginning, no end. We must arrive at an un-caused cause.”

Fine, the universe is eternal.  No god required.  Or it spontaneously exploded into existence like a particle into the quantum vacuum.

“I’m talking about Theism, not about religion.”

Both suppose the existence of something that has no evidence.  For the purposes of this discussion, they are the same.

“The evidence all around is pretty clear that everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist thus the universe has a cause.”

A cause need not be a sentient entity.  Wind arises from a series of non-sentient events and sets things in motion.  This still does not require the existence of a god.  Who knows, maybe some event in another universe was sufficiently powerful/random to generate our universe…the point is, there’s no evidence for a god and far, far, far less for a specific god.

Andrew says:

04:04pm | 01/03/11

Why do humans have this need to know EVERYTHING?  And when we can’t or don’t know, why do we make up something supernatural to fill the void?  Yes, we don’t know how the universe came into being.  Science cannot, at this point, explain it adequately.  Just like, 1000 years ago, we had no idea how the sun worked, or how stars were created, or how the seasons were caused.  And guess what - back then, all of these things were attributed to gods.  No idea what caused tides, so I guess god did it.  No idea why it’s hotter in summer, must be god.  Gee, that was a bad storm, I guess god is angry.  Now, we know how all of these things come about, and it surely isn’t any god, just the forces of nature at work.  I’m sure in another 1000 years, we’ll know a lot more about the universe, and maybe will look back and wonder how us primitive people of 2011 could have possibly not understood how the universe was created.

The “Laws of thermodynamics” are also not absolute.  In fact, most laws of physics are just based on observation of what happens most of the time.  Newtons laws of gravity and motion, for example, do not work at all for very small or very large objects - relativity and quantum mechanics completely distort them.  But they’re very useful for most applications, so we use them.  Even some of the fundamental laws of physics, such as conservation of matter, are clearly not always true - mass is created and destroyed every millisecond in nuclear reactions - but on the whole they’re pretty close, so we keep them.  So to use these as some kind of dogma to say “oh, the universe cannot exist” is just utter stupidity - the universe DOES exist, therefore if some law of physics contradicts that, the law is wrong (in that instance).  Saying that “God did it” is just ridiculous, you may as well say “my cat did it”, because it’s just as likely.  If the creation of the universe contradicts the conservation of energy, then the conservation of energy is wrong, not the universe.  At some point in time we WILL understand what happened billions of years ago, and it will make perfect sense.  Until then, there is nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know”.

There are many many gaps in scientific knowledge, but a lot fewer than there once was.  And strangely enough, every time we fill a gap, what ‘god’ has done shrinks a bit.  As of know, the ‘creation of the universe’ is just about god’s last refuge, because it’s the one thing that will be very difficult to know for certain for quite a while, since we cant’ exactly recreate it.  But history tells us that every single thing previously attributed to ‘god’ (sun, moon, eclipses, tides, seasons, weather, plagues, disease, medicine, genetics, emotions, etc, etc, etc) has been proven to be the result of quite natural forces, so I don’t think this one will be any different..

notSue says:

04:09pm | 01/03/11

@Tim The Toolman

One small correction. As far as I’m aware, The Dharma (the teachings of The Buddha) are for everyone, male and female. It is an accident of the cultures in which Buddhism arose and originally thrived that gender segregation became the norm.

LOLreligion says:

04:43pm | 01/03/11

Where is this so called ‘Christian compassion’ when little boys are being raped by preists?

Tim the Toolman says:

04:54pm | 01/03/11

“It is an accident of the cultures in which Buddhism arose and originally thrived that gender segregation became the norm. “

Thanks notSue, you are most probably correct.  Buddhism is the one I have the least issue with…that said, I still think it promotes sloppy thinking, but, that’s usually about as bad as it gets.

Kate says:

09:57am | 02/03/11

@Luke “Explain why almost all non-profit organisations administering compassion are faith based agencies?”
Well how about you explain:

1. How the following very significant secular charities can function if compassion is limited to christians?

- The Smith Family
- Red Cross
- Oxfam
- UNICEF
- Fred Hollows Foundation
- Water Aid
- Save The Children
- Doctors Without Borders
- The Gates Foundation
- SHARE (Secular Humanist Aid & Relief Effort)
- Amnesty International

and many more.

2.  How you can be so certain that faith-based charities are “admnistering companssion” when:

- Vinnies sacking a non-catholic store manager was justified by evidence in court that ” the primary aim of the charity was to advance catholicism” (ie, not “to benefit the poor”)

- Wesley’s refusal to allow gay foster parents was justified by evidence in court that it was against its religious principles.

Not much compassion there, hmm?

RMW says:

02:07pm | 05/03/11

Kate said: “How you can be so certain that faith-based charities are “admnistering companssion” when:
- Vinnies sacking a non-catholic store manager was justified by evidence in court that ” the primary aim of the charity was to advance catholicism” (ie, not “to benefit the poor”)
- Wesley’s refusal to allow gay foster parents was justified by evidence in court that it was against its religious principles.
Not much compassion there, hmm?”

I see no difference in maintaining the identity of a religious charity and compassion. Beside, if someone from a “secular charity” starts advocating some religion or some other philosophy that goes against it’s “secular” identity, will that “secular charity” still employ that person?

harry t says:

07:04am | 01/03/11

It is a good thing that ethics is offered. But it should be offered to all. Religion and ethics are not in competition. Your comments about the bible teaching the ‘ignorant’ are true, but only God would know how ignorant we really are. 
By the way, I know of a school in Sydney where the numbers of kids being sent to scripture (by their parents, it has always been opt-in Tracey)  have seen a jump in numbers since ethics classes were offered.

Luke says:

08:34am | 01/03/11

“ethics in schools is a big step forward.”

Who’s deciding these ethics?

Luce says:

09:05am | 01/03/11

Luke, the St James Ethics centre, a body dedicated to exactly that.

Check it out:

http://www.ethics.org.au/content/ethics-based-complement-to-scripture

Luke says:

09:36am | 01/03/11

@Luce

Cool thanks!

An Anglican Church started the Ethics Centre.

Luce says:

09:58am | 01/03/11

So it was.. Nice to see there are some religious people who believe in the secular teaching of ethics.

As stated on their website: “St James Ethics Centre has no political or religious affiliations.”

Brendan says:

10:08am | 01/03/11

Luke , yes an Anglican group may of started the ethics center and they have come out with some very good proposals, so we are choosing to adopt them. The ethics course offered is not forcing pseudoscience down children s throats but instead letting them think critically about situations and learning about various forms of ethics.

Bobster says:

12:22pm | 01/03/11

Who’s deciding the ethics?

You are aware that ethics are based on a philosophical tradition that pre-dates Christianity by a thousand or so years, aren’t you?

There’s been a bit of research into ethics in the last few millenia, might be worth teaching the kids a bit about it? What do you reckon?

Col the Pariah says:

10:35am | 02/03/11

When I attended a state selective school in my long ago youth, i figured out the way to avoid scripture classes.  When renewing enrolment and information at the start of each year there was always a question of which religion you were.  I always stated I was a Kimlamlensian Revisionist and was never placed in scripture.  I don’t know what I would have done if they ever found another that was capable of teaching….

Tom says:

08:09am | 01/03/11

Do these fairy tales include, gw, victimhood, hating males, cultural cringe, envy, black armband history and the nanny state will deliver?

clazberri says:

11:09am | 01/03/11

@ Tom

What does “gw” stand for?

Shifter says:

02:05pm | 01/03/11

I think it’s gender warfare.. which has got me thinking about little assault guys creeping through the vents, coming in through the ceiling - that James Bond shit never happens in real life! Professionals don’t do that!

Bobster says:

04:31pm | 01/03/11

Ah gender warfare. Here’s a guy who got the shits because he has to do the dishes now, so he’s invented a conspiracy theory to make himself feel better. It’s the communists again. It’s always the communists.

Reg says:

04:54pm | 01/03/11

Commies do suck the big one…

Danielle says:

06:00pm | 01/03/11

Especially seeing the deplorable lack of writing and mathematical skills that our teenagers are leaving high school with these days. Where are the children’s parents in all this? Surely the teaching of ethics. morals. kindness, compassion and service to others (none of which Christianity has the monopoly on) begin long before the child reaches school age and continues onward throughout the lifetime.

? says:

01:54pm | 02/03/11

most of the arguments of those opposed to God,are composed of personal attacks and speaking a mantra of “fairy tales"non of them have produced any evidence against Christianity,except they have taken the bad things done in the name of Jesus and the church and have made that the rule,all the people who have commented so far have been ignorant while claiming that Christians are ignorant because they show that they don’t know the bible or it’s correct teachings(the book they claim is wrong)they show this by there comments the ones who have presented evidence and rational sensible discussion have been believers in God,if you claim to be rational then comment sensibility instead of insulting people saying that belif in God is a fairy tale this not an argument it is a mantra that you may think that if you say long and loud you thing that it will become true, many top scientist believe in God philosophy has a place for God,the discussion about God and the bible’s authenticity is debated in universities,why? because it is able to stand up to testing the people who are now trying to force their belifs or non beliefs on others are the atheists not alowing other people to voice their beliefs I won’t keep going because most of those in this discussion are on non thinking mode they don’t even think about it because they have made up their minds .

Craig says:

08:04am | 01/03/11

Catholics do have their own schools, this is half the point. Why should they also be teaching in state schools? If you want a religious education, go to a religious school. It’s pretty simple.

Luce says:

08:07am | 01/03/11

How exactly do you justify that assertion anthony?

Mark says:

10:23am | 01/03/11

Craig,

Some people send their children to state-run schools due to the fact that they cannot afford to send their children to a Catholic school. The Catholic children in these schools have a Catachism lesson once a week for 30 minutes. I’m sure that if their parents could afford it they would send their children to a Catholic school.

Luce says:

10:47am | 01/03/11

Mark,

If you can’t afford to send your kids to a catholic school and still want to give them a religious education, send them to church - it’s free. That way they receive their teachings about God, and the kids who were sent to a public school to avoid religious classes, don’t get teachings about God. Simple.

acotrel says:

07:25am | 01/03/11

@Robin.
’ I don’t think religion has any place in our public school system. ‘

I strongly disagree.  A knowledge of religion is essential.  It is part of our everyday life and it’s use to control and manipulate is ever present.  Ignorance of it is dangerous!

Luke says:

08:29am | 01/03/11

Shouldn’t parents, who cannot afford private religious education, be able to send their children to a public school and be exposed to 30mins of basic teaching from the Bible?

Nathan says:

09:05am | 01/03/11

@Luke

If you can’t afford to send them to a private religious school, but still want them to be “exposed to basic teaching from the bible” - then take them to church. Last time I checked, it’s free.

Luce says:

09:46am | 01/03/11

Luke, public schools are meant to be secular, i.e. they’re not meant to bias one religion over another or allow religion to interfere with education.

As Nathan says, take them to church if you want to give them religious education

Dean says:

06:20pm | 01/03/11

Good point acotrel.  The funny thing is that no one is more opposed to the teaching of comparative religion in school than… the religous.  Wonder why…

Jason says:

12:52pm | 01/03/11

I agree, teach kids theology. Like it or not religion has always played a major part, good or bad, in the world and dispassionate knowledge of these things helps put current and historical events into perspective. Why does Isreal shoot rockets into Palestine? Why do those men where orange robes? Why do some people oppose stem-cell research?

Teach the history of religion, the basic tennents of their respective faiths, the times when the scriptures were written, and suddenly so much will fall into place. This information is invaluable regardless of whether the child choses to follow a faith or not.

Most people do not seem to understand the difference between religion and scripture.

My young children go to a (religious-affiliated) private school and I’m an atheist (though my kids don’t understand that at this stage) and I teach them theology at home. My eldest is sucking up the information because it is so facinating.

Danny B says:

09:24am | 01/03/11

Joan,

I can’t believe I’m dignifying this post with a response.  You’re slamming someone as ‘weak minded’ based on a single, assumed premise that the child isn’t at a government school.  This is based on some sort of knowledge that you have about what goes on in a government school R.E. class - can you provide a source for this information?

If not, your whole rant is without basis and, frankly, quite insulting to the original author.

Carz says:

10:38am | 01/03/11

@Joan, quite frankly your information is wrong. My children attend a state school and there are weekly Scripture lessons. Some of these lessons are faith specific and some are non-denominaltional. There are, however, no non-Christian faiths represented in these Scripture classes at my children’s school.  Attendance at these Scripture classes is assumed unless parents provide, in writing, objections for their child attending those classes.

And yes, they really do fill the kids’ heads with over the top rhetoric. My children have come home asking various questions about what they have been told, leaving me to try and put a reasonable explanation forward. It must be remembered that, for the most part, the Scripture teachers are not trained teachers with knowledge of age and developmentally appropriate teaching methods. They are lay people from their churches with a zeal for conscripting young minds to their faith. It quite simply isn’t appropriate at a state school.

LauraBoBaura says:

12:20pm | 01/03/11

Joan - you’re wrong. I went to a public primary school & we had a scripture class once a week. Before you get all riled up & start typing, you should check your facts.

Rock and a Hard Place says:

02:10pm | 01/03/11

Joan.  My daughter currently attends a state run public school who offer scripture lessons once a week, as I was offered (called scripture classes) at the state run public primary school I attended in the 1960’s.
@ Carz - I think the scripture offerings vary from area to area - I am in one of Sydney’s most racially diverse suburbs and our school offers Catholic, Anglican, Islam and Budhist scripture classes. A lot of aetheist parents swap the kids from faith to faith to give them a bit of understanding of each as the ethics classes, which have just started this year, are only available to years 5 and 6 and the option of theological or historical based teaching of religion and the different faiths is not available.

Chris L says:

03:21pm | 01/03/11

Joan I experienced scripture classes in public school in the seventies. I told the teachers I was atheist so they put me in the Uniting Church class. Are you sure you should be bearing false witness?

You seem very eager to make up a reason to call people weak if they don’t succumb to indoctrination. Looks like a case of projection.

n_dude says:

03:39pm | 01/03/11

@Joan even when I went to a public school in the last century, scripture class was an “opt-out” thing and basically it was the usual hard core born again christians shoving the whole “believe in Jesus or burn in hell” rhetoric. As a non-christian my parents wanted me to be exposed to other religions. Interesting how the christians who lobby our schools are not that open minded about other religions.

James1 says:

09:50am | 01/03/11

Indeed.  Why do so many parents assume that their children will not be able to work out what they believe for themselves anyway?

Plenty of children raised in Christian families become atheists or Buddhists or Muslims or whatever, and vice versa. 

I think it is directly related to many parents wanting their children to believe the same thing as they do.  In which case, its not a whole lot better than the Christian (or whatever other religion you oppose/support) brainwashing.

LC says:

03:41pm | 01/03/11

@ Joanne

Kids can’t simply be taught critical thinking. They develop it when they are around 10-12 years old.

These scripture classes are aimed at kids younger than that.

Tim the Toolman says:

09:03am | 01/03/11

“For some children this is the only time they learn respect, compassion and love”

Unless the person is gay.  Or a woman.  Or from another religion.  Or who doesn’t follow religion.  Or who has a child out of wedlock.  Or who reads horoscopes (read your damn catechisms).  Or who says gods name in vain.  Or…yeah, Christian compassion is fine as long as the other person is a Christian who meets every crazy idea in the long list of texts.  Always double check that they’re not wearing mixed fabrics either!  The horror!

