Intolerant Churches punishing non-believers

MrMac says:

06:47am | 25/11/10

There are plenty of examples of schools with religious principals not offering supervised non-scripture sessions for those that opt out of SRE thus forcing them into Scripture.

The churches are seeking a banning of alternate views in SRE times: their claim to want ethics for all out of SRE time is just to negate the argument or perception they really are seeking a banning of alternate views in SRE times.

Propaganda and baloney have been the domain of those opposing the ethic classes, as seen by their hope children who opt out of SRE still sit idle as per the regulations those churches support, while SRE volunteers spruik their idol.

Chris Gardiner says:

06:51am | 25/11/10

Michael - Freudian slip: I must have subconsciously been thinking about what some of the opponents of ethics classes worship

sproket says:

07:20am | 25/11/10

It bad etiquette to correct spelling on th einterwebs, Mick

In fact, one of the Church arguments was that if the scriptured children were left out of the ethics classses, they would fall behind. Doesnt say much for the “moral compass” in out lives supposedly being provided by the churches, eh?

Just as astronomy begins where astrology ends, science begins where religion ends, so ethics begin where scripture ends.

Luce says:

07:34am | 25/11/10

Actually Michael, the church IS trying to ban ethics classes, which is pretty much the same as banning an alternate view. And it wasn’t so much forcing kids into scripture as it was a lack of disclosure to parents about what was really happening to their children, eliminating their choice. And if parents opted their kids out they would face significant pressure from school staff not to. So much for secular schooling. Scripture shouldn’t be in state schools in the first place.

GregS says:

08:09am | 25/11/10

Children who opt out of the scripture classes are often required to remain in the class-room, sitting at the back doing things that will not disrupt the class (and also be FORCED to be exposed to the very stuff they opted out of).  There is often considerable pressure from staff on parents to have their children attend RE so the staff are not forced to supervise them in what would otherwise be a “free” period. My son asked to no longer do RE once he tired of colouring in the propoganda booklets given in RE and he realised the stories were so stupid.  He was 8 at the time.

Sharon says:

12:29pm | 25/11/10

Perhaps not banning alternate views, but definitely punishing them and discriminating against them

Simon says:

10:10am | 26/11/10

Mr Mac if that is really true then report them. the Dept has strict guidelines.

T.Chong says:

08:19am | 25/11/10

Damn, important should have been spelt with an r. 
Must have been thinking about the English line-up, without its commonwealth component.
A bit Freudian perhaps :(

Adam Diver says:

09:01am | 25/11/10

Wait, wait, wait, back up, is it policy for NSW state Libs to remove ethics classes completely, or simply remove scheduling with scripture classes.

WTF????? Why are state politicians so god damn inept. O’Farrell has had a policy of saying and doing nothing and letting Labor implode, which is all he needs to do, and this is the policy that I hear of from the libs?

There is a reason Labor have won so many elections in NSW and its not because of good policy, and its not because of the political spin, its the complete and utter uselessness of the liberal party in NSW, and they better start reducing expectations for next year, because based on thier performance in opposition I am becoming increasingly worried that they will be equally effective as labor, perhaps slightly less corrupt.

Russell Smidt says:

07:45am | 25/11/10

Neither?

GregS says:

08:12am | 25/11/10

Philosophers - they need not be scientists and certainly not be from the clergy.  The contrast between scientists vs the clergy does not need to be brought into the teaching of ethics.

BR says:

08:15am | 25/11/10

Erroneous question acotel. An ethics class is hardly going to be taught by a scientist. Who knows more about ethics? Well I’d say they are equally qualified given that ethics are dictated by society of which both parties are members.

One could go as far to say, given the child abuse charges the Catholic church continues to face, the clergy are perhaps not as well versed in ethics as the pristine white clerical collar would have you believe.

HappyCynic says:

08:23am | 25/11/10

Neither.  A person’s occupation doesn’t automatically qualify or quantify his/her expertise in ethics, a person’s experience does.  Which is why the bizarre attempt of churches to claim ownership of morality and ethics is so stupid.  The atheists also lower themselves to the same ridiculous argument by themselves claiming ownership of morals.

Oddly enough I think ethics should be kept out of schools, I think they’re a subject that can not be taught, only experienced.  Mind you I also think that if a school is funded by taxpayers it should also have no religious education of any kind.

Tedd says:

08:29am | 25/11/10

There ought to be ethics in science.

David the Atheist says:

10:35am | 25/11/10

There is ethics in science.

I work as a researcher in one of Australia’s largest and best universities and in my work must remain true to the following ethical guidelines or bodies:

- University Staff code of ethics
- University Teaching code of ethics

In order to actually do research we are required to apply for and remain consistent with and within Research Ethics approvals from multiple institutions depending on the research (University, multiple government departments, hospital, animal, NHMRC, etc).

Many of the ethics panel and codes are written by those who are required to adhere to them with input from outsiders and are publicly available for review, comment and criticism. The punishments for breaking these codes vary but if serious enough can essentially amount to ruination of career and reputation.

Even though I agree with the specious nature of Acotrel’s question were I forced to answer I’d definitely say scientists, it is a large part of our daily job and a crucial underpinning of how we engage with the community and each other. Clergy are far more preoccupied with morals and I suggest you take the time to explore the difference if you don’t know already.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=difference+between+ethics+and+morals

Alison says:

02:12pm | 25/11/10

Ethicists know more. Which is exactly who has drawn up the curriculum for the ethics classes.

Reg says:

09:41pm | 25/11/10

Pardon me ... I’ve been looking for the response that never came. Of course scientists know more about ethics than do the religious. How could anyone sincerely spread gossip as fact, because that’s what the religious do.

A man of science could never make a claim on such a basis, that hot was cold, unless he was either drunk, in error or a pompous git.  The religious carry on with all three all the time.

A most illustrative question acotrel.

Greg Kasarik says:

10:48am | 13/12/10

The study of ethics mos properly is the domain of philosophy.

Theology isn’t so much interested in ethics, as it is in at torturously arriving at the already pre-determined answer to the question at hand. Don’t expect many Catholic “ethicists” to come up with a justification for abortion and still maintain their positions.

On the other hand, science is about measuring what is observable, and so science can’t even begin to tackle “ethics” as it isn’t an observable phenomena. All social and behavioural scientists can do is to research people’s perspectives and beliefs regarding ethics. Science can not determine if something is right, or wrong.

While all research into humans and animals needs to obtain ethics approval, this is a recent development and arose from a series of clearly unethical experiments, such as Zimbardo’s Prison experiment. Their “ethical” positions often more to do with protecting the research establishment from being sued, than any identifiable ethical position. Decisions handed out by such committees are often irrational. For example, a friend reported that she was unable to conduct sociological research into witches because the chaplain on the ethics committee had a supersitious fear of the occult.

Which leaves the philosophers; people who are trained in logic and the deconstruction of argument. In theory, although not always in practice, philosophers are best equipped to analyse the competing claims of different ethical positions and to devise theories regarding what is ethical and what isn’t. They often work with complex hypotheticals, designed to get to the heart of why one particular action seems ethical, but another almost identical one does not.

Most importantly, every year they take thousands of first year students, who are certain of their god given morality and show them, in a very concrete way that what they thought they knew about ethics, is often built on sand.

Whereas sociologists and politics classesoften turn into indoctrination sessions for feminist-Marxist ideology, philosophy is often attended by the sense of wonder with respect to how much we don’t know and a renewed desire among students to investigate in order to find the answers for themselves.

To me, this seems like an excellent reason for such teaching to be conducted instead of SRE classess. Could anyone ever imagine forcing universtity students to attend religious education classes? Of course not, so why force kids to endure the same thing?

sproket says:

07:39am | 25/11/10

so fire and brimstone stories of hell and torment, and fairy stories of immaculately-concieved zombies are more interesting to school children than albebra…..no surprise there.

That does not meabn they are anything but mere fairy stories.

Seano says:

08:03am | 25/11/10

That’s funny because as a casual teacher who often has to sit in on scripture classes for child protection reasons i’ve yet to see a scripture class that wasn’t presented by a grumpy, unqualified, untrained and unprepared old codger. I’ve yet to see a scripture class engaged.

iansand says:

08:39am | 25/11/10

I used to entertain myself in scripture classes by asking tricky questions.  A casual observer would have called me engaged.  In reality I was being a smartarse brat (nothing much has changed).

Richard says:

09:08am | 25/11/10

But those fairy stories are ancient mythologies that lie at the very heart of our entire sweep of history and culture: they are the keys to unlocking understanding of our entire civilization.

All Australian children should be taught about the stories upon which rest the foundations of our heritage as a Western race.

Tedd says:

09:28am | 25/11/10

They might be part of Western heritage, but not part of Aboriginal heritage, or our increasingly Asian heritage.

Even then they can be taught that in history.

marley says:

09:47am | 25/11/10

@Richard - I could argue that the foundation of our Western “race” ethically and philosophically lies far more with the pre-Christian Greeks than with the Christian Churches.  So teach Socrates along with the Bible.

sproket says:

09:57am | 25/11/10

Richard, if you take a completely anglocentric view of history then you could argue that the scriptures should be the subject of teaching, but then you have the problem that the true motive for the church pushing this instruction is proselytisation pure and simple.

I did Classics in year 12, did a lot of Greek mythology, the difference between that and this scripture teaching is that my classics teacher was not trying to convince up we should worship Athena and engage in great Bacchanalian festivities to satisfy Dionysis.