LC says:

03:43pm | 01/03/11

You show that strawman who’s boss, Wendy!

Meeeeeeeee. says:

04:57pm | 24/03/11

Good on u Wendy

Andrew Skegg says:

09:53am | 01/03/11

You are free to practice your religion, however you are not free to push it onto every child in Australia.

Oh, and the numbers of people who believe an idea has zero bearing on the truth of the idea. Argument from popularity.

Luce says:

10:06am | 01/03/11

harry, that point is completely irrelevant. Our government, and hence our government run schools, are (meant to be) secular, i.e. religion plays no part in the running of government or the education of children in the public system.

Freedom to practice religion does not mean religion (and notice, one religion, not all) should be forced upon everyone at a young age.

Freedom of religion means you can practice whatever religion you like, but it also means others can choose whether to partake in that or not.

If I want my children to grow up without scripture class, I have that right. If you want yours to grow up with scripture class, you have that right. And I don’t think either of us appreciate having our rights infringed upon.

p.s. Jesus isn’t the only religious figure people follow in Australia, or globally, so why is it only Christian scripture that is taught in Australian public schools??

Trjn says:

10:25am | 01/03/11

Freedom of religion should also allow people freedom from religion.

You say more than 60% of the nation is Christian, that means that around 40% of the nation is not. Is it really fair on that sizable minority to be forced to endure preaching of something they do not believe in?

You want to learn about Christianity? Go to church.

Christian Jones says:

10:51am | 01/03/11

40% of Australians still go to Church ? Does once or twice a year for weddings count ? Unless i just hang out with a whole bunch of ungodly people, that statement is completely fabricated. Out of all the people i know I’d say 5-10% would attend church regularly and i think about 75% of those are over the age of 50. I tend to think I’m a pretty normal guy with a pretty normal lifestyle. Maybe I’m just sheltered from reality.

kate says:

10:50am | 02/03/11

@harry “More than 40% of Australians still go to church”

Oh really?  Your source?

My source - the Australian Bureau of Statistics - tells me that in 2002 (the last time such statistics were compiled), only 23% of Australians reported that they had participated in ANY FORM of religious participation or activity in the 3 months preceding the survey.

In other words, more than 3/4 of all Australians have NOTHING TO DO with ANY religion in an average 3 mth period.

By my definition, that means the vast majority of Australians are not religious.  Going to church at Xmas and Easeter and ticking “Anglican” on the census doesn’t really count when it comes down to it.

Carz says:

10:45am | 01/03/11

My kids copped the “Jesus died for your sins” thing one year. One came home in tears because Jesus died because of her and the other was trying to find out what sin is. It was such a nice way to start an Easter.

McSin w/Cheese says:

03:13pm | 01/03/11

I don’t get that whole, “Jesus died for your sins” business. That clearly was a silly thing to do because I sin all the time. Seems all in vein, really.

Jesus probably rolls in His grave everytime I ogle my neighbour’s wife when she cleans the car on the front lawn.

Seano says:

03:46pm | 01/03/11

Anyone blaming children should for the ills of the world is either sick, stupid, misguided or a combination of the 3.

McSin - Watch the movie “Cool Hand Luke” if you need a fix of sudsy action.

Carz - That’s horrible. It can’t be much of a faith IMO if it needs to terrorise and confuse children to get people to believe.

n_dude says:

03:47pm | 01/03/11

Agreed. That was very much my experience more than 30 years ago in the public school system. Looks like nothing has changed since then.

Shifter says:

01:58pm | 01/03/11

Someone asked before why there are a large amount of non-believers in religious schools, and this is precisely the reason; private schools tend to have a better learning environment.

The problem with private schools is there are very few that a not church-sponsored.

Ando says:

03:22pm | 01/03/11

There are probably just as many religious people in state schools as there is in private. The reason private schools get results is Socio economic more than religious. Success breeds success.

Danielle says:

06:14pm | 01/03/11

What a load of generalised tripe! Not ALL public schools and parents of public school children are like that. My children attend a public school because it is meant to be non denominational but also I attended a public school and now have a post graduate degree and a very well paying job.  I had religion (Christianity) shoved down my throat from a young age and grew up wondering why they were so desperate that I believe. I think morals, ethics and honour exist outside Christian values and therefore we should not teach Christianity in State schools.

pablogianni says:

09:07am | 01/03/11

climate change is a fact.  You used to be able to walk to (what is now called) Tasmania from (what is now called) Victoria before things started heating up as recent as 11000 years ago.

Brendan says:

10:01am | 01/03/11

Im sorry to say Cal, but the evidence is leaning towards the positive in the case of global warming. Oh and nobody is teaching them that Al Gore is the prophet, its language like yours that is destroying the chance to communicate and debate the issue effectively.

Brendan says:

10:02am | 01/03/11

Im sorry to say Cal, but the evidence is leaning towards the positive in the case of global warming. Oh and nobody is teaching them that Al Gore is the prophet, its language like yours that is destroying the chance to communicate and debate the issue effectively.

DG says:

01:51pm | 01/03/11

Global warming is a fact on Earth… just as it is happening at the same rate on Mars…

Tim the Toolman says:

09:00am | 01/03/11

“Everyone has a religion, be it Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hindu, or even Atheism”

Atheism is NOT A RELIGION!  It is no more a religion than _not _believeing in sentient pop-tarts is a freaking religion.  FFS.  If we go off your theory, then the religions we actively recognise are the least popular, and my pop-tart religion (I’m yet to find anyone who _does_ believe in sentient pop-tarts) has as damn close to 100% adherence as you can get and is one of the most popular along with the disbelief in everything else for which there is zero evidence.  All don’t hail the non-existent sentient pop-tart! 

*shakes head*

Elphaba says:

09:09am | 01/03/11

@Tim,

Tell me more about this sentient pop tart…?

Tim the Toolman says:

09:33am | 01/03/11

@Elpahaba

“Tell me more about this sentient pop tart…?”

And risk diminishing my 100% adherence?  I think not!

sylvie says:

09:40am | 01/03/11

@Tim Please more about the poptart…
I swear I heard my poptart asking me not to eat it this morning, but I was hungry,
Am I now going to the poptart version of hell? (Which I have heard is a giant toaster

Elphaba says:

09:45am | 01/03/11

D’oh!

I will just have to believe in the sentient pop tart.

*screws up face in concentration*

Ever noticed how the devout look slightly constipated? lol

Tim the Toolman says:

10:12am | 01/03/11

“Am I now going to the poptart version of hell?”

As the Pop-tart doesn’t exist, you will go to the non-hell of the non-pop-tart, yes.  Don’t consider the ramifications of your non-sin not-next time!  I think a central tenant of my new religion must be adherence to a stupid number of negatives in a single sentence.

Shifter says:

12:46pm | 01/03/11

Isn’t the sentient Pop Tart the all knowing prophet of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Or maybe it is in league with the HypnoToad.

All glory.

James1 says:

10:00am | 01/03/11

I have arguments with my soon-to-be-8 year old about the teachings of the prophet Gore (blessings and peace be upon him).  Apparently their teacher taught them that turning lights on unnecessarily kills polar bears.  I try to tell her that we are not certain that humans are driving the changes in climate, but apparently that just mean that I hate whales.  Which I do, but that is entirely beside the point.

LauraBoBaura says:

12:28pm | 01/03/11

Whales are delicious.

Damo says:

03:43pm | 01/03/11

Great stuff james1 and laura,, too funny

undertow says:

10:05am | 01/03/11

The enforced atheism of those examples were created under totalitarian regimes that eliminated religion in order to exercise control over the population, not because of some atheistic ideals and cultural mores.

It’s starting to get a little stale to hear these same old communist atheism arguments trotted out. Especially when they have been repeatedly proven misguided and ill-informed.

Luce says:

10:30am | 01/03/11

John, you’re skipping over one important fact. Atheism in the USSR and China under communism was STATE IMPOSED. How about we look at another country where a stance on religious belief is imposed by the state: Iran. Would you consider them a successful and free country?

And then lets take a look at the 5 countries which have the highest levels of atheism / agnosticism / skepticism: Estonia, Sweden, Denmark, Hong Kong, Norway.  There is no state imposition of religion OR non-religion, and these are some of the safest (lowest in crime) and most prosperous (except for maybe Estonia due to Russian occupation) countries on earth.

Where would you rather live?

n_dude says:

03:54pm | 01/03/11

What was Hitler? And why did he try to kill Jews? What about other religious totalitarian societies? What about the Crusades? The point is there are extremes in both the world of believers and non-believers of organised religion.

Chris L says:

08:14pm | 01/03/11

Someone always brings out the trusty 20th century tyrants and each time gets shot down with facts.

Hitler (Godwin forgive me) was a catholic, mentioned Jesus in every public address, maintained a concordance with the Vatican, etc.

Stalin trained in a seminary, reinstituted the church during WWII and basically deified himself.

In China the Emperor (ruler) was considered divine. Mao simply removed the competition.

None of these examples sounds like an atheist to me. Plus none of them ever killed in the name of atheism or “because there is no god”. Simply put, they had other reason to massacre (person power) as opposed to those upstanding relios who massacred for their god/s.

RMW says:

02:14pm | 05/03/11

Luce said: “And then lets take a look at the 5 countries which have the highest levels of atheism / agnosticism / skepticism: Estonia, Sweden, Denmark, Hong Kong, Norway.  There is no state imposition of religion OR non-religion, and these are some of the safest (lowest in crime)...”
I don’t know about Hong Kong yet, but a Norwegian news site reports that Scandinavian cities in 2007 actually had higher crime rates than New York City itself: http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2299327.ece
“There were 10,600 crimes reported in public places in 2007, up from 8,000 a year earlier, writes Norwegian daily newspaper Dagbladet. Oslo had the highest rate per person in Scandinavia in terms of reported crimes, with 90 reported crimes per 1,000.Copenhagen had 50 crimes reported per 1,000 and Stockholm had 79.In New York, there were 22 reported crimes per 1,000 inhabitants.”

Kyra says:

09:27am | 01/03/11

Interesting, I went to a public primary school, independent private school (Grade 8 -10) and Catholic high school grade 11-12, and the Catholic School was the least harmonious.
At one school mass (Having been told by the teacher we didn’t have to be blessed by the priest if we didn’t want to) I choose not to be, the girl who had been sitting beside me told me I was rude etc. In religion (compulsory or else I wouldn’t have done it) in grade 12, I expressed the view that I didn’t necessarily believe in god, suddenly it was like I was sitting in a roomful of goldfish. The teacher then looked at me and dismissively said “You’re an agnostic” Honestly it was like they’d never encountered the idea before.
Not to mention that the bullying etc was worse at the Catholic School. Not to mention the rate of teenage pregnancy.

Ando says:

03:43pm | 01/03/11

Kat,
I think its more do with the fact that public schools cater for low socio economic and broken family’s while Private school students come from successful well off families.  I went to a private school and religion had nothing to do with my behavior, it was my non religious parents.

PeterX says:

10:02am | 01/03/11

“We live in a country where we respect other people’s religions and beliefs”.
No, we live in a country where we respect people’s right to believe in whatever they choose, be it evidence-based facts, logic and common sense, or myth and superstition. But I don’t have to respect your fairy tales.

kyra says:

10:44pm | 01/03/11

Not necessarily, a former friend went to a Catholic High School for grade 11 and 12 and was told by the RE teacher that her sister (who had taken her own life) was burning in hell.

James1 says:

10:06am | 01/03/11

Hi Tracey, why only focus on a religion that encompasses more than 60% of the Australian population?  Why not focus on a more important religion that composes less than 2%?

LauraBoBaura says:

12:27pm | 01/03/11

Ripa - *facepalm* because they don’t teach Muslim scripture in public schools.

Danielle says:

06:25pm | 01/03/11

Interestingly enough, according to the figures on the ABS website- the numbers of people who believe in the Christian way of life are falling-in freefall since 1901.

Suzanne says:

09:32am | 01/03/11

What, as opposed to the high level of compassion and morality that prevailed when the church had far more influence and control?  Say, during the Middle Ages or the era of the Inquisition?  Societies have only ever started to become more compassionate, humane and enlightened when religion has been pushed to the sidelines.  The most violent and unhappy places on Earth today are the so-called Holy Lands where religions are far more prominent in public life.
In fact, we are not seeing “social decay” right now.  If only people could realise how exceedingly fortunate and peaceful our lives are now compared with past times, or indeed with other places where religion has much more power.  When religion has absolute power, bad things happen to individuals.  In the sweep of human history, we are lucky to have found ourselves in a place and time of much greater compassion than most humans could reasonably expect.

Tim the Toolman says:

11:23am | 01/03/11

“and don’t say you speak for all of ‘us’.  You most certainly don’t. “

Now if only religion could understand that concept.  Same-sex marriage anyone?

Mike says:

12:22pm | 01/03/11

@Tim the Toolman: “Now if only religion could understand that concept.  Same-sex marriage anyone?” As it happens, I am a Christian and have no problem whatever with legalising same-sex marriage.

On the other hand, I find it interesting that, for some reason, people seem to think that the Church and “religious” people should not be allowed to express their opinion on issues of the day. We don’t deny other organisations or people a right to express their opinion, why single out the Church?

Tim the Toolman says:

02:19pm | 01/03/11

“As it happens, I am a Christian and have no problem whatever with legalising same-sex marriage.”

No, you cannot be both.  Leviticus 20:13.

“V’ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk’vei ishah to’evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d’meihem bam.”  Various translations, but, basically, you should be killing them, not approving marriage.

““religious” people should not be allowed to express their opinion on issues of the day”

You can, sure, but make sure they line up with your book of instructions.  You either follow that, or you’re not a christian.  You can’t pick and choose based on what’s trendy.  Why aren’t you baying for blood right now?  You have your morals written down for you, right there!  Why not enforce them?  They are absolute, and from a divine source, after all!

Danny B says:

02:44pm | 01/03/11

@ Mike,

If the Church paid their ‘admission fee’ (taxes), then I wouldn’t have a problem with them expressing their opinion on political matters.  Either pay up or pipe down.

Mike says:

08:28pm | 01/03/11

@Tim the Toolman: Romans 6:14 (I’ll stick to English though, if you don’t mind) “For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.” By which he (Paul) meant the Jewish law, as set down in Leviticus and other Old Testament books. I am not under Jewish law and under no compulsion as a Christian, to kill, or even dislike gay people. Quite the contrary in fact: Luke 10:27, Jesus says “Love your neighbor as yourself.” When asked “Who is my neighbor?”, Jesus went on to tell the story of the Good Samaritan, a story of love and acceptance between traditional enemies.

So, despite your assertion, I’m not only allowed, but actually instructed to love gays and basically everyone else. It has nothing to do with being “trendy”, it is “following the instructions”. But the “instructions” are not at all what it means to be a Christian and you might understand that if you did more than the selective reading it takes to appear knowledgeable and shoot broadsides. I used to be pretty good at that once too.

P.S. I’m trying really hard to love you too.

Mike says:

08:42pm | 01/03/11

@Danny B: I pay my taxes and have opinions on things. My Church has no income, apart from giving by people like me, who have already paid the tax up front.

By your argument, the local lobby group that forms to stop the new McDonalds being built, or better controls over the toxic waste dump, has no right to express their opinion on these “political” issues. For that matter, neither would the gay lobby, the pro-choice movement or the local footy club.

So, tell me again why Christians need to “pipe down”?