Any attempt to conceal this proselytisation as some form of history class would be pure deceit. Keep History and ancient folklore in History classes.

Luce says:

10:13am | 25/11/10

Richard, sure they should be taught them, but as STORIES, not as fact (which is how the church would prefer to have it). They should also be taught the stories of many other religions, as well as the FACTUAL ancient history of civilisations such as the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Mayans, Pagans, and the many, many others from which Christianity cherry picked ideas and symbols to make up their own mythology. The fairy stories of Christianity are merely a small part of the basis of modern civilisation, not by any means the entirety of it.

Richard says:

10:57am | 25/11/10

Yep, we’re all in agreement I think, they should be taught as history not religion. And all other ancient works of mythology should be taught too: Bhagavad Gita, Tao Te Ching etc., all the classic philosophers too like Plato and Aristotle et al…
Such a practice could give our Australian culture real depth and added dimension.

Steely Dan says:

09:46am | 25/11/10

@ Jon

“The Greens are strangely silent on ethics classes”
No, they’re behind it.  In fact, they go one step further than the ALP, in saying that the policy should have legislative backing (making it harder for a future conservative parliament to reverse the decision).
http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/lock-in-ethics-classes-say-greens-20101020-16ud8.html

Jon says:

02:53pm | 25/11/10

Steely Dan@ You could be right, but my impression that it was the St James Ethics Centre that was given the impudence from Atheists and Agnostic organisations such as Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, who have been pushing this for years. If Greens want jump on board, great, then they can talk about a lot other related issues, like ‘freedom from religion’.

xyz says:

11:55am | 25/11/10

Gareth, I agree. My son was in primary school in QLD about 10 years ago and rather than be idle I put him in the Christian scripture class so he could have a different view to mine (agnostic atheist). After a couple of years of bringing home pictures of Mary on a donkey, I decided that he should get another view. The only other choice at the time was Baha’i faith so he went there for his final year of primary school. This was much better as it appeared to teach comparative religious studies.

I’m pleased to announce that, at the age of 18, he has decided for himself to be non-religious (and a non-believer). He has a very inquiring mind and is fascinated by all religions (includg the ancient ones).

Simon Waller says:

10:08am | 26/11/10

Don’t you know that it was Christians who started Schools in Australia, and under a deal with the states, gave them control. Part of the deal was legislation that guaranteed a set time period for Special Religious education. No-one “felt a need to introduce SRE at all”. I used to be important.

iansand says:

08:49am | 25/11/10

Unfortunately there is a precedent.  Professor Ian Plimer took the creationists to court on the basis that they were engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.  Plimer lost because the Court found that religiously based creationism was not trade and commerce (even though they were selling stuff).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/1997/1361.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(plimer )

The funniest thing about that case is that I know both counsel for the creationists at first instance quite well.  One of them is so anti-religious that he won’t attend friends weddings in church, or the christenings of his friends’ children.

iansand says:

09:36am | 25/11/10

It was actually an ark searcher, but the principle is the same.

Steph says:

11:06am | 25/11/10

RE teachers are volunteers. Totally in it for the monies T_T Churchgoers GIVE their money to the church, so they must be totally in it for the monies too. The church uses the money to fund building repairs and the manse expenses. Yes, I can totally see pastors and ministers buying the latest cars with the collection plate givings. Especially when, weekly, the average donation into a collection plate is roughly $2. For a minister, it is their job, the pay they get for doing it is entirely provided by the congregation. Often, for a full weeks work, it’s less than the base salary wage. The ministers sure aren’t in it for the money.
The Vatican? yes, I can see them being in it for profit. But the average protestant church you pass in the street? nuh-uh.

jade says:

09:40pm | 25/11/10

Steph, I sincerely hope you don’t mean the average protestant church that guilts its members including university students living on austudy and families struggling on minimum wage into tithing 10% of their income to the church?

Dave says:

10:38am | 25/11/10

Good points, but do notice that O’Farrell has left himself some wriggle room. He has only committed himself to abolish ethics classes at the end of 2011. In effect he is edging his bets, give a morsel to the religious right before the election, leave the door open to a change of government policy if the public school lobby makes sufficient noise. That’s of course based on the premise that he is going to win, but his weal leadership on this issue doesn’t bode well for the future.

Steely Dan says:

09:41am | 25/11/10

@ Classic

“How are primary schoolers going to understand Plato, Aristotle, Lock, or Hobbes”
Will the children be taught Plato, Aristotle, Locke or Hobbes?

“what if a child says he doesn’t believe in gay marriage during an ethics class?”
Then he is expressing an opinion, and that’s fine in the context of a discussion of ethics.  The classes are supposed to be about getting kids to examine how they determine right from wrong.