Chris L says:

11:16pm | 01/03/11

@Mike: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”  (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

Basically the character of Jesus is telling you that you have to follow the old testament, thus you have to kill gay people, those who work on the sabbath and people wearing garments of differing types of cloth.

Seriously though, of course you have the right to an opinion and please report who has been stopping you and what they did to stop you. Mind you, given that I can read your opinion here I think you are just being paranoid.

Mike says:

09:16am | 02/03/11

@ Chris L: “...Jesus is telling you that you have to follow the old testament, thus you have to kill gay people…”

No, He’s not. The word used is “fulfill”, not “reinforce”. The Greek word carries the meaning “to finish” or “to satisfy”. Christ is saying that the Law is there and He’s not abolishing it, rather He satisfies the Law on our behalf. So, if I follow Christ, I don’t have to adhere to the old Law. Which means I’m free to wear all sorts of clothes and eat shellfish and not kill anyone at all. Try reading Romans or Galations for a better meaning than I can convey.

To your second point. I didn’t suggest that anyone was stopping me from having an opinion. What I did ask was why many seem to think that being a Church or being Christian disqualifies you from expressing that opinion publicly, when we seldom see the same said of other organisations or people. If you want myriad examples, see the responses to any newspaper article where a Church leader or Christian organisation expresses an opinion on a current issue. There are plenty in “The Punch” archives.

Chris L says:

12:46pm | 02/03/11

@Mike, so when he said “not the smallest part… will pass from the law” he was saying the law of the old testament still stands, but don’t worry about following that law ‘cause I’ll do it for you? Maybe they should just leave the old testament out of the bible completely to avoid the kind of confusion those gay-hating fundamentalists experience.

For the record I’ve seen plenty of other people shouted down over a variety of topics, so such reactions are not limited just to religious discussions. The main difference, though, seems to be that criticising religion seems to be a much, much more sensitive issue. I’ve been told I’m selfish, evil and will burn in hell by zealots but when I calmy reply that I think their gospel is fiction I have, apparently, crossed the line.

mary says:

09:13am | 01/03/11

You’re absolutely right that ethics should be part of every subject whether secular or Christian. No need to be too concerned David. These particular ethics classes have a good solid foundation that is sure to please all. Coming all the way from St James Ethics Centre.

Trish says:

10:41am | 01/03/11

I think it hilarious that she had to google the evolution theory, if she does know what it is - then how can she legitimately make a claim that it is all brainwashing when on every website you look at on evolution theory is just that – a theory! 
Whatever peoples opinion children she be taught all options so they can make a educated choice later in life.

Middle-aged-grump says:

12:55pm | 01/03/11

Trish, Before you make rash comments about the word ‘theory’, look up what a ‘scientific theory’ is. You will find that you are totally wrong in your assumptions !!

Raider says:

03:46pm | 01/03/11

Hi Brett,
Just an interesting side note: I went to a religious school (though I don’t have a religious bone in my body). We were taught evolution in high school, I studied biology in senior years and evolution featured dominantly in it of course - DNA, genetics, natural selection etc. I also recall not having to attend religious classes. I think my school must be an exception.

Miles says:

11:05am | 01/03/11

Why isn’t it possible to teach and instill these traits in children without the heavy religious overtones??

James1 says:

12:17pm | 01/03/11

It says a lot about you Jugg that without religion in your life you would be indecent, valueless, disrespectful, and unkind to others.

I strive to be a good person because I want others to be good and I believe one should lead by example, not because a man with a big beard will send me to a man with a little goatee to be tortured for not doing so.  I recognise that being a good person is in and of itself a positive thing, rather than because all old book full of genocide, rape and torture tells me I should.

KRS1 says:

12:40pm | 01/03/11

James you are mentioned a lot in that “old book”. You should check it out before making sweeping generalisations.

James1 says:

01:03pm | 01/03/11

I have read it many times.  You mustn’t have, if you missed all the genocide.

Jugg says:

04:02pm | 01/03/11

Miles,

Who is doing that these days?  The Public School system?  I don’t think so!  Name a school that is and I bet it has a foundation in religion.

n_dude says:

04:04pm | 01/03/11

And you know what. My scripture class taught me none of that! Instead they force fed the concept to a gullible young child that they would go to hell if they did not believe in Jesus. Now that must be the Christian values, decency, respect and being kind to others.

Ironically the best religous education I had was in a Christian private school where the religous education covered all the main religions and had a well constructed curriculum.

n_dude says:

04:07pm | 01/03/11

Mind you it could be worse. It could be overrun by the Exclusive Brethren!

Tim the Toolman says:

09:11am | 01/03/11

“religion is a choice, and a noble one at that.”

Have to disagree for once Elphaba…in my experience, religion is much like patriotism…the last refuge of the scoundrel.  It’s a life of willful ignorance and judgement of others.  All just my experience, of course (also went to Catholic school and have spent the last twelve years since studying various religions as a hobby).

Elphaba says:

09:29am | 01/03/11

@Tim, that’s ok.  I still believe that belief in God, or belonging to a Chruch, can help people in their day-to-day life.

The fact that I don’t need it doesn’t invalidate it.  I often think life would be easier if I believed in God or Fate.  Sadly, I am master of my own dstiny.  But I wouldn’t change it.

I think ethics classes in schools are a must.  It’s no good presenting religion as the only option, if there’s religion and secular ethics, parents canmake a more informed decision about what they want their child to be a part of.

Tim the Toolman says:

09:36am | 01/03/11

“can help people in their day-to-day life.”

It can, I’ve no doubt of that…the only issue is that it tends to be a corrupting influence over time. 

“I often think life would be easier if I believed in God or Fate.”

Agreed!  It would be much easier, but, *shrugs*  critical thinking prevents me from doing so

“I think ethics classes in schools are a must.”

Agreed, however, I would ask that schools be kept secular, and there be no chaplaincy program.  If parents want their kids indoctrinated, then there are a wealth of private schools happy to bolster their future coffers….sorry, I truly despise religion…can’t help but criticise it even when I’m trying to be nice.

Elphaba says:

09:48am | 01/03/11

@Tim, religious theory is fine, it’s important that kids be taught about the different religions of the world.  Otherwise, tolerance is going to be a major issue.  I would say that all children need to do religious studies classes - actual Scripture teaching, should be optonal and be discussed beteween parent and child before making an idividual decision.

TheRealDave says:

10:32am | 01/03/11

@Tim, in reference to Patriotism being the last reference of ‘the scoundrel’....

I’ve always liked this saying better:

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

John Stuart Mill

Luke says:

10:53am | 01/03/11

@Tim the Toolman
@Elphaba

What do you think about the St James Ethics Centre, the organisation that would be implementing these ethics classes, being started by the Anglican Church.

Elphaba says:

11:13am | 01/03/11

@Luke:

Are they preaching God and religion as being the only way to live your life?  Are they preaching that those who don’t have God in their life are immoral, selfish and soulless?  No?  Certainly not according to their website.  Then there’s no problem.  Dismissing them would be like dismissing a charity just because it’s run by a Church.  So long as they do good and offer an alternative, then it’s fine.

I don’t have an issue with religion being taught in schools, I would just like my children to avoid what was taught to me - that God would punish the sinners and send them to hell, just becuse you didn’t believe.  Disgraceful.  If the alternative turns out to be no good, that’s what non-scripture is for.  But we can’t dismiss it without trying it.

LauraBoBaura says:

11:58am | 01/03/11

@TIm - I think the chaplain programs in schools these days come down to the power of the almighty dollar, they are much cheaper than a psyche program, and probably cheaper than a school counsellor…

Tim the Toolman says:

11:59am | 01/03/11

@Elphaba

“Dismissing them would be like dismissing a charity just because it’s run by a Church.”

Mmm, I do that.  But I’m a touch more rabid than most, I admit.  I also won’t drink coffee at Gloria Jeans or eat Sanitarium products.

Elphaba says:

12:13pm | 01/03/11

@Tim, and that’s your right, and I respect it.

There’s no need to object to ethics classes, just offer them as an option, and let the individual make up their mind.  The vehement opposition towards ethics classes can only mean one thing - the religious are shit-scared it might actually gain a toehold…

Tim the Toolman says:

02:24pm | 01/03/11

“The vehement opposition towards ethics classes can only mean one thing - the religious are shit-scared it might actually gain a toehold… “

For some, yes, but, I suspect in the world viewed through their own peculiar brand of god-goggles, they actually think they’re trying to help…which is the sad thing.

Actually, it’s like Mythbusters that was on last night.  A blind guy being told how to drive by a drunk guy…the drunk guy really thought he was doing a great job.  But he wasn’t…religion distorts peoples perspectives of right and wrong, just like alcohol.

Shifter says:

03:00pm | 01/03/11

@Tim: “I also won’t drink coffee at Gloria Jeans or eat Sanitarium products.”

Forgive me for being nosey, but I’m interested as to your reasons why. Care to explain?

Tim the Toolman says:

04:38pm | 01/03/11

“Forgive me for being nosey, but I’m interested as to your reasons why. Care to explain? “

Sure

But, I should point out, more recent research has proven that I can once again drink there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Jean’s_Coffees 

Have a look at the Charitable section.  Whooo!  My wife will be pleased!

As for Sanitarium, well, they were formed by the Seventh Day Adventists who still own it and to quote: “The Seventh Day Adventist Church argues that Sanitarium is not run like a normal business, because its profits are all spent on church work.”

So, basically the church is pulling in money from a $300m per year business, tax free (or trying to) to spend on the church.  I believe it’s still ok for me to avoid their products.

acotrel says:

05:03pm | 01/03/11

“religion is a choice, and a noble one at that’
I attended Melbourne High School, and we had the choice of attending religous instruction or doing ‘private study’.  We learn’t quite a bit about God!

Shifter says:

06:27pm | 01/03/11

@Tim - Lucky I dislike coffee and am not a Weetbix kid!

Luce says:

09:29am | 01/03/11

“Keep schools for proven sciences and knowledge, not theories of many missing links.”

Most would agree evolution IS proven…

and p.s. the big bang and evolution are two completely separate theories.. they’re not even in the same field of science… speaking of willful ignorance..

Danny B says:

10:02am | 01/03/11

Evolution is a proven science.  We have the physical evidence.  Where’s yours?

James1 says:

10:12am | 01/03/11

So in other words, you would prefer if they weren’t taught science at all.  All biology is premised on evolution and natural selection - without it, a whole branch of science makes no sense.

Just out of interest, which sciences would you consider “proven”?  Given that our knowledge of physics and chemistry is what led to the our knowledge of the big bang, I guess those two are out.  So now we have no biology, physics, or chemistry being taught in science class.  That leaves what, exactly?

Jacob says:

11:33am | 01/03/11

Science is not about proving. Its about dis-proving, people make a theory and you or another or both set out to disprove that theory. Which is why, technically the earth orbiting the sun is still a theory.

Bill Door says:

09:50am | 01/03/11

@AdamC

I assume you are a Christian so why do you claim this:

“I would rather nobody’s kids have the option of learning about Christianity so that I don’t have to make a decision about it”.

When Tracy had no such statement. In fact she was very specific in what she did say.

Thou shall not bear false witness. Shame on you. Somewhere an angel just lost their wings. :(

TheRealDave says:

10:10am | 01/03/11

Adam, maybe Ms Spicer, like many other parents, have already ‘made a decision’ and chosen to send their kids to a secular Public/State school to avoid the very religious claptrappery they are now trying to force into those same schools as a new recruiting drive?

AdamC says:

12:56pm | 01/03/11

Bil Door:

‘My girlfriend Lisa lamented, “I wish they were teaching her more useful stuff, but I don’t want to take her out of Scripture Class because she might be ostracised”.’

What do you think this means? While Tracey was supposedly talking about her ‘girlfriend’, I think the authorisal voice was pretty clear. Don’t people read the whole article before they comment anymore?

And, no, I am not a Christian. Grow up. Not every non-Christian has to be an intolerant atheist. Some of us manage to get along with other people who have different beliefs.

Bill Door says:

01:56pm | 01/03/11

@AdamC

It mean exactly what it says. I too have the same problem. Tell me, why can’t the schools provide something useful while bible class is no for those that don’t attend?

Oh and because Tracy doesn’t want Christan teachings to infiltrate own public schools you jump to the conclusion that she dislikes Christians. 

Sorry, what was that you were saying about getting along with people with different views. You seem to have taken great offense at Tracy’s views.

AdamC says:

02:21pm | 01/03/11

Bill Door, I am quite offended by Tracey’s views. Treating Christianity as some kind of intellectual virus that will infect your child if he or she is exposed to it is just a politically correct form of bigotry. Acting like there is some kind of rational explanation for it is just dishonest.

“It mean exactly what it says.” So does that mean you agree with me?

The Black Knight says:

03:37pm | 01/03/11

@AdamC

As a non Christian you should have no problems with teaching all sorts of religion in a religious class?... including Islam?

AdamC says:

04:28pm | 01/03/11

The Black Knight, I have no problem with teaching kids about islam, though I wouldn’t expect that to take the place of scripture classes in a state school.

Did you expect that I would have a problem with islam? Why?

Like many of the comments here, yours drips with prejudice.

Ando says:

05:14pm | 01/03/11

Adam C,
You say
” I have no problem with teaching kids about islam, though I wouldn’t expect that to take the place of scripture classes in a state school.”
So public schools should have separate “scripture” classes for all students, catering for all religions (while atheists or students who just dont know what to do, continue to sit in the library).
Heres a better idea, keep religion out of public schools and leave it up to the parents. This doesnt mean I hate christians or am bias.

Luce says:

11:03am | 01/03/11

Markus, there’s a difference between the secular teaching of comparative religion for the sake of understanding, and teaching scripture as gospel truth. The latter, in a effect, is brainwashing as it’s often taught to children who have not learnt how to think critically and hence aren’t really deciding for themselves what to believe

Chris L says:

11:35pm | 01/03/11

Markus, if we were a muslim country receiving christian immigrants and refugees I’d like to think I’d still call for compassion toward them, and still argue against indoctrination in a government run facility.

PS. I’ve known several muslims and christians and I like these particular people but when they advocate (and they have done so) laws to limit the actions of people based on nothing more than their holy books I have argued against such ideas. Some of these people are no longer my friends and I find that sad.

Brigitte says:

04:43pm | 07/03/11

Religion of any kind has no place in a public school. Simply for the fact that there is no way to cater for the multitudes of different religions and beliefs.

If you want catholic teachings, you go to a catholic school.

This is being said by someone who has gone through 13 years of catholic school. I was sent there to make my own decision.
And I have.

My favourite saying is, ” If you want to make an athiest, just get them to study the bible”

Bob says:

11:09am | 01/03/11

Simon: It does. That’s why creationists are commonly viewed as misguided people who are frequently a bit simple by the majority of educated people who have been mislead by people who don’t object to the odd lie for Jesus.

Simon says:

09:57am | 04/03/11

Sorry Bob but i happen to be a scientist and a theologian. Are you either? So, No delusions here. BTW that argument about delusions is and “a bit simple” is an argument from ignorance. Many scientists and theologians i know are far from uneducated and misled, delusional or ignorant. It’s very disigenuous of you to say so without any knowledge.

Justin says:

08:55am | 01/03/11

If only you truly believed the tripe you write. I’m pretty sure that’s all atheists are asking for. We do not want children to be taught there is no god, we want their belief systems left to their parents to impart as they see fit.

No one is advocating that we start teaching that there is no god in place of teaching that there is. Once you get past the first paragraph though, you seem to lose the plot. Replace Jesus with The Flying Spaghetti Monster and it reread, doesn’t sound any less absurd to me no matter what name you use for this everwhere all at once crazy spirit of yours.

Noishe says:

09:38am | 01/03/11

No offence, but have to use the past tense…he existed.  He apparently lived, breathed, verbalised two thousand years ago…he’s well and truly dead.  But to those that cling onto the thought of what he represented continue on. 

That’s like me saying my Grandad was the Grandad of all Grandad’s and he still exists and he’ll have the last word.

Sadly, the words you speak of were written after the fact, in some cases 100 years or so.

Meh I really wish people wouldn’t just sprout nonsense rantings.

Stu says:

09:53am | 01/03/11

@ Noishe: “No offence, but have to use the past tense…he existed.”

Actually there is no credible evidence that the Jesus of Bible existed at all. Your subsquent use of the word ‘apparently’ is more appropriate.

True Believer says:

09:54am | 01/03/11

@Justin

I don’t “believe” it I know it to be true. Big difference. You have beliefs, those of us who know Jesus, know He is there.  You cannot comprehend it yet, so you write Jesus off as “tripe” - rather you than me.

Jesus came to heal not to harm, to bring love and life, to set us free from the bondage of sin, to lead us into His light and His Truth.

You have a God given choice to reject Him, makes no difference to who I know Him to be.  He is there and He weeps for the lost.

You are perhaps like a man having a heart attack saying to the doctor who knocks on your door - “go away. I do not believe in your medicine.”
So he perishes.

Jesus comes to heal and reveal to us who we are truly meant to be. You prefer your own narrow little world, your choice, but there is much, much more.  I too was once foolish enough to stand on the little perch of unbelief with all its uncertainties. No more, thanks be to the Lord.

Stu says:

10:47am | 01/03/11

@ True Believer: “You are perhaps like a man having a heart attack saying to the doctor who knocks on your door - “go away. I do not believe in your medicine.”

No TB, Justin is not like that at all. The reason being that the doctor has (or should have) evidence of his medical skills. Although I might start leaning towards the supernatural if a doctor happened to knock at my door just as I was having a heart attack.

True Believer says:

12:02pm | 01/03/11

@Stu

In accordance with your “logic” then Justin should ask for evidence of the doctor’s skill before he accepts his help?  If he doesn’t - rather accepts that the doctor is who he says he is, isn’t that faith?  Do you examine the credentials of airline pilots when you fly?  Do you examine the qualifications of the lawyer you go to?  Do you ask the bus or taxi driver to show you their licences? Does your dentist have to show you his university documents? Or do you accept these things by faith????

Horror of horrors, Stu lives by faith, albeit only in other human’s honesty. Con merchants flourish on such misplaced faith. :0)  You see Stu faith plays a much bigger role in your life than you realise.

Stu says:

12:40pm | 01/03/11

@ True Believer: “In accordance with your “logic” then Justin should ask for evidence of the doctor’s skill before he accepts his help?  If he doesn’t - rather accepts that the doctor is who he says he is, isn’t that faith?”
Faith should have nothing to with visiting the doctor, or using the services of any other of the professions you list. There is evidence of their skills and abilities in the form of degrees, licences and other qualifications – all peer reviewed. And I certainly wouldn’t fly with a pilot whose only claim to a qualification was that ‘he knows Jesus, and Jesus says everything’s apples’. Don’t confuse faith with trust.

True Believer says:

01:46pm | 01/03/11

@Stu

I think if you avail yourself of a dictionary you will find faith and trust are one and the same thing.

“Faith = Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.”

You duck and weave away from my point - you do not ask for these qualifications, you do not ask to sight them do you - be honest - you trust the person in other words you have faith in their integrity. You do not go by sight you rely on faith.  You say qualifications are subject to peer review, this is your assumption, it is not fact until you have actually sighted the qualifications and examined them as to their authenticity.

Ergo you accept these things exist by faith. I rest my case.

Stu says:

02:30pm | 01/03/11

@ True Believer: I accept that definition of faith, however another accepted definition of the word is ‘belief that is not based on evidence’. That is why I use the term faith in a religious context (as per Tracey’s article) and trust with my doctor or airline pilot.

In that context it is not true that I accept my doctor’s and my pilot’s skills on faith. I do check the qualifications of people in the trades. I can also cite evidence that Qantas and Virgin have excellent safety records, which would be inconsistent with pilots who flew on faith alone. I also know that my surgeon did an ok job on my septum because I can breathe better. Now you know why I have no faith in your Jesus: because there is no credible evidence that he existed, let alone reason to accept anything in the christian faith as true.

True Believer says:

03:11pm | 01/03/11

@Stu

Well if that is how you want to live your life, trusting men, rejecting God so be it. Who am I to argue. I just tell you the Truth, but you are blind to it, you have been taken in by rationalism.  I can understand that, but it is sad. As I have told you, I was where you were once, arguing all these “clever” things, but now I know how hollow my arguments were.

I do hope one day you will look beyond what your can see with your natural eyes and find the treasure you are missing.  If only you could realise - but there are none so blind as those who choose not to see the biggest picture. Like many here you march on following the crowd that are lost. It might be trendy, but it is so sad. I wish you well.

Aidan says:

03:19pm | 01/03/11

No need to waste your breath Stu, it was a bad analogy to begin with.

Stu says:

03:38pm | 01/03/11

@ True Believer: “Well if that is how you want to live your life, trusting men, rejecting God so be it. Who am I to argue? I just tell you the Truth”.

So you want me to trust you (by men, I assume you mean people) on what you have to say about Jesus and not my doctor’s qualifications? On what basis should I trust you as a particular “man” and not other “men”? BTW I don’t reject God, I just deny any credible evidence to support his existence and the “men” who claim the contrary.

Stu says:

03:44pm | 01/03/11

@ Aidan:
Slow day at work. Plus there’s always the possibility I’m distracting her from proselytising to children and other vulnerable ones.

Tim the Toolman says:

03:49pm | 01/03/11

“You are perhaps like a man having a heart attack saying to the doctor who knocks on your door - “go away. I do not believe in your medicine.”

Yes, except, there’s evidence of the doctor and evidence of the heart attack.  Your god however, has no evidence.

When you understand why you dismiss every other god but yours, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

True Believer says:

04:05pm | 01/03/11

@Stu

I never said trust me as a person, trust the One who sent me to tell you the Truth.  I am merely pointing to life but you choose death, your God-given choice to do so.

True Believer says:

04:33pm | 01/03/11

@Tim the Toolman

My dear friend you dismiss away, you hurt no one but yourself.  As for evidence of the Living God - it is all around for those who have eyes to see, but you like the other poor atheists prefer to “walk in darkness” - never seeing, never knowing - but you can change that and only you can do it. No one can do it for you.  You have much to learn, I hope you do not have a closed mind.

I do not come in here to argue for me, I am arguing for your sake. If only you could realise that.  I wish you well.

Stu says:

09:23am | 02/03/11

@ True Believer: “I never said trust me as a person, trust the One who sent me to tell you the Truth.”

You are asking me to trust in you as an appointed messenger of Jesus: for me to agree to this you would have to provide some evidence that (a) Jesus exists/existed and (b) that he has appointed you as his messenger. Otherwise I’d still be trusting in a ‘man’ which you say I shouldn’t do.

True Believer says:

12:26pm | 02/03/11

@Stu

There you go again, twisting my words to make them say what you think you want. I am through playing this game with you. I told you the Truth, you are only interested in trying to bait Christians. You life must be very, very small and empty.  Go back to kindergarten and stop playing with the big people.

Stu says:

12:53pm | 02/03/11

@ True Believer: “There you go again, twisting my words to make them say what you think you want.”
And I’ve done this how?
“you are only interested in trying to bait Christians.”
Not true. I know some Christians who are awesome people. I’m not even trying to bait you TB. Just expose you for the benefit of others.
“Your life must be very, very small and empty.”
I’m not sure what evidence you have for that assertion, but it sure doesn’t feel like it’s my life you are talking about.

Aidan says:

01:30pm | 02/03/11

Wow, she didn’t wish you well or anything.

True Believer says:

01:52pm | 02/03/11

@Aiden

I only ever wish anyone on these pages the very best - that is why I keep telling you all of what you are missing out on - the great love God has for you - waiting for you to accept His gift of life. 

This because I too was an arrogant unbeliever for so many wasted years, but I have found in my Lord all the fulfillness of what it means to be human - get to know your Creator - you will be pleasantly surprised I promise you. Put away foolish things and turn to Him.

My prayer is that no harm come to any of those who contribute on these pages, true “wellness” can only ever come from knowing the Lord.

Stu says:

02:20pm | 02/03/11

@ Aidan: “Wow, she didn’t wish you well or anything.”
Yeah, I know - not even in her reply to your post! I’d genuinely like to understand how she thinks I’ve “twisted her words” though…

David says:

08:48am | 01/03/11

If you want your children to learn about God etc, why cant you teach them this at home? Why cant you take them to church and sunday school etc? Why should other children be forced to learn a belief? I had Christianty shoved down my throat at an early age, and regularly attended church up until my teens.

What I find ironic is Christians going on about “tolerance” and compassion, yet when I told my priest I was gay he told me I needed to repent and reject the “phase” I was going through, or I was going to go to hell and spent the rest of eternity damned.

Does that sound like “tolerance” to you?

Ever since I have turned my back on organised religion. I dont need to follow a religion, or preach to others to be accepted by God, I just need to accept myself and be the best human being I can be.

But I will never forgive an organised religion that protects and harbours pedophiles, but turns it back on their homosexual congregation.

Danny says:

12:50pm | 01/03/11

I always thought that it was highly offensive for someone to tell me that I would go to hell for acting on my sexuality.

It’s like saying that if hell indeed exists, that they judge that I deserve to go there when I die. Since I don’t believe in the afterlife I have always wanted to wish them a real world possible outcome like them getting cancer, or their children being born with muscular dystrophy or something. I just can’t bring myself down to their level.

Matt F says:

04:53pm | 01/03/11

concerned parent -

of course your kids should be able to learn this if you wish them to. however there are various alternative avenues for them to learn christian teachings. church, sunday schools, private religious schools etc. also the religious classes would be replaced by ethics classes which would still teach the children about tolerance and respect for others, just without the religious slant so you wouldn’t have to worry about that. also i doubt many parents would object to their children being taught a religious studies class about the different religions, their history and beliefs etc. but there is a difference between this and scripture classes teaching the gospel truth according to the bible.

i also doubt many parents would object to schools setting up voluntary preyer groups etc. held before/after school or during lunch time for any parents/children who wish to do this. they just don’t want an hour or whatever it is a week taken out of class time to teach christianity (or any other religion for that matter) when that time could be devoted to ethics classes (the same moral guidelines without the religious slant) or further devoted to other academic subjects.

as for darwins theory. of course it’s not perfect hence why it is a theory. however there is a big difference between a scientific theory that does have fairly heavy evidence behind it and religious faith based on no evidence.

Jane says:

09:49am | 02/03/11

@David, I hear you, I saw it regularly when I was growing up. I grew up a Catholic (am athiest now). What also astounded me as a child was, you’d go to church on Sunday, everyone would sit there all wholesome and Godly, then after church, Mr JHBHFBKF would go home, get on the turps, beat the crap out of his wife and kids, then turn up to church next week all wholesome and Godly again. Because he kept going to church, it was OK and all was forgiven.
David I’m sorry you copped it bad from the discriminating church (and don’t they excel at discriminating). Bet they were quite happy to take your money from the plate each week. My male cousin is also (obviously) gay and grew up a Catholic. He was accused of being a paedophile countless times (didn’t you know that being gay automatically means you’re a paedophile too?). You could imagine the horrors of the local church community when cuz became a teacher! Long story short, he is now a teacher in an all boys Catholic high school and has been for 20 years. The kids worship the ground he walks on, the other teachers worship the ground he walks on, even the local priest things the sun shines out of him. When the school has functions, his boyfriend (of over 10 years) is always on the invite my name.
Sadly, I believe his case is rare. He is so lucky to be living and working in a community that is accepting of gays, especially the local priest. Most other areas would have him run out of town because of his ‘lifestyle choice’.
I’m telling you now, there is no choice about becoming gay. I don’t know of any man (or woman) that would elect to be gay by choice, especially when you think gay bashing is still common place. No-one would choose a lifestyle that puts their life at risk each time they walk out the door (personal lifestyle, not working life).
I have to agree with the comment that the Catholic church will happily turn a blind eye to kiddy fiddling, yet they’ll push a happy, healthy gay person aside because of their ‘choice’. Priests at my brothers school were fiddling with the kids, they’ve only just been found out recently after 25 years. One was arrested not for actually harming any kids, but because he knew about it and covered it up. he is just as guilty and should serve as much time as the other scumbag. Maybe they take the song “Suffer little children” literally?
And people wonder why I despise religion and all the fairy tales that go with it. Don’t even get me started on the cause of all the wars…....another story for another day.

Tim the Toolman says:

09:14am | 01/03/11

“tackling an important issue. “

It’s not an important issue, it’s an outbreak of terrible stupidity that should be crushed.  The fact that it’s still running is a sad indictment on the intelligence of our species.

Elphaba says:

08:59am | 01/03/11

Agreed, religious theory is fine (I LOVED religion studies at uni), but the whole “God made this and that and if you don’t accept Jesus you’re going to hell” is well… bullshit.

lucy says:

01:53pm | 01/03/11

That is exactly the point.
Then our children CAN make up their own minds about their beliefs. Th

mary says:

09:58am | 01/03/11

The majority of Australians actually believe in God, around 64/68% in the last census. The morals taught by the bible are to not kill, not lie, not steal, not covet, be good to your parents, embrace good, resist evil, don’t swear, rest regularly and love one and other. When you say that these morals work for some and and not for others, I have yet to hear someone improve on these laws.

Luce says:

10:52am | 01/03/11

mary, the bible also teaches that homosexuality is immoral, that women are worth less then men, that people of other religions should not be tolerated, that you should be a good person for fear of saving your ass from hell and not because its just right..

Oh wait I forgot, those parts can be dropped when they become irrelevant or inconvenient, when other parts of the bible are the infallible word of god.

Ethics predates christianity, and can be taught without the idea of god, which is the way some people prefer it

Trjn says:

11:01am | 01/03/11

@mary, the Bible says that if a man rapes an unmarried woman, he should pay her father and marry her. I’d say our current laws are an improvement on that.

I don’t believe the Bible actually has anything to say about swearing, just blasphemy the punishment for which is death, and I’d say that not killing someone for saying certain words is also an improvement.

There’s also that bit about killing anyone who works on the Sabbath, our laws don’t do that, which is again an improvement. Oh, and then there’s the whole slavery thing.

Overall, I’d say that our laws have improved significantly over the last two thousand years to be much better than the teachings of the Bible.

Bob says:

11:21am | 01/03/11

Mary: And if these morals are morals that are good in their own right, why do they need to be prefaced by “The Bible says…” The ethics classes I took at uni managed to do just fine without any mention of religion. They also gave me a better understanding of why you act in this ethical manner than “God says you should”

And what about the other 30-40%? That’s a big number that’s getting bigger by the day. Why should they be discriminated against? 30-40% who don’t believe in any god is a far higher number than the percent who believe the same interpretation of any particular god.