Steph says:

11:28am | 25/11/10

Ethics classes will be biased. Regardless of how much people say “No! The teachers are teaching the children to distinguish right from wrong!”, inevitably a lesson could turn out like “This, currently, is what we call right. This is why it’s right. This is why wrong is wrong. But, of course, I’ll let you make the decision for yourself” and if a student likes the ideas of Communism - having, through thought and discussion, come to the conclusion he/she believed it a sound theory - and goes home to tell their parents about it, what do you think that parent/s will say? “That’s nice, dear” or “COMMUNISM! No way! How could you even THINK that?! Rethink, NOW!”? I doubt they’d let their darlings think something like Nazi practice was alright in hindsight when we have a very clear social position on that.

Also, I doubt that the subjects will come without the current political/social biases attached. If we teach about Communism (for example), would we teach without the current “we don’t like communism” attached (even if we don’t word it that blatantly)?

Steely Dan says:

11:41am | 25/11/10

@ Steph

“Ethics classes will be biased.”
A teacher could use any class to say anything.  I had a public school geography teacher tell us (in the height of Hansonism) that it was only a matter of time before Indonesia invades, so we should consider pre-emptive military action.  Do I oppose the teaching of geography because of this experience?  Of course not.  There’s no iron-clad guarantee that a teacher won’t insert their bias, but it’s just as likely to happen in maths as it is in ethics.
If the curriculum is solid and unbiased there’s no reason to oppose the classes.

Tripper Smurf says:

12:27pm | 25/11/10

@Steph,

So what you are saying here is that you are against a free and open forum of ideas being discussed, just because you feel that several of them are not worthy of discussion, or because they differ widely from your own tightly-held beliefs that they cant possibly be right!

Or are you worried that people finally getting a choice will choose to actually learn about something that is beneficial to them rather than sit there and be told stories that were voted on some 300 years after they were supposedly set.

Ethics is about promoting discussion of these issues, not punnishing those who dare to hold a different opinion to the majority, such as you seem to think it is.  If someone was against gay marriage or for it, to use your example, they would discuss the issue in an attempt to get an understanding if a consensus itself was unattainable.

In fact the only time ive been asked to go bounce the proverbial ball against a wall is during a RE class where I successfully got most of the class questioning the validity of the Christian myth.  I did nothing but question, and instead of answering my questions and proving that they had a point, they sent me away…  Outta sight, outta mind I guess!

As to the old ‘What if someone is pro-Nazi?’ argument, that people bring up against these classes being introduced, well dont you think that these kids would hold this opinion regardless of going to an ethics class?  After all I remember such questions being raised during History classes and whatever.  At least with an ethics class, that student would then be exposed to competeting points of view, which he may not had the opportunity to be exposed to before, instead of being stuck listening to ultimatley irrelevant fairy tales.

Kika says:

01:26pm | 25/11/10

@ Steph - and how are RE classes unbiased? When I went to mine I certainly didn’t hear the opinion of Buddhists or Zoroastrians in my Anglican education sessions!

Steely Dan says:

02:31pm | 25/11/10

@ Steph

Kika’s got a point.  Even if the ethics classes were run by teachers out to peddle their own agenda - these are opt-in classes that kids would go to instead of a) thumb-twiddling or b) straight-up religious indoctrination.  And I’m not being hyperbolic there - RE is not Comparative Religions 101, it’s weekday Sunday School.

Reg says:

07:20am | 26/11/10

@Classic, “The right question is, How are primary schoolers going to understand Plato, Aristotle, Lock, or Hobbes when they can’t comprehend De Mille, Welles, Kubrick or Coppola.”

And the right answer is ... as fairy-tales, the same way religion is understood, they are brainwashed with adaptation. You start simple with lies like Santa Claus or tooth fairies then you move on to the real lies. The authors you mention promote thinking rather than blind acceptance.

@ “As I understand it, a child could say the Nazi’s were righteous and the teacher can’t say he’s wrong - it would be up to another student to argue that the Nazi’s were bad…”

Why is that a problem? The child or whom-ever, remains to be convinced.  May I suggest that the scornful law that suggests that all argument will ultimately lead to the Nazi illustration, is an attempt to water-down the clarity of the example, making the law and its followers Nazi apologists. Not so much of a joke anymore eh?

Greg Kasarik says:

11:03am | 13/12/10

Why would a student be sent out for not “believing” in gay marriage? Most obviously, the student would be simply channelling his parents views at that age. A grade 5,or 6 student is clearly not in a position to understand marriage. Heck, they still don’t like the opposite sex.

A good ethics teacher would ask the student a series of questions aimed at getting to the heart of the student’s objections and work to uncover any contradictions within that position.

For example, if the student claimed that gay marriage undermines marriage, the teacher could ask the pupil if they have any evidence of this. If they are aware of any hetrosexual couples obtaining a divorce because of gay marriage.

It isn’t up to the teacher to condemn the viewpoint, but rather to highlight the processes involved in arriving at an ethically robust decision.

Tedd says:

10:20am | 25/11/10

“children could come up with socially acceptable solutions on their own.”

I think we will see more and more of that as society continues to change as it is, and there is not the cognitive dissonance that goes with being force-fed religions dogma

Classic says:

10:38am | 25/11/10

Define socially acceptable solution?

sproket says:

12:20pm | 25/11/10

...that children could come up with socially acceptable solutions on their own.”..”...demonstrating that we do not rely on religious dogma and divine revelation as the source of our ability to think and act morally, as the church would have you believe, instead we get it from our own thought processes.

Bravo!

claasic says:

02:46pm | 25/11/10

“get it from our own thought processes” Go on….

Steph says:

11:30am | 25/11/10

Theophobic. That’s discrimination against religion, you know.

Tripper Smurf says:

12:00pm | 25/11/10

Not at all, as I have read up largely on most of the relgions in this world as part of my university studies.  It seems from several of the other posts you have left her Steph, is what you are afraid of is someone making their own minds up instead of blindly following what somone else says, wether that be a Pope, a priest or even a teacher.

If someone can tell me logically why they support their version a yet unproven force, that noone has any empirical evidence of or can accuratley describe, then its all to the good, I will equally explain them the logic of why I dont believe in any organised relgion as they are all different, and all claim to be true.  Otherwise yes, I will make fun of fairy tales when they are trying to be sold as facts.

When there is such a wide range of different views on the nature of a ‘god(s)’ if you will in this world, isnt it even more likely that in fact they are all wrong and are in fact a hangover from the days when rulers relied on such stories to explain the unexplainable to keep their populations in check,.

Remember Relgion stats that it knows everything, Science (which has only become to be viewed as the opposite due to the ignorance of the Church) doesnt claim this, they instead promote understanding.

Tripper Smurf says:

12:31pm | 25/11/10

Also furthermore a Theophobic is someone who happens to be scared of theolgy.  I’m not scared about theolgy, I just dont agree and will derride anyone who attempts to get me to believe in something without logic or proof backing them up.

The same how I would derride anyone that told me that the Sky was yellow and not blue, or that apples and oranges are actually quite comparable beyond the fact that they are both edible fruit.

Steely Dan says:

11:43am | 25/11/10

@ Steph

“Where do our views of right and wrong originate?”
Sounds like a question to ask in Ethics class!

Tripper Smurf says:

12:13pm | 25/11/10

Ah and so if these things came from the Church, or our sense of morals cant be seperated from the teachings of said Church, then how was society able to survive before the Church?

The greatest Western Empire (Rome) was founded as a pagan state.  In fact the majority of the civilisations in the world today and in the past didnt require the Church, as you see it, to promote ethics within society.  Then you also have tribes of people who have never heard of relgion, yet they dont kill you just for the sake of it, and cause they dont know its wrong… of course they do, even if you think that you might not in a similar circumstance. 

To answer your questions.  We know that killing is bad, because of two reasons 1/ We wouldnt want someone to kill us.  2/ The pain that it causes the people that deceseased leaves behind is obviously something that any ethical person, regardless of relgious beliefs would seek to avoid if possible.

As for being polite to people as you meet them down the street…. Geez, so you are saying that this doesnt happen without the guidance of a Church?  What a load of tripe!  I quiet clearly can get by in life without having to believe in a big man in the sky pre-determining my fate and still stay polite to the people I meet… if you cant, then thats an issue with yourself and the way your family raised you, not the overall ethics in society, Church or no Church.

Oh and people get upset with adultery cause of the fact that its a betrayal of the special bond two people make.  In essence what you are saying here is that before the Church, adultery wouldnt of caused such issues….no thats a simple biological drive to protect your status within the community or the immediate family with which you live, sorry to say, and the reason why people who do not have any relgion still dislike it occuring.

iansand says:

12:38pm | 25/11/10

Steph - Our morals have no “originality” (I suspect you meant something else).  They are a pretty standard set across all religions and all societies.

Christine says:

12:41pm | 25/11/10

Many animals (dogs, wolves, elephants, meercats, to name a few) also demonstrate behaviour such as punishing animals who break the herd or pack rules, often by social exclusion, sometimes by physical repercussions. There are many ways humans *may* have developed notions of right and wrong, including religion, evolution etc.