Secular ethics classes can apply to everyone. Religious ethics calsses only apply to the religious.

mary says:

05:16pm | 01/03/11

I forgot the no adultery part. Good laws I think and yes good point, thanks, that even in biblical times ‘they’ clearly didn’t stick with the laws as they were given out on the mountain. You only have to look at the ongoing adultery and killing as recorded in biblical times to get that the bible was more often than not an historical account and not necessarily always the best example of how to live your life. Plenty times it shows what NOT to do.
Also shows us how nothing much has changed really, it’s not as if most of us don’t know how to behave without being told.

Tim the Toolman says:

09:17am | 01/03/11

“I know a boy in my year who she drove to on a Saturday night in hospital when he was suicidal”

That’s amusing, for once it wasn’t a religious person driving someone _to_ suicide.  I suppose there’s a first time for everything.

“Scripture was actually good as it brought everyone back to a level playing field.”

I suppose the lowest common demoninator do enjoy being told what to do and not having to think for themselves.

“She helps so many students every year”

All of which could be done without convincing gay kids they’re evil and should change or burn in hell for eternity etc…

Tim the Toolman says:

09:21am | 01/03/11

“how nice people are”

They always are…unless you don’t fit their mould, in which case, they’ll ostracise you (best case) or kill you (or any number of other unpleasantries in between).

“But you choose to ignore the 99% of positive”

99% of the time murderers are probably really nice people.  Doesn’t mean we want them around our kids teaching them morals.

“Just think - your kids might choose to become caring, outwardly focused, moral…Christians!! “

Would be you encouraging this if it were Islam?  Buddhism?  Hinduism? 

“with a need to publicly promote hate and intolerance towards religious people.”

Sorry, but in terms of hate, atheists aren’t even in the same league as religions.  Have you read your bible?

“but when they come from a place of complete ignorance then your credibility is shot. “

I suggest you are the one coming from a place of ignorance.  Read the bible and tell me it promotes decent behaviour.  If so, you read a different one to me.  It teaches intolerance, hatred, violence, discrimination and bigotry.  It’s one of the most awful texts humans have written, and people dare hold it up as a force of good in the world.  if only most christians read their bible.

TheRealDave says:

10:27am | 01/03/11

@Cybacat

Could you please break down for us how much the Catholic Church contributed to ...oh…lets say The Premiers Flood Relief Fund setup for the recent Queensland floods? Should be pretty easy to get that info shouldn’t it? We’ll compare it against donations put in by Australian businesses and government and the services provided by government and community/social organisations. And then we’ll check the Anglicans and the Baptists and move on into the other religions….discounting the money the government puts into them in the first place and any programs they fund for them.

cybacaT says:

02:41pm | 01/03/11

@Tim the Toolman
“They always are…unless you don’t fit their mould”
Strike 1 - you couldn’t be more wrong mate.  Jesus was all about helping the ostracized - if you had actually read a Bible then you’d know that.  Remember he was the one who stood alongside the tax collector, the diseased, the prostitute…while remaining unimpressed by people in power.

“Doesn’t mean we want them around our kids teaching them morals.”
It’s such a shame stats aren’t kept on crime and imprisonment rates sortable by religion (or otherwise).  I have no doubt that the rate of crime in the Christian community is a tiny fraction of what is the norm for the rest.  There’s a reason for this - Christianity clearly teaches non-violence, concern for other before yourself, etc.  It also teaches respect for parents, siblings, even enemies.  These basic concepts are now becoming a bit foreign to our increasingly secular (and crime-ridden, intolerant) society - and it’s no wonder why.

“Sorry, but in terms of hate, atheists aren’t even in the same league as religions.  Have you read your bible?”
Yes - and that makes 1 of us…clearly.  It seems you’ve started in the OT, forgetting that it is historical background for the NT where Christ arrives and Christianity is born.  Christ brought a new order of tolerance, acceptance, non-violence and concern for others.  (Just a recap on what you missed when you didn’t actually read the Bible).

cybacaT says:

02:46pm | 01/03/11

@TheRealDave

Mate I’m not Catholic or Anglican and I don’t keep track of their finances.
I do know that my little church of less than 1000 people puts together a couple of million a year for the poor.  This isn’t including the hundreds of food baskets we put together for the poor, nor the untold hours of time donated to help people out, care for the sick, fix the yards of people in hard times, etc. 

The difference is - Christians do this every week consistently…not just once every few years when a disaster strikes and it’s fashionable to donate.

Charity’s not a contest - it’s great that non-Christians also make donations.  I’m just not sure how this turns into an ongoing hate of Christians?  Seems messed up to me.

Elphaba says:

02:59pm | 01/03/11

@Cybetcat, levels of crime are consistently higher in communities that identify themselves as religious.  Communities that define themselves as atheist have far lower crime levels.

Prison inmate populations have far more prisoners that identify themselves as religious, than atheist.

Statistics do exist.  Look them up.  ‘Believing’ that Christian communities have lower crime won’t save you.

Tim the Toolman says:

04:15pm | 01/03/11

“Christ brought a new order of tolerance, acceptance, non-violence and concern for others.”

And yet the OT is still obeyed, or else why would there be gay bashings, abortion clinic shootings, constant wars between christians and others, christians blaming gay’s for earthquakes etc…why did they burn and torture people?

“It’s such a shame stats aren’t kept on crime and imprisonment rates sortable by religion (or otherwise). “

Ahh, but we have this: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

To quote:  “In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies.”

In the aim of full disclosure though, it did find that male suicide dropped.

“(Just a recap on what you missed when you didn’t actually read the Bible). “

I’ve read it….all of it.  I like the bit where the kids are slaughtered by a bear for making fun of a bald guy.  Awesome.

cybacaT says:

11:57am | 02/03/11

@Tim

“Christ brought a new order of tolerance, acceptance, non-violence and concern for others.”
“And yet the OT is still obeyed, or else why would there be gay bashings, abortion clinic shootings, constant wars between christians and others, christians blaming gay’s for earthquakes etc”
Because there are people out there who don’t follow Christianity.  Christianity doesn’t allow for gay bashings, nor abortion clinic shootings, and the idea that people are to blame for earthquakes is also non-Biblical.  Christ taught acceptance of the marginalised - not acceptance of unnatural or unhealthy behaviour - but acceptance of the person.  Just how he was the only one prepared to look after the prostitute, but at the same time instruct her to stop her behaviour which was damaging to herself.

Imagine if our society hadn’t been formed on Christian principles, but instead had been shaped by the thoughts, beliefs and “ethics” of atheist leaders such as Khan, Stalin, Hitler and Mao?  We’ve had it too good and complacency has set in as a result.

You’ve read the Bible and had the same level of comprehension that I’d expect my pet rabbit to have.  Next time I suggest you actually read it cover to cover and discuss it with someone who can explain to you what a parable is, or explain the most basic and important concept - that the OT was historical information to provide context for the NT.  The NT contains the teachings of Christ which IS the basis for Christianity.  He taught peace, love, tolerance, non-violence, care for the underprivileged.  This is what Christianity is all about.

But don’t worry - Christians will continue to shoulder your share of the burden when it comes to looking after the underprivileged…while you contionue to insult them.  Christians are soft, easy targets because they don’t fight back.

Keep hating brother - if that’s all you’ve got.

RMW says:

02:52pm | 05/03/11

Elphaba said: “Prison inmate populations have far more prisoners that identify themselves as religious, than atheist.”
A British prison survey discovered that in the year 2000, non-religious people comprise 32% of the prison inmate population (rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1501.pdf). On its own, it does seem to indicate that there more religious people in prison.
But wait! According to the British national census of 2001 (closest to the prison survey) only 15.1% of the total British population identified themselves as non-religious at the time (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=954). 15.1% of the general population yet 32% of the prison inmate population?. That’s a remarkable over-concentration of non-religious people who are crooks and criminals.

RMW says:

03:19pm | 05/03/11

Tim said: “Ahh, but we have this: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
To quote:  “In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies.”

Ah, but here’s the counter: “Paul focuses primarily on the high homicide rate and other selected ills characterizing the United States in a set of eighteen prosperous nations, attributing that unique position to a high level of religiosity. This approach can be badly misleading and a similar approach could be taken to highlight problems in more secular nations. For example, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, and seven other nations have higher burglary rates than the United States (based on Interpol and United Nations data). The United States ranks ninth in cirrhosis death rates with at least four of the secular nations, including Japan, Denmark, France, and Germany exhibiting higher rates. The United States ranks thirteenth in suicide rates, seventh in estimates of daily consumption of narcotic drugs (Interpol estimates), and fourteenth in estimates of net annual alcohol consumption (Interpol estimates). In short, Paul’s analysis generates the “desired results” by selectively choosing the set of social problems to include to highlight the negative consequences of religion.”
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html

Me says:

10:02am | 01/03/11

Grumpy Old Man for PM!!

I agree, just teach the kids historical/archaeological facts and how the different religions work and let them get on with it.

It really irks me all the people that say I’ll teach (read TELL!) my kid how to live their life and what to believe.  Why do they think they have that right, to expect another human being to just do as they’re told without questioning?

No-one is completely certain about this issue, otherwise it would have been resolved a long time ago.  If they are, they’re idiots.

elaine says:

10:04am | 01/03/11

“My nieces and nephews already parrot all manner of liberal-leftist ideology that I know they didn’t get from their parents. “

I have all manner of “liberal-leftist” ideas that I didn’t get from my parents.  It took moving out of a ‘Liberal-rightist’ house and thinking independently about the way humanity ought to be treated (i.e. with the respect and dignity that the Abbott-lead coalition so oppose)

Mike says:

08:14pm | 02/03/11

So you’re arguing that politics SHOULD be taught at school, as long as it’s what you agree with, Elaine? That was my point, that school should be “neutral” ground, and my point re parents deciding what to teach their kids was based on what Tracey wrote, that it should be up to her what her kid learns about religion. I think parents still have that much right. If you moved out and went your own way, brilliant, that’s how it should be. But I don’t expect a 6 year-old to have the maturity to be able to know what’s going on when they hear one thign at school and another at home. And in the end they are all viewpoints, there is not strictly a “right” or “wrong”, as much as one may feel a moral imperative or what have you. I would not be happy if a teacher taught the kids that the boats should be turned back, much as that’s what I think should actually happen.

RobD says:

03:26pm | 01/03/11

“Every chaplain I know does it because of their love for children and their families”

Good intentions does not make them in any way qualified to deal with what they have to deal with. Take the case of 200 teenage boys/girls with a conflicted sexuality. Put 100 of them infront of a “Chaplian”/priest and the other 100 in front of a trained psychiatrist. Then chart the suicide rates.

Luce says:

11:15am | 01/03/11

Hate to break it to you Snoogens, but ethics as a school of thought predates christianity - try the ancient Greeks and Confucius for a start. Christianity simply reaffirmed what the Greeks said, but in less words.

If there is no God, and we are just a lucky accident of evolution (which I believe we are), then maybe there are no absolute morals. Why is this such a stretch? Forming our own system of morals is essential to our survival as a species, and if it works then it doesn’t actually make much difference if there are “absolute morals” or not. Surely that’s not such a hard concept to grasp.

Danny B says:

10:51am | 01/03/11

There are - Ipswich Grammar School, Brisbane Boys’ Grammar, to name two.

Jacob says:

08:40pm | 01/03/11

@danny b. Ohhhhhh i see what you did thar.

Rebecca says:

11:49pm | 01/03/11

Same problem.  I have a 3 yr old and 9m old - I’m looking at Montessori or Steiner for primary, and possibly Perth Modern, or Murdoch’s newish secondary college.  If all else fails, I’ll start my own school - in a few years I’ll be a qualified teacher, so why not?  I was looking at all denominations for schools, even considered islam (there are a couple of schools here with very good academic records, and thats what I’m after) - but finally decided that I can’t send my kids to a religious school, because I’m not morally able to pay them to educate my kids when I can’t support what they do. 

I do support Ethics in school - and I do FULLY support comparative religion in school (with the beliefs some people hold, its almost imperative) - but keep the RE (that told me I was going to hell) out of our state schools, and sorry, but get the chaplains out too.  These religious folk are even in the military (of course, you need religion when you’re being sent for cannon fodder) - and a number of times I was reprimanded in basic training for refusing to bow my head during compulsory prayers and for refusing the chaplains requests for audience when I was in a military hospital (no, not life threatening!)

Sorry, but this crap has to stop.  You want tolerance?  Start giving some - isn’t that how Jesus did it?

TheRedRat says:

01:08pm | 01/03/11

Nope, completely wrong there Pauline, but a tired old argument that always raises its self absorbed head.

You do not have the right to decide where your tax dollars go, apart from voting / or running for parliment. I don’t have any kids so should I be able to not pay taxes towards education ?

The government provides a public school system, if you choose not to use it why should we subsidise your decision…...free choice…....means accepting responsibility.

Red Head says:

09:27am | 01/03/11

Beautifully said Julie, and yes I thought those sort of classes were optional too. Are they really offering Scripture classes at non-Christian schools in NSW which seems to be what Tracy is suggesting? I find that a bit hard to believe. I know many non-religious parents like to send their kids to Christian private schools for the benefits they offer in terms of networks and expanded curriculum opportunities, but I find it hypocritical that they then complain about religious education (it’s not like the school springs it on the parents as a surprise part of the curriculum!). But I agree with Julie re studying comparative religions as part of history education - it’s good, actually probably critical, to understand their origins, their beliefs, and the impact they have made on human history and culture given their influence still today.

Elphaba says:

09:50am | 01/03/11

@Red Head, I was publicly educated, and Scripture was offered in primary school.  It wasn’t opt in, it was opt out.  I think you’ll find most state schools do Scripture once a week.

James says:

09:29am | 01/03/11

Separation of Church and State is non negotiable.

Tim the Toolman says:

09:29am | 01/03/11

“Why do you insist on speaking as if you are the majority? “

Because you apaprently want freedom to practice your religion, that requires freedom from religion.  I don’t know about you, but I’d really rather we don’t simply let religions go at it…that’s never worked out well in the past (and continues to not work well in countries with state sanctioned religions and the persecution of the minority religions there).

Bobster says:

09:30am | 01/03/11

And Christians comprise the other 83%, I suppose?

Let’s assume that’s the case (it’s not), how does that give you the right to say what my kids are taught?

When I was at public school, they sent a troop of Bible-bashers - led by some bloke called Gideon, I reckon - around who handed out some Bibles.

By the end of lunch the playground was strewn with Bible pages. It was the single most encouraging sight I had ever seen, followed, in a close second, by the public school teachers’ refusal to punish anyone for it.

It was wonderful and it was a wonderful wake up call for the evangelical principal who brought them in.

If only more teenagers would do the same now - problem is, they’ve been indoctrinated to think preachers have a place in public education and the teachers have a problem with watching their students rain sulphur a colleague (even if he is a chaplain).

You’ve got your taxpayer funded “private” schools. Go there if you want fairytales.

Or will the government similarly fund a secular private school if I wished to start one?

That might be a nice idea, actually. The current private schools are cleaning up thanks to my taxes.

Get your rosaries of my taxes.

Squeeze the Middle says:

09:48am | 01/03/11

Sorry James.  Haven’t checked the Constitution lately.  Where’s that written? Either it’s written down or: might-is-right. And when they outnumber you, you can only push them so far. Bit of an inverse relationship there.

Billy bob says:

09:53am | 01/03/11

@ Bobster.

I’m sure you are one of the first people to cry all about tolerance but cheer at an intolerant view like who have just expressed.