Steph says:

01:01pm | 25/11/10

Tripper Smurf… There are a few posts spread across this thread to reply to, and as much as I’d love to go into a fully fledged debate on religion, the origins of the universe and life itself - in an adult, rational and logical manner - here really isn’t the place. For now, let’s agree to disagree and hold to it that we have different opinions. For you, religion is a fairy tale, and for me, the Earth exploding out of nothing and subsequent evolution is laughable - and I have my reasons, but going back to what I said, here isn’t the place. If we could carry it elsewhere, believe me, I would love to - not least of all to hear about how you had your whole class questioning the validity of Christianity. I’m a Christian, so yes, I hold to my beliefs. If you were Mormon, I could probably have you questioning yours in a space of ... oh, I’d say half an hour. Until you can prove me wrong and you right (and vice versa for me), let’s leave the Religion debate right there, yeah?

Luce says:

02:25pm | 25/11/10

Partly it came from evolution: the groups of animals / people who survive as a whole are the ones who treat each other better, or act in a way which benefits others, not just themselves.  The man-made version of ethics came from a number of sources, including Greek, Roman and Stoic philosophies, and I’m sure, many more.  The Christian religion used those ideas as it’s own, and, in many cases, perverted them to some extent, but Christianity is not where they originated.

David the Atheist says:

02:42pm | 25/11/10

Wow Steph, so much sophistry spent on telling us why you won’t answer any challenge to your position. Your confidence amounts to zero reason to think you know what you’re talking about or have good reasons to hold the positions you do.

Also, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, some may claim the universe originated from an early expansion of space and time and they are required to justify such a claim with reason, logic and evidence (of which there is a substantial amount).

You may claim the universe and all life was created by God and it is up to you to give an account fo why this is true (I’m going to guess you would point to the bible and trip over the circle of logic). It isn’t just a rule of philosophy but Peter himself said so (1 Peter 3:15).

You may call for an adult conversation, and I welcome it but be an adult and own it.

Tripper Smurf says:

04:24pm | 25/11/10

@Steph

Thats more than fair, and I do value your difference in opinon.  Funnily enough I do believe in an all powerful force out there.  What I dont believe in is that any human can tell another what the nautre of that force is and beyond. Noone has any empircial knowledge of such things and therefore taking one person’s word over anothers is all what organised relgion is in essence is. It is along these lines that I ultimatley had a whole class questioning what was being told to us.

Also things like evolution and the Big Bang are still technically theories.  Its what they think is the most likely explanation as to whats happened, however they are willing to admit that someone could come along with a more probable theory going ahead.  However the vast majority of relgions tell us ‘this is what happened’ and then seek to prevent questions being raised on their narrative or a difference of opinion to be heard, if possible.

However I am not trying to ultimatley proove that relgion is wrong, for those who still seek it, as I admit there is good intent that comes from having faith, but for those who don’t hold value in religion, a discussion on ethics would be a more suitable use of time than sitting their bouncing the ball against the wall or twiddling their thumbs

Luce says:

04:29pm | 25/11/10

Sorry Steph, but David is right. Also, this is the place for it, thats why they allow comments on sites like this, to encourage debate.

Also in response to your statement:

“I could probably have you questioning yours in a space of ... oh, I’d say half an hour.” 

If 25 years of hearing people talk about religion, and finding many reasons on my own steam why I think religion is a load of bull (an apt quote I heard recently: “Religion only serves to provide intangible solace to those who need it” - touche!!) half an hour of your reasoning (of which, its pretty clear, you don’t have much) is not going to even scratch the surface. (for the record I know you weren’t responding to me specifically, but I figure the response from most others here would be along the same lines)

p.s. see my post just above about where morality originates from. It was around long before the church in some form or another, and was put into words by man at least a few hundred years before Christ, and hence Christianity, ever existed (if he even did). Christianity stole pretty much every idea from somewhere else, and if you do your research you can easily find it, even the crucifixion and resurrection are taken from other religions. So, while you hold true that you have your reasons for believing in what you do, I challenge you to be open, not ignorant, about the real history of Christianity, maybe then you’d see things differently.

True Believer says:

05:24pm | 25/11/10

Tripper Smurf:
“The greatest Western Empire (Rome) was founded as a pagan state.  In fact the majority of the civilisations in the world today and in the past didnt require the Church, as you see it, to promote ethics within society.”

Mmmmmmmmm could you direct me to this “greatest Western Empire”?  I have looked upon the remnants of its great works and “mighty” gods - but where is it now? Rubble and dust.  I can find Christianity in any country in the world right now, people living by that which Jesus preached 2000 years ago - which then is the greatest kingdom???  Methinks you perhaps should revisit history and read it it its fullness.

Elwoodius says:

06:47pm | 25/11/10

“... the Earth exploding out of nothing and subsequent evolution is laughable…”  - Steph

Sure - except for the abundance of evidence that points to it being true.

“...and I have my reasons [for not believing]”

Which must be ideological. Nothing to do with being rational or logical.

There’s no reason to add religion into ethics classes, just as there’s no reason to add the supernatural into the natural.

Reg says:

09:56pm | 25/11/10

My cat showed unheard of ethical concern today. I slipped in the anti-tick spray I was chasing him with and he came back and looked at me with a sad expression.  I was so touched, I missed an opportunity to spray him again.

Chris L says:

10:24pm | 25/11/10

“which then is the greatest kingdom???” - No doubt at the time the Romans considered their’s the greatest kingdom. There have been many “greatest” kingdoms since. Currently I guess it’s USA, but probably soon to be out greated by China. Time was when every homosapien worshipped spirits, and that was for many more thousands of years that Christianity has been around.

Don’t be too proud of this theological terror you’ve constructed.

Matthai says:

01:05am | 26/11/10

True Believer: “Mmmmmmmmm could you direct me to this “greatest Western Empire”?  I have looked upon the remnants of its great works and “mighty” gods - but where is it now? Rubble and dust.  I can find Christianity in any country in the world right now, “

The Romans did convince you to borrow their words for “empire” and “history”, I see.

True Believer says:

09:55am | 26/11/10

Matthai:‘The Romans did convince you to borrow their words for “empire” and “history”, I see.’

Your point being??????

Chris L: 
“Don’t be too proud of this theological terror you’ve constructed.”

I am not proud, I constructed nothing let alone this mythical theological terror you have dreamed up.

The kingdom I speak of is not a passing kingdom of the world, of course they will come and go as you so rightly point out. The Kingdom of which I speak is of the Living God and that stands forever. Regardless of whether you accept that as fact or not. Makes no difference to the reality of it being there.

Thank you both for your comments and observations. :0) Have a great weekend.

True Believer says:

09:55am | 26/11/10

Matthai:‘The Romans did convince you to borrow their words for “empire” and “history”, I see.’

Your point being??????

Chris L: 
“Don’t be too proud of this theological terror you’ve constructed.”

I am not proud, I constructed nothing let alone this mythical theological terror you have dreamed up.

The kingdom I speak of is not a passing kingdom of the world, of course they will come and go as you so rightly point out. The Kingdom of which I speak is of the Living God and that stands forever. Regardless of whether you accept that as fact or not. Makes no difference to the reality of it being there.

Thank you both for your comments and observations. :0) Have a great weekend.

Chris L says:

11:10am | 26/11/10

@ True Believer, your response should have been “I find your lack of faith disturbing!”.

True Believer says:

11:27am | 26/11/10

Chris L:
Don’t you think it is a little presumptuous for you to tell me what my response should have been??? :0)  My response is my response.

Your lack of faith saddens me, but it sure does not disturb me. It would disturb YOU however, if you knew what you are missing out on.

Tripper Smurf says:

12:51pm | 25/11/10

hmmmm are we forgetting the parents in all this?  I attribute my ethics to my parents, and I know the vast majority of my friends do likewise.

Tedd says:

01:00pm | 25/11/10

kids don’t have to work out such things for real, Classic.  Your dichotomy is a false one.

Luce says:

02:14pm | 25/11/10

“or from a big government loving hippy feminist marxist environmentalist one-worlder” - what??

Classic says:

03:00pm | 25/11/10

@ Luce - Seriously are there gonna be any ethics teachers who don’t believe that social security was a triumph, the 60’s were enlightening, that women are identical to men in everyway, communism is a grand theory, humans cause global warming and the United Nations is destiny? Probably not.

Luce says:

04:18pm | 25/11/10

haha!! Sorry, I don’t intend to demean your position by laughing, but I can’t help but see that as such a closed minded view on what ethics, and ethics teachers, are. The classes will be conducted by the St James ethics centre, which is a respected institution made up of highly intelligent, rational and qualified people. If they do hold any of those positions, I’m sure theres a good reason for it. And the teachers of the ethics classes will all have to be suitably qualified, with structured teaching material and will be monitored.
The volunteers (note: volunteers, not teachers) who take SRE are all from the community, and, while they are generally well meaning citizens looking to connect with young folk in a meaningful way, they are not regulated, they do not have set teaching material, and there is the potential for abuse when radical minded individuals come in and preach unreasonable beliefs to malleable young minds, completely unmonitored by any regulatory body.

So, in short, yes, I do find your position laughable

Grumpy says:

03:49pm | 25/11/10

You rebel!...I used to turn the cross upside down and throw my bible at my teacher, all with my head spinning. beat that! see you in hell!

Kika says:

04:47pm | 25/11/10

Hahahaha yeah I was a REAL rebel. Hahha. You did that in RE class? Geez!

Tripper Smurf says:

04:37pm | 25/11/10

Hi True Believer.

I am young (27) but I cant name that many people older than me who have more life experience just because they have been around for a little longer than I have.  Its a matter of how quick you learn.

I have great respect for people who do hold a faith.  However as you even said, such things like the continued role of organised relgion are difficult to comprehend. 

As previously stated, all relgions talk about a higher being.  They each give differing opinions on what the nature of this being is.  All of them cant be right, most likely none of them are, and this in fact is the issue.

Organised relgion is about explaining the unexplaininable and unproovable, some areas of which have now been explained to a larger degree or proven with a small probability of doubt.  Faith however, is what one undertakes when they believe in these tales that explain the unexplainable.  However just because a thousand, a million or even a billion people have faith in a story, it still doesnt make it truth.

With this or anything else in life, you ask a million people on why they did something, you would get a million different answers.  While I dont discount that they could be some force out there that is analgous to what many people call God, I equally also dont believe that no human has the required knowledge, or life experience to tell us of that force’s nature.

True Believer says:

05:52pm | 25/11/10

Tripper Smurf:

Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my post. Oh to be 27 again, I remember it well!!! Enjoy it. You are quite right about age not necessarily exhibiting wisdom. I have met “old” people of 30yrs and “young” people of 90yrs.  It is a state of mind, willingness to learn and to grow regardless of age is the secret.

I congratulate you in getting involved in these debates. It demonstrates that you and other young people are not indifferent to the larger questions of life and that is heartening.  We need young people like you.

I am not defending the institutional church, regardless of denomination, nor even all believers, we are only people and flawed. I just wish to say give Jesus a chance, do not judge Him by the many errors of we His people and those who claim to be His people.

Many sadly are wolves in sheep’s clothing and they have hurt many people. That is not of Jesus. He brought healing not hurt, love not hate and the peace that passes all human understanding plus his gift of life abundantly.

At your age my friend I too had no room at all in my life for God, it was only in more mature years I realised what I was missing.

Keep searching, keep questioning, criticize even, but do it with gentleness not to hurt and tear at other people.

Chris L says:

06:23pm | 25/11/10

True Believer, please point out which posts are intolerant or rude or insulting. I’ve been pleasantly surprised at how mature this discussion had been up until your accusatory post.

True Believer says:

08:04am | 26/11/10

Chris:

I was meaning the overall posts to anything that remotely relates to Christianity or “religion” as some call other’s faith not particularly this string of posts.

David the Atheist says:

12:14pm | 26/11/10

Ah yes, the Christian persecution complex, oh to be a believer and feel buoyed against criticism by the conviction that I am in possession of the truth.

Last I checked this article was about a specific group of religious people and institutions forcing their beliefs on those who do not share it.

It must be so terrifying and upsetting to be one of the oppressed majority.

True Believer says:

01:54pm | 26/11/10

David the Atheist:

Oh dear you really have so little understanding of what it means to know Jesus don’t you?  Perhaps you should get off your little hobby horse of atheism and give it a try? :0)

The article broadened out at the end to make the following statement:
“I guess the question is: if Jesus were around, would he abandon the trust he had in his Father and fall back on the State to force the Gospel on recalcitrant non-believers?”  The author makes a statement from his perception - he is in error. Jesus is still very much around let me assure him and you.

Oh dear but we cannot put Him under a microscope so He can be brought down to human level - sadly that is a stumbling block for many who are restricted by that thinking. To me to have only yourself, the State and science to depend on would be terrifying and upsetting. 

As I have indicated many times in my posts, I have been an unbeliever and a believer - and the latter not through any cleverness of my own or any person “forcing their beliefs” on me, but by the Grace of a loving God.  He invited, I accepted. Beyond your ken at this point I realise and understand.

You seem to have a particularly cynical view of Christians which is sad.
Is cynicism a prerequisite for the modern atheist?

Far from being terrified or upset, I rejoice in being set free to live, by His free gift of life and life abundantly.  I have tasted of the world my friend and this is a far, far better way I assure you.

michael j says:

03:32pm | 30/11/10

HI TRUE BELEIVER as for a FAITH there is not one for all people ‘yeah might be good’ for the CHURCH’S of nsw to think they are more right then thier nieghbor and ask the goverment to intercied so some kids can not learn anything while they are preaching is proberly opening up a big lawsuit amonst other things,and you say you CHOSE your FAITH, let others do the same and let them have the knowlage that FAITH does not exsist in one book,sepperation of Church and State happened for a good reason,and i wouldn’t like, it to return, it in history, caused too many problems,,,,all the best

True Believer says:

05:32pm | 25/11/10

Luce: 

Thank you for your post.  The “church” to me is the body of true believers, they may be found in many different denominations and outside them all. 

I am not defending denominations. They like atheism are often more man made than made of God sadly.  As such they are fallible and although often made up of people of good intent make errors. 

Jesus is not bound