Most normal sane people who disagree with a view just ignore it quietly. If you don’t like religion, ignore it, it’s not forced on anyone. It just shows how insecure people are especially when people get all upset over it, it shows how intolerant and insecure you really are.

I’m an Atheist and just ignore religion, they don’t bother me and I don’t bother them. I have many religious friends and are great people, they treat me with respect and I respect but disagree with their view which is generally the way majority of sane people do. Atheist zealots who get all hot and bothered by this subject need help, they are trying to blame their insecurities onto someone else.

Andrew Skegg says:

10:09am | 01/03/11

You do realize that equality legislation exists to protect minorities? Besides, in a modern, secular, multicultural society such as Australia, whi should your particular religious views get special privileges and access to children above all others?  I suspect you think tolerance is great, as long as you agree with the views being promoted?

Bobster says:

11:14am | 01/03/11

@ Billy Bob,

How exactly are you supposed to ignore it when they shove it down your throat at an institutional level?

Well, if they shove it down my throat, I’ll shove it up their arse.

How’s that for a balanced approached?

I’m all for tolerance but if they’re not going to tolerate my views, why the hell should I be expected to take it quietly.

Luce says:

11:21am | 01/03/11

So, Deano, just because the non-religious are a minority that means they should be subjected to religious teachings in what is meant to be a secular institution, when the religious already have other avenues to teach their children about God, i.e. church, sunday school, parents talking to kids themselves?

No one’s trying to ban religion in society. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, i.e. everyone has a place to go where they’re not having someone else’s beliefs shoved down their throat.

Squeeze the Middle says:

12:16pm | 01/03/11

@ Skegg. And legislation can be changed.  By the mob.  And when they’re out breeding the athiests .....  guess what’s going to happen.  Or worse, guess what is happening.  Right here right now.

Andrew Skegg says:

03:58pm | 01/03/11

@Squeeze, sure the majority can change legislation but they are constrained by the Constitution.  We do not live in a pure democracy.  Naturally, the Constitution itself can be changed, but this is not a very easy project for anyone to achieve.

Squeeze the Middle says:

05:02pm | 01/03/11

@ Skegg.  The constitution doesn’t say anything about gender or religion.  In fact when it comes to race S51 (xxvi) says: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to the people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.

Doesn’t sound like the wonderful libertarian document some claim it to be. Happy to be proven wrong.

As I’ve said elsewhere on this thread: it seems that athiests faith in our Democracy Lite can be as misguided as their opponents faith in God.

Might is right.

Andrew Skegg says:

11:32am | 06/03/11

” The constitution doesn’t say anything about gender or religion”

Apparently you missed section 116.

Squeeze the Middle says:

12:09pm | 07/03/11

Correct.  I missed that. But isn’t Chapter 5 dedicated to dividing up the powers between Sate and Cth. Whereby S116 merely ensure that such powers remain with the States. I.e. along with education, curriculum and schools.

I understand the different States had different flavours of Christianity at the time.  I’m huessing S116 was merely designed to prevent the Commonwealth being used to push the established religious bent of the States being pushed out.

Bobster says:

11:58am | 01/03/11

Look what’s happened in the US since they’ve done away with burnings at the stake. Can you spell it out for me?

bob says:

11:26am | 01/03/11

And which of those needs to be wrapped in religion and why? You can give good secular reasons for any of those (Sunday being as good a day as any for the final one. However, I don’t think it mentions two days rest in the Bible)

Bobster says:

12:19pm | 01/03/11

Bob, actually. You’re both wrong.

- Honour thy father and they mother is not in the constitution.
- Murder is in the commonwealth crimes act, not the constitution, ditto theft.
- Adultery - not in law at all anymore (Thank the Lord).
- Bearing false witness is only an issue if you’re bullshitting the police or a judge or magistrate.
- Coveting things is the entire basis of our economy and underpins pretty much every ad campaign I’ve ever seen. I’m yet to see a constitutional lawyer use the coveting provisions in the High Court.
- Keeping holy the sabbath would have some pretty major implications for the hospitality industry and law and order would cease every Sunday. I reckon both the unions and the Liberal party would arc up on that one.
- False idols, Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are screwed.

Sorry, which parts of that underpin our constitution? Only two of them are even reflected in law at all.

Don’t talk rubbish.

Elphaba says:

09:51am | 01/03/11

“Scripture isn’t taught in state schools.”

It was when I was at school.

Luce says:

11:30am | 01/03/11

Gladys, scripture was, and still is, taught in state schools, often without the parents knowledge, without an alternative, and when the parents try opt out they’re often pressured by teachers not to.

There is already a push to teach ethics in schools, with a lot of support. But, surprise surprise, there is strong opposition from the church and other religious bodies who feel threatened by an alternative being available.

LauraBoBaura says:

11:52am | 01/03/11

Yep - Scripture was taught to me when I was at school too.

Bobster says:

12:24pm | 01/03/11

Scripture wasn’t supposed to be taught when I was at school. Didn’t stop some bloke called Gideon (didn’t catch his last name) herding as all into the hall and lobbing (heavily editted) bibles at us.

Squeeze the Middle says:

10:00am | 01/03/11

The demographer Eric Kauffman at last year’s Festival of Dangerous Ideas agrees with you.  See http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2010/11/09/3057413.htm.

People get their religion from their parents. Bible bashing conversions is a side issue. And the religious are doing what they have always done so well: breed.

Funny isn’t it that this showpiece Festival from the left sent Labor a message they don’t want to hear. That by failing to live up to their own values, they push people to the right and religion and will guarantee their own downfall. Seems the Left’s pollster have been caught out.

Might is right.

Birdman104 says:

10:05am | 01/03/11

@ Kate this is an arguement for counselling supports in schools not chaplains necessarily.  The evidence is that these religious organisations are out of their depth and providing ill-formed advice on significant issues such as teen suicide.

It is a myth that Christians have a unique world view (it can at least be claimed to be shared by other abrahamic faiths).  It is also a nonsense to imply (as you do) that Christians are especially equipped to deal with problems (largely they ignore them putting them on a back burner until you’re dead). Again evidence suggest that they are much like the rest of us.  Even the trained pastors are not equipped to provide specialist youth support never mind the volunteers that are in fact the `chaplains’.

As usual this thread leaves the point. State schools are publicly funded and the State has no business giving christianity (any faith) a special place.  The fact Atheists’ are a minority is exactly why.  The Constitution is supposed to protect all not favour some.  Denying Christians privileged access to schools does not deny them the ability to have their faith, convert people who attend their centres etc.  I am frustrated that faiths want their `private beliefs’  respected at the same time they demand public funding and privileged access.

Squeeze the Middle says:

10:45am | 01/03/11

Birdman104 “The Constitution is supposed to protect all not favour some. “

And where does it do that?

I suspect that people’s belief’s about what Australia is or isn’t is about as fanciful as what God is or isn’t.

Rose says:

10:32am | 01/03/11

God loves everyone… when he’s not killing them with earthquakes etc.

Loz says:

12:38pm | 01/03/11

Hahahahah! Good one!
Wait. What??

LC says:

07:38pm | 01/03/11

“Religious education classes are voluntary. If the parent says no, they do not go.”

In NSW, the child will attend the classes unless the parent signs a scripture class REFUSAL from. If the parents do nothing, the child attends.Not sure if that’s what you meant, but still, that’s not on. When I went to primary school in Victoria, I had to bring a permission form home in order to attend RE classes, had I not bought it back, I would not have attended (which I didn’t in my last year after a frank discussion about it with my parents, I"m lucky they weren’t pushy with their religion).

Oh, and have you actually read s.116 of our constitution?

Tim the Toolman says:

11:30am | 01/03/11

“ohh sorry wait there is a problem with those schools too?? “

Umm….this is talking about the chaplaincy programs in public schools, not private religious schools.  I know facts aren’t the strong point of the religious, but do try and keep up.

Luce says:

11:37am | 01/03/11

Well… the state really, Bob. Being a secular government, they’re not meant to prescribe religious education in state institutions, not at least without an alternative, yet they still do.

Andrew Skegg says:

10:12am | 01/03/11

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution disagrees with your assessment that we are a “Christian based country”.

LauraBoBaura says:

12:32pm | 01/03/11

Angry mother; YOUR religion shouldn’t be taught in public schools to the exclusion of all others, what is so hard to understand about that?
And yes, without guidance we would probably all be lost, but who’s to say that guidance should come from the Church? If you want your kids to learn religious beliefs, send them to a religious school, or send them to church.
Until then, I agree with Tracey, keep your God out of public schools.

Ben says:

11:25am | 01/03/11

e=mc2 is an unproven theory? come again? hiroshima? chernobyl? those ring any bells? are those hundreds of nuclear power plants working around the world right now just figments of our imaginations?

Marek says:

12:24pm | 01/03/11

Ben, in the context of “beginning of everything” “E=mc2” indeed has not answered the “primary” question. For if you take all the energy and mass in existence, you also have to answer how this energy and mass started to exist. “E=mc2” has a huge gap of explaining how this equilibrium of mass and energy came into existence in the first place.

But enough of my view point. Read something closer to your heart: “In nuclear reactions, typically only a small fraction of the total mass–energy of the bomb is converted into heat, light, radiation and motion, which are “active” forms which can be used. When an atom fissions, it loses only about 0.1% of its mass (which escapes from the system and does not disappear), and in a bomb or reactor not all the atoms can fission. In a fission based atomic bomb, the efficiency is only 40%, so only 40% of the fissionable atoms actually fission, and only 0.04% of the total mass appears as energy in the end. In nuclear fusion, more of the mass is released as usable energy, roughly 0.3%. But in a fusion bomb (see nuclear weapon yield), the bomb mass is partly casing and non-reacting components, so that in practicality, no more than about 0.03% of the total mass of the entire weapon is released as usable energy (which, again, retains the “missing” mass).” source:Wikipedia

HappyCynic says:

12:32pm | 01/03/11

@Ben

e=mc2 still has issues at low energy and in quantam states.  It works perfectly for large masses though but to be declared a universal fact it’s got a long way to go.

That said Marek is still wrong about huge knowledge gaps.

Aidan says:

10:34am | 01/03/11

I think there may be a bridge short of a troll somewhere.

James1 says:

11:03am | 01/03/11

Who said anyone was afraid?

I like the way you equate atheist with anti-god.  Very faulty logic.  I am not against god or anything like that - I am sure you think he/she/it is a perfectly nice fellow.  I just don’t believe in he/she/it myself.  As such, how can it be possible for me to oppose something I don’t think exists?

I mean, would you describe yourself as anti-Zeus?  Or anti-Mithras?

And sure, there are some historical records written after the fact that confirm the existence of a Jewish fellow called Jesus who was executed as a political agitator by the Roman authorities.  That does not mean there is any evidence that he was god’s son.  Indeed, the only evidence that does exist for that are some books written by people who had a strong vested interest in readers thinking that Jesus was the son of god - would you read an ALP policy announcement with the same lack of critical discernment? 

As it happens, there is the guy who sleeps in doorways in Civic in Canberra, and once he told me that god talks to him all the time.  You guys should have a chat - he could be the next Jesus…

Danny says:

12:22pm | 01/03/11

In reference to the date, it is now accepted practice to use C.E. (common era)  : 2011 C.E.

Stu says:

12:27pm | 01/03/11

@ Tony Evans: “Jesus Christ is a fact of history. Just read the evidence.”

What evidence? I’d like to see some.

zoe says:

10:37am | 01/03/11

Do you have any idea how much more money they would have to pay psychs to work in schools?  I’m guessing a heck of a lot more than they pay the chaplains.

Eric says:

02:41pm | 02/03/11

Psyches should stay away from our schools as well. They would probably diagnose my kids with ADHD and force them onto medication that will rot their brains.
A qualified councilor though - would be affordable and an invaluable resource.

Em says:

10:28am | 01/03/11

Its interesting that you believe in evolution and the qoran.  Not sure how that works, but to anyone who might be swayed by this, I suggest you read Darwin’s Theory of Evolution for some balance to the argument.

Tracey, I applaud you for your bravery in bringing this to the attention of Australians - now, I wonder, will the government actually listen to the educated section of the community or the uneducated and brainwashed?  It remains to be seen.

Trjn says:

10:28am | 01/03/11

Humanity has learned a vast amount since the Koran was written over a thousand years ago. To say that there are some serious gaps in the knowledge presented in that book is an understatement, and that’s not even tackling the validity of the assumptions of a creator god. Same goes for the Bible.

Knowledge doesn’t stagnate, and it helps to view multiple sources.

katie says:

10:54am | 01/03/11

subhan’allah

Marek says:

11:10am | 01/03/11

Mankind existed for thousands of years before Koran (and the Bible) was written.  Would you care to explain why god|allah manifested itself:1) only in middle east 2) to small tribes as neither Jews or Arabs were most populous on earth at the time? 3) many thousands of years into human civilization(s) 4) contradicted itself in respective ‘holy’ writings and so on. The only thing that Koran teaches you is that you cannot question it. Hardly an enlightening condition.

Luce says:

11:40am | 01/03/11

Sorry saad, I’ll stick with Stephen Hawking over Allah

James1 says:

12:06pm | 01/03/11

Marek,

On your point, I have a question for the religious people here.  When god changes the rules, as per the NT compared to the OT, does everyone currently in heaven for observing OT rules like killing your children if they talk back or stoning adulterers automatically get kicked out due to the new standards being applied?  Are these standards retrospective?

Em says:

10:42am | 01/03/11

Same old tired argument against the theory of evolution.  I suggest you look up what a theory is because clearly you are uneducated on this topic.  Basically, in this instance it means a tested and testable concept which is used to explain an occurrence.  You cannot state the same about creationism.

Cameron D says:

12:19pm | 01/03/11

sorry Em but it still is not fact. let me ask you this question. what was there before the big bang and what causes the big bang. suddenly 2 molecules just happened to hit each other it all came to being! that is harder to fathom than a creator God behind this world.
As i said Creation is not a science. it tells us the God spoke and it came into being. how? who cares we are here and we are created from a loving creator God

HappyCynic says:

01:31pm | 01/03/11

@Cameron D

No the theory of evolution is not fact but it is backed up by many, many facts including observable and testable evidence.  As for the Big Bang it didn’t come from nothing just take a look at modern physics instead of your limited knowledge of 1970’s physics.

M-Theory for example, the central idea of which is that the visible, four-dimensional universe is restricted to a “brane” (not a spelling error) inside a higher-dimensional space, called the “bulk”.  In the bulk model, at least some of the extra dimensions are extensive (possibly infinite), and other branes may be moving through this bulk. Interactions with the bulk, and possibly with other branes, can influence our brane and thus introduce effects not seen in more standard cosmological models.  One theory called the ekpyrotic theory looks at the possibility that 2 branes collided in the bulk creating friction and setting off the big bang.  This may in fact be a common occurence. 

M Theory also helps with explaining why gravity is such a weak force on a quantum level when compared to the other fundamental forces of nature (electro-magnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces for the uninitiated).  Experiments are underway to find out if most of the gravitational force on an atomic level is actually released into the bulk rather than being confined to our brane like the other 3 forces.

The idea the big bang came from nothing is so childish and amateurish you may as well admit you know less than nothing about the physics of our universe.

Trevor says:

02:34pm | 01/03/11

@Cameron D

The correct answer to your question about what was there before the big bang is “We don’t know, but we are still looking into it, we’ll get back to you when we learn more.” not “We don’t know, therefore God did it and we don’t need to worry about it anymore.” One of my favorite quotes is from Galileo -  “All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered - the point is to discover them.”

Elphaba says:

11:02am | 01/03/11

*sigh* It’s just not the same…

James1 says:

12:26pm | 01/03/11

No, but I am still having fun.  Looks a lot like you are too.

Elphaba says:

12:58pm | 01/03/11

@James1, I shouldn’t bother.  It’s a circular argument that’s totally useless.

But damnit, it’s just so much fun!

I did post a comment down at ‘Dude’ earlier but it didn’t show up.  Bugger.  I hate when the cyber gremlins eat my comments.

Mods, pls can you go looking for it?  It wasn’t offensive…

Em says:

10:52am | 01/03/11

David, I think you will find that the ‘monkey theory’ has not been disproven.  Please check your facts.  Its religion that destroys lives, communities, families - you name it.  Its religion that causes suffering, ostracism, self righteousness, bigotry, hate, fear and people who do not believe in themselves.  The society those who do not want god in our schools to develop is one where everyone is treated fairly and the same, where ethics and morals are taught, people learn to do the right thing because its the right thing to do and not because they are going to go to ‘hell’ if they dont, where people are ‘do-ers’ and not ‘pray-ers’ and help each other out because they genuinely want to help, not because they think they can get extra kudos from god for converting people.  Where people can celebrate their achievements as something they have done, not as the will of some sky fairy.  Bring on rationalism, bring on common sense, bring on freedom!

Tim the Toolman says:

11:38am | 01/03/11

If “the monkey theory” is that a thousand monkeys typing for a thousand years are what’s producing your posts, then yes, I agree with the pain it has, and is, causing.  Please go back to Grade Two…I think you missed a few thousand science classes along the way which would answer all of your questions.

Baal says:

12:17pm | 01/03/11

I am alittle more interested in the this “party theory” you talk about.

Squeeze the Middle says:

11:10am | 01/03/11

Lister: Is silicon heaven like human heaven?
Kryten: Don’t be ridiculous.  Someone just made that up to stop you all going nuts.

Think about it Gelf.  Are you seeing beyond the kiddies layer of what religion presents? Step outside the cocoon of what your fellow man has provided for you to see what the universe really has planned for you. Nothing. You’re nothing.  Life is pointless.  It’s random.  It will end. So why are you still going to work everyday and paying your taxes? Because being alone makes you feel bad? Ever thought why mathematicians and physicists believe in God. So what do you think God means to them.

As for the Church.  Has the replacement (Nanny State) not succummed to the same abuses?

Religion is like the Simpsons.  Something there for all stages of your life. There’s layers for the kiddies and layers for higher levels of awareness.  At least with monothesism you have a direct relationship with God. You don’t have to pay a priest to ask THE question: what it’s all about. How do I avoid being a jerk? At least monthesists can get to higher levels of awareness without paying. Whereas some of the religions established in the 20th century are going back to the bad old days. How do you think that’s going to impact you? Not at all?  Think again.

How good is the alternative?

Luce says:

11:46am | 01/03/11

Simon, the people who don’t want to be taught religion don’t believe in “his heaven”.

As for the Columbine massacre comment, as much as it may frighten you, many good people exist without religion.

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” – Steven Weinberg

HappyCynic says:

01:48pm | 01/03/11

@Simon

Patronizing much?  Yours is supposed to be a G-d of love is He not?  If so then don’t be hypocritical it just fuels the arguments of atheists.

And you can have it both ways to suggest absolutism like yours exists in this world is not only naive but unrealistic

Deano says:

10:45am | 01/03/11

@ Mr T

My bad, 18% according to the last Census

mr T says:

01:39pm | 01/03/11

@ Deano.. 

Kewl…  18% from last census..    I’d accept that… (mostly) 

Mind you in the last census I put my religion down as Jedi   LoL…  I’d take that information source with a bit of salt…

Peace love and mung beans….

Scott says:

11:08am | 01/03/11

That’s good to hear the Chaplaincy is effective in that school, but does it really need to be a chaplain to effect these results? When I was a young atheist at high school having adolescent issues, I felt uncomfortable talking to the chaplain and preferred talking with the resident psychologist.

Good on you, Tracey. First you put Meryl Dorey in her place, now this. You’ve gone up the rankings in my books to increase public awareness of these issues.

But let’s not forget everyone’s right to religious freedom, just don’t push your shizzle onto others.

Aidan says:

11:21am | 01/03/11

No, no, no, Ben.
You STICK THINGS TOGETHER with the glue.
You don’t SNIFF it.

Binky says:

11:26am | 01/03/11

I agree with your call to ‘stop being politically correct’. It is about time that the sheep (blind followers of religion - whose books and doctrine are made up along the way). We should all be free to think what we like, and follow what-ever spiritual path WE choose. The path should not be laid out for us during our formative years. Introduce religious studies in high school AS AN ELECTIVE subject. If young people are interested in it, they will attend the class - but they will have done so voluntarily.

Tim the Toolman says:

11:45am | 01/03/11

“America is collapsing because people have turned their backs to God”

Other way around Ben…other way around.  Have a look at the stats on the most prosperous and crime free states in the US.  Here’s a hint.  They’re not the religious ones.  Next, look at the same perspetive, but for countries.  Same pattern.  Staggering isn’t it?  Finally, look into your US history.  The founding fathers were not christians.

Nico 'Big Easy' Dunning says:

02:26pm | 01/03/11

Religion should be against the law, it is immoral and a cult of brain washing child rapists.

Danno says:

11:07am | 01/03/11

Well said.

Many Christian organisations that help the less fortunate are made up of volunteers and those giving their time, Father James’ street kids program, World Vision, Angiicare, Mother Theresa’s group, and the above mentioned.

anonanon says:

10:59am | 01/03/11

interestingly tolkiens based a far bit of his story on the bible…

Danno says:

11:03am | 01/03/11

So much hate in you, very sad. You chose to have nothing to do with your brother because he doesn’t share the same views as you and your family, it is your choice, not due to religion.

Luce says:

12:47pm | 01/03/11

... I thought the whole genocide thing would have made that pretty clear.

Tim the Toolman says:

11:42am | 01/03/11

“Perhaps the atheists will fund an alternative, oh that’s right they don’t believe”

Care to toss any other blatantly false claims in there while you’re at it?

stephen says:

11:45am | 01/03/11

The number of Chaplains who would quote to their students from the Old Testament would equal the number of Teachers who you Sir may wish to expel..and please don’t tell us not to rush to do anything.

Plato's friend says:

12:12pm | 01/03/11

@Stephen: I’m not telling anyone to do anything - just trying to provide some insight from someone who is actually involved, hands on.  The reality that I see at my school, is that Chaplains fill a very real void - for better or worse.  For example, we have one school counsellor on staff (a qualified Psych), but if I refer a student to her, there is a four week wait.  She is so overworked attending to the urgent.  In contrast, there are five Chaplains who can help, and I admit that from time to time, I have referred some of my seriously troubled kids there.  (For example: Me to 12 year old student: “Why are your crying?”  “Sir, because he made me have sex and I didn’t want to ...” (and yes, I did follow protocols ..)

If we do remove all of the Chaplians (which I’m in favour of) - who fills the vaccum?  Who attends to the very real need?  If you think that parents will step up and be parents, you have a wonderful imagination!

LauraBoBaura says:

12:15pm | 01/03/11

I absolutely agree with you - the chaplain at my high school was fantastic. Never mentioned God in any of the conversations we had. There were panflets about god in the office, which you could take & read, IF you wanted to, but if not, you could just go & have a chat.

Rhino says:

05:59pm | 01/03/11

How about Stephen Hawkins as a role model Rod? A fantastic, enquiring, eloquent and gifted mind inspite of all that should have stopped him. Good, inspiring and real role models are easily found if one looks. I personally would not use the bible for role models, for every good one in there, there are a lot of horrendous ones too.

James1 says:

11:33am | 01/03/11

“Parents, if you’re athiest, teach your kids that”

Actually, as an atheist, I disagree.  I want my child to make up her own mind, not agree with me.  As such, I expose her to as many different religious traditions as possible, in the hope that she will choose the one that she believes in, if any.  Surely that is the most ethical action to take - let the kids decide for themselves, and treat them like the individual people they are.

Dude says:

11:39am | 01/03/11

What if it’s all true and the atheists are preventing other people a path to heaven? Or, are you certain it’s not true and you have the proof?

How would you feel if heaven exists and you were the person who convinced someone it wasn’t real and thus sent them to hell for eternity?

Colette says:

12:42pm | 01/03/11

Good question, Dude, but my Christian school taught that God predetermined everything - right down to who will/won’t be a Christian and gain entrance to heaven.  As someone who is (currently) agnostic, I guess I can take some comfort in this?

Aidan says:

11:39am | 01/03/11

I’ll think you’ll find that one is based on demonstrable scientific principles and the other one isn’t.

By the way, there are more than two sides to this issue.
Some people believe the Earth was created by aliens.
Are you suggesting we should teach THAT in schools as well

Tim the Toolman says:

11:41am | 01/03/11

”  It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as creation….”

No it doesn’t.  Evolution is a testable theory which has stood up to many, many hundreds of tests.  Creation is not and has not.  It requires 100% faith.  End of story.

Greg says:

12:14pm | 01/03/11

Completely agree. It’s very frustrating listening to a bunch of atheists bag Christianity without having a true understanding of Christianity. It seems like a lot of these viewpoints are based on assumptions without any basic study.

kate says:

11:46am | 02/03/11

I think you’ll find more atheists have read your bible than christians.

In fact, reading the bible is what turned most of us into atheists (those of us who were previously christian that is).

stephen says:

12:10pm | 01/03/11

John Milton said only schmucks can tear down the house of God.
Read son, read.

Tim the Toolman says:

11:53am | 01/03/11

“Point one: Chaplains don’t do religious education.”

False, they do, there is plenty of evidence around for that.  They _shouldn’t, is what you should have said.

“Point Two: NSW’s ethics classes are completely discriminatory.  Its absolutely unfair that they be offered only to certain students and others are barred from them.”

True.

“Point three: Primary aged children certainly have the capacity for critical thought.”

Capacity, yes, but where are the courses on critical thinking?  If the parent doesn’t teach their child, but lets them soak up state-provided religious babble, where does that leave the child?

“Sorry Tracey, if you want to encourage intelligent debate”

How does one debate with a group who refuse to acknowledge facts?

The Cricket says:

05:07pm | 01/03/11

John, would you say ethics classes are more or less discriminatory than Christian religious classes in state schools?
They are providing an option to those who do not wish their children to be subject to Christian religious indoctrination at school.
For those who argue an knowledge of Christianity is important, then teach is as an academic subject: its history, how is spread through Europe, its influence on out culture and laws. But that’s not what happens. Children are preached to.
On the issue of chaplains, I’m sure many - if not all - are well-meaning people trying to make a difference in yougn lives. But is completely inappropriate that being religious is the most important qualification for this role. The implication seems to be that religious people are more morally sound that the rest of us. There are some horrifically immoral and evil religious people, just as there are some terrible athiests. Being religious doesn’t someone any better or worse to advise young people.

Tim the Toolman says:

12:01pm | 01/03/11

“we should teach them atheism. “

You don’t need to be taught atheism, everyone is born an atheist.  It’s deluded adults who infect the minds of the young with the information virus known as religion.

Peter says:

10:53am | 05/03/11

Actually some of your best known scientist who made great advances in science belived and believe in Creation. It is becasue these men have inquisitive minds they uncover much information about how this universe and the things in it work.  To use derogagtory comments of those that hold an opposing view to your opinion is a poor defence.

A Dose of Reality says:

04:00pm | 01/03/11

And you are telling someone else to read up on history?  Your nose must have been too close to pages with unsafe ink - or in an incorrect book.  What you suggest is a complete nonsense.

Frank says:

12:27pm | 01/03/11

Yeah Im ok with that. Let them teach creationism in next to evolution. It will only take 5 seconds to say “a rapidly shrinking group of ludites think God did it” and then they can move on to the SCIENCE (it is a science, despite what your preacher tells you) of evolution. Unless you think they could talk about nonsence for longer than 5 seconds?

Mike says:

12:02pm | 01/03/11

Jimmy, I am Catholic, an also a believer in Evolution.

Can you please explain another tested theory? One that has been put up against the rigor or scientific standard.

Tim the Toolman says:

12:03pm | 01/03/11

“yet they believe Evolution without questioning it.”

Well that’s an issue with their critical thinking, not the science, isn’t it?  And if they did engage their critical thinking, they’d rapidly find that there’s no evidence for god, and a small mountain of evidence for evolution.  But why let facts get the way of your delusion?  You’ve been ignoring them for the last 2000 years!

Frank says:

12:20pm | 01/03/11

Heard of Darwin? No doubt. Well theyve been testing evolution since he was alive. Show me where your version of how we got here has been equally tested? Comon, dont be shy.

Peter says:

10:41am | 05/03/11

Mike I was once a Catholic and now I am not. As for the Theory of Evolution - it is not a teastable science such as say the Theory of Gravity. In fact the supporters of Evolution take great offence when their theory is questioned. Not good scienctific practice is it. Actually Evolutionist and Creationist scientist use the same evidence eg fossils. Both do experiements with the information availabe to prove their pointsand if the available informastion contradict their assertions, it is either discarded or reinterpreted. Scientist do come to different conclusions. That is why you have scientist that disagree with the theory of evolution. SO yes questions do exists with evolution and it is not hard and fast Theory as some would want us to believe.

Eric says:

12:16pm | 01/03/11

That is what science is. I think I prefer being taught a theory that is backed by a wealth of physical evidence, research and established science, than one that is backed by the rantings of men 2000 years dead.
The ONLY credibility religion has is that very thing, the fact it references a book thousands of years old. No physical (or otherwise) evidence to back the “theories” within whatsoever. But surely a book being 2000+ years old means it must all be true :|

Frank says:

12:22pm | 01/03/11

B, youre confusing “theory” with “guess”. A theory is entirely testable. Gravity is a theory. We cant prove it as a fact, hence the large hadron collider, maybe one day we will. So maybe you could help us poor deluded fools. What is your version of events?

Malfurion says:

01:31pm | 01/03/11

@ Frank: Evolution is also not entirely testable: Tell me, where in the past few thousand years there has been a profound change in, say, humans that would adapt us better to living in certain areas, like a hot climate? We can’t tolerate it any better, instead, we have modified our environment by the use of building materials, airconditioning and the like. When have they managed to successfully simulate how life started despite them saying they had all the conditions in the lab just right? When have they successfully managed to proof just why some species left the oceans whilst it was still hospitable for some and why others grew wings when the ground was just as good for their non-flying peers? Why are we not seeing the evolutionary development of a whole host of new species as their present habitat becomes more and more inhospitable?

Fact is, they may have been testing that theory since the time of Darwin but so far they have not found conclusive evidence to elevate it beyond the status of a theory. As it is at present,  you can proof the theory of evolution as little as you can proof creationism.

Just Sayin' says:

02:44pm | 01/03/11

You’re confusing two different means of theory.  There are many.

theory (noun)
1.(Obsolete) a mental viewing; contemplation
2.a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done
3.a systematic statement of principles involved: the theory of equations in mathematics
4.a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree
5.that branch of an art or science consisting in a knowledge of its principles and methods rather than in its practice; pure, as opposed to applied, science, etc.
6.popularly a mere conjecture, or guess

Evolution is a theory like Germ theory is a theory. (definitions 3, 4, and 5, not definition 6).  Are you going to tell me you don’t believe in bacteria?  Scripture on the other hand is not even a theory.  It’s a story.

Matthew says:

03:10pm | 01/03/11

Malfurion, Gravity is a theory too.  By your definition because it isn’t anything more than a theory than it isn’t good enough to be believed.

What about the fact that creationism can be disproven with carbon dating?  I don’t see any evidence to disprove evolution and therefore it is viable as an option, whereas creationism can easily be disproven by the fact that humans didn’t live with dinosaurs and the age of dinosaurs in general.

Athiests aren’t saying that evolution should be taught in schools instead of religion.  The biggest problem with religion is that it takes away kids ability to critically think about what’s happening around them whereas Science promotes it.

HappyCynic says:

03:31pm | 01/03/11

@Malfurion

A few thousand years is all you’ll allow to prove evolution in humans?  LOL, try a 100,000 years plus.  It’s quite easy in small, simple, short-lived organisms to prove evolution because they go through many thousands of generations in a few years.  However the more complex and larger an organism the longer it takes to evolve.

Evolution is absolutely testable on many levels and the suggestion that it isn’t is one based on complete ignorance of the subject, much like the morons who keep bleating about how they think the big bang theory is something from nothing.

Oh and for the record I’m religious but I see no conflict between my belief that G-d created the universe and everything in it and the theory of evolution.  So why are you so stupid not see the connection and compatibility between the two?

Trevor says:

02:52pm | 01/03/11

As long as they are not funded by the government, fill your boots!

That’s the point. Imagine if it was Islam being taught in RE classes in our state schools, imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth then!

Frank says:

06:47pm | 01/03/11

Agree Ryan. Get rid of all religion.

Danno says:

12:07pm | 01/03/11

A view to be proud of…NOT. So as a true Darwin follower, you don’t know whether it is right or wrong to kill an innocent person on the street, to steal, to rape, etc. And you take advantage of the weak…what a great society we would be if there were more cavemen (yes, if you are Darwinian then you will believe that possibly you have not evolved from grunt stage) like you around. Your blog actually supports God.

Simon says:

11:52am | 01/03/11

How convenient for you, that you dislike Christian holidays so much, yet have taken the time of work for so many years. Hypocrite, work those days and then make your position. You can’t do both and be respected

Martin Luther says:

01:15pm | 01/03/11

Simon says:

Have I??? You don’t know a thing about me. I worked night shift on Christmas night last year. I am also on salary so I didn’t get paid overtime. I was forced to take the Good Friday holiday though in 2009, which was boring to say the least. I would have preferred to be working on Crap Friday and to take my birthday off, but hey most businesses take Bad Friday off in respect of the death of an israeli 2000 years ago.

You proved that you are a your moron though as you didn’t even get my point, which was I am very much pro-separation of church and state to the full degree. I do not want a single cent of my taxes paying for anything even remotely religious, of which Christmas decorations, I believe, are categorised.

Why don’t we put “Happy-Hanukah!” balloons up in our Police stations, or “Hey-it’s-Ramadan-time” posters in our schools? The thing is we don’t because hey, we’re a Christian country right? I believe that these outdated religious festivals have no relevance in modern society.

Let’s change our public holidays so they represent real changes in human history like celebrating universal sufferage, celebrating the day we humans controlled smallpox disease, or celebrating the day Carlton last won the AFL premiership. Celebrating the birthday of some Jew who lived 2000 years ago seems a little ridiculous and offensive to me. That’s all.

Danno says:

11:59am | 01/03/11

The same reason my tax dollars are spent on art classes where I really don’t like art. It’s not about us, it’s about giving our kids opportunities to learn a broad range of subject matters and give grounding so that they can make up their own mids or puruse their own careers. If you want to stop brain washing in school, take out ethics and theory of evolution for a start. Hate for my kids to believe that we all started by accident and evolved from a single cell bacteria into a complex being with intelligence and morales.

Chad C Mulligan says:

03:18pm | 01/03/11

or even decent spelling.

Danno says:

12:57pm | 01/03/11

It’s not God that has a lot of explaining to do, it’s us that will have a lot of explaining to do come judgement day and we stand before God pleading our case on whether we deserve to go to Heaven or Hell. God is not accoutable to you Tzimisce, it’s the other way around.

Daryl Saal says:

12:22pm | 01/03/11

Michael, surely you know that all recognised private schools receive big subsidies from the tax payer? Depending on what set of statistics is used they either get quite a bit more per head than the state schools or a little less. You aren’t “saving state money on Education”, far from it. Many well off people send their kids to state schools because they believe the education is better. The term safety net is offensive, discriminatory and quite wrong.

Grumpy Oldman says:

01:31pm | 01/03/11

‘That means you can choose to take your kids out of religion classes, and teach whatever religion you like’. You’re missing the point, Simmo - why should children be taught any religious rubbish at all? It’s the 21st century, and there is no place for any form of religion in our society. As for the tortured logic of ‘would you prefer your kids to be forcibly taught from the Koran from 9-5?’, as if the choice is Christianity or Islam .... words almost fail me .... the choice is religion or no religion. I don’t want to see Christianity destroyed, Simmo, I want to see all religion destroyed. Join us in the real world, Simmo - there’s really nothing to be scared of. Oh, except the bogey man, trolls, nasty pixies, ghosts ....

Shelly says:

06:27pm | 01/03/11

Freedom of religion is the right expressly provided by the Constitution. Removing scripture from schools in no way infringes or impedes that right as the Constitution does not imply or confer a separate and different right to access scripture in schools.

Cate says:

12:19pm | 01/03/11

Because Narelles, the NON scripture children are BANNED from any formal learning because to quote the principal at my government school “according to the Dept, this would discriminate against the children attending scripture as they will miss out on the learning opportunity”.

So whilst YOUR kids get scripture MY kids have to endure minimal supervision in a mixed age class with TV and colouring in. I am not an athiest, I just believe it is OUR responsibility in OUR time to teach religion NOT our schools.

narelles says:

12:33pm | 01/03/11

Thanks Cate - but at the school where my daughter attends, we have chosen protestant scripture, others have chosen muslim scripture, others have chosen catholic scripture etc, those who choose non-scripture go to the Library or Computer Rooms and have classes in there. While I understand your point of view, understand mine - we want our children to grow up with the freedom of choice (in religion) - not to have it ripped off from them because of the say-so of a few dogooders.

Trjn says:

12:59pm | 01/03/11

@narelles, you have that freedom to teach your children scripture whether it is in the classrooms or not. You can teach them yourself, you can send them to church, or to bible study, or to Sunday school. There are plenty of options readily available that don’t require class time be devoted to a subject that shouldn’t be there.

Shelly says:

01:01pm | 01/03/11

How long are the scripture classes? Half an hour? Surely that amount of time is insignificant really, compared with the time they would spend with you at Church or Sunday school? Or perhaps at one of your church’s youth groups (most have them I understand)? You would surely spend more than half an hour a week reading the bible with/to them (depending on their age) wouldn’t you?

narelles says:

01:42pm | 01/03/11

Thanks for the replies, but again, you are asking for the right to choose NOT to have Scripture at schools, but in lobbying for that, you are removing my right to choose TO have scripture for my kids. Whether and what we follow up with at home is inconsequential - the fact remains, you are removing freedom of choice. What makes your choice more important than mine?

LauraBoBaura says:

02:07pm | 01/03/11

narelles - nobody is lobbying to get scripture removed from all schools, just public schools.
Furthermore, nobody is removing your right to choose to have scripture for your children, there are many, many outlets for you to teach them about God, and many religious schools you could send them to.

You have all the choice in the world.. people often send their children to public school because they don’t want them being taught religious ideals, that is their right.
And by putting religion into public schools, it is infact their rights that are being taken away, not yours.

Trjn says:

02:25pm | 01/03/11

Quite simply, having scripture in the classroom is NOT a right. Being able to believe what you choose and teach your children what you believe, those are your rights. I’ve already suggested a few ways for you to do that.

Scripture class is like prayer in schools, it excludes those who don’t believe and ostracizes them.

narelles says:

03:24pm | 01/03/11

Simply - Again - you are removing my right to choose, why should I send my children to a Christian School @LauraBoBaura? You say that rights of others are removed with scripture in schools, not true - you have the right to say “non-scripture class please”. My children have the right to public education as much as anyone’s and I have made the choice for them to go to scripture. Honestly @Trjn, I can do all that and still have the right to scripture in school’s - that is why there is a non-scripture class.  Freedom of Choice is there for everyone - my nieces and nephew who attended the same ps as my children didn’t suffer from choosing non-scripture.

Shelly says:

03:42pm | 01/03/11

You insist you have a “right” that you accuse others of wanting to remove.  Why do you believe that there is a “right” of scripture access in public schools? Where does this “right” come from?

narelles says:

04:41pm | 01/03/11

@shelly - The Constitution of Australia - Protection of Rights - Freedom of Religion… Why should scripture be removed from school’s - just because you are not religious? It goes back to Fairness and Equality for ALL - not just those who aren’t religious or don’t want Scripture in schools.

Shelly says:

09:48am | 02/03/11

My reply appeared under the wrong post. I don’t think the Constitution says what you think it says. Or does what you think it does. The Constitution is a set of operating instructions for the government of Australia - who makes the laws about what - the division of labour so to speak. Its intention was not to provide express personal “rights” as per a Bill of Rights but to express who had what power under the federation. The freedom of religion provisions are to ensure that the government cannot establish a particular religion as a national religion - it can’t nominate and conduct the government of Australia under a particular religious banner, be it Judaism, Anglican, Catholic or any other religion.

Because the government is not permitted to privilege one religion over another, this allows for a personal freedom of religion.

This is not the same a guaranteeing a right of access to any particular religion at any place of your choosing. It is no more logical to point to the Consitution and say “this gives me rights to have my child access scripture in a state school” than it is to point to the Constitution and say “this gives me rights to have my child access scripture on a train, or at a hospital”. We don’t, as yet, provide publicly funded access to scripture classes on trains and in hospitals just because children are likely to use them.

Stu says:

10:41am | 02/03/11

@ narelles: “Why should scripture be removed from school’s - just because you are not religious? It goes back to Fairness and Equality for ALL “.
If you wanted religious freedom and equality you would be advocating comparative religious teaching, not a special class for your own faith. BTW there is nothing in the Australian Constitution that protects scripture in schools (Section 116 refers).

Cate says:

12:12pm | 02/03/11

As I said in another post Narelles, I am not atheiest but I maintain the teaching of religion is the parents responsiblity and should be undertaken in non-school time or alternatively to send their child to a private religion-affiliated school.

You mention in your school the non-scripture children go to the ’ Library for classes’ whilst others are attending scripture. I am not sure which State you are in Narelles but in NSW, from the information I have received from both my local public school and the NSW Dept of Education, children who do not attend scripture classes are NOT allowed to be instructed formally and have minimal supervision as this is deemed “discriminatory’ to those attending scripture who would ‘miss out’ on learning opportunities.

Up to an hour a week is allowed to be spent in scripture in NSW schools depending on scheduling, so IMHO these approximately 30 hours a year would be better spent on formal instruction and scripture taught in the home/church/Sunday School/Temple/Mosque etc.

Tim the Toolman says:

01:56pm | 01/03/11

“I’d really like to see what some of you think on your death bed. “

That I’m glad I didn’t waste my life being terrified by a fairy tale.  Seriously….

A Dose of Reality says:

04:05pm | 01/03/11

Now Anthony - “(haha ! - take that!).”

It is genuinely funny that you think this is witty!

…. not with, at!

Luce says:

12:43pm | 01/03/11

Well done on addressing the point of the article Bruno. Clearly you have many valid points to throw up.

P. Darvio says:

12:31pm | 01/03/11

Consider yourself lucky…...the Christian Bible (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) says gays should be killed.

Tim the Toolman says:

02:00pm | 01/03/11

“You’re just substituting one set of beliefs for another”

I’ll say it for about the fiftieth time today….evolution is not a belief, it’s a scientific theory.  Evolution is more understood than gravity…should we stop teaching that?  How about the theories which underpin the computer you’re using…we understand evolution better than that too, and look what we still manage.

James1 says:

12:29pm | 01/03/11

You think that because you have not made an effort to understand scientific theory, and the evidence for the existence of evolution.  Peruse any reputable scientific journal if you want to educate yourself further on this.

As such, the fault here lies with you and your lack of knowledge, not the theory.

Frank says:

12:29pm | 01/03/11

Same as gravity? Its a mere “theory”. Maybe you could prove to those stupid scientist how meaningless ‘theories’ are and jump off a cliff?

dave says:

12:30pm | 01/03/11

actually it is scientific fact, maybe you should research it a bit more.

James1 says:

12:30pm | 01/03/11

Understanding the science behind your existence would not do any harm either.

I have no problem with accepting that organisms change over tens and hundreds of billions of years.  Why do you exactly?

Jamie says:

01:10pm | 01/03/11

Because there is no proof, only some fossils which are only part of the puzzle.  I read Darwins works and I don’t accept it and it is only a theory.
Having said that, I have been to certain parts of Brisbane & Logan that have made me start to wonder.

Tim the Toolman says:

02:02pm | 01/03/11

“I read Darwins works and I don’t accept it and it is only a theory.”

So is gravity…do you know what a scientific theory is?  No, clearly not.  Don’t believe it if you don’t want, but it doesn’t make it less real.  it’s not a competing belief, it’s reality.  Like gravity.  Don’t believe in gravity, doesn’t matter, you still are subject to it.

Jamie says:

03:09pm | 01/03/11

Tim, agree with your statement below except it should be God instead of gravity.

Tim the Toolman says:

04:01pm | 01/03/11

“Tim, agree with your statement below except it should be God instead of gravity. “

Then you haven’t understood what I’ve said.  If I jump, I fall.  If I drop a ball, I can precisely calculate when it will land. 

What does your god predict that is testable?  If there is no effect, then that is the same as no god.

Jamie says:

05:09pm | 01/03/11

And you haven’t understood what I meant.
Just because you don’t believe in God doesn’t mean you are still not subject to him.  Maybe you need something to happen in your life to change your opinion.

Danielle says:

06:38pm | 01/03/11

Jamie you are right- Like Tracey if I want to believe I am related to homo erectus or whatever other creature then why should my children be taught otherwise when they attend a State school?
When does it become school business to teach my child religion (that we as a family do not believe in)?

Frank says:

12:35pm | 01/03/11

Google “evolution of DNA”. You will be swamped by information you are nowhere near educated enough to understand. Dont tell me just because you dont get it that no-one does. Anyway who said physics is a “non-religious” subject? I think you’ll find physics to be the most athiestic of all the sciences. Watch this if you dont believe me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

drg says:

02:11pm | 01/03/11

@Frank. ok then, then take physics out. what ever. my point was if you want evolution to be taught at schools, then creation should also be allowed. as for me being no where near educated enough to understand, i’ll let you sit in your arm chair and say that cause you obviously know me and you know what i’ve studied and read and what degree i’ve got from uni and so obviously i’m more unlearned then you. google twit you fool. then google “what came first chicken or the egg” and then if you have more time google “what came first rna or dna.” having said that i hate it when people tell me to “google” because google obviously is the definitive answer to everything. try answer me in evolutionism terms what is the purpose of life without using google if you’re so bright.

Luce says:

01:00pm | 01/03/11

eddie, both of those scenarios are wrong. Humans evolved from apes over many many generations.

Slight difference.. learn about it and maybe you won’t display such amazing ignorance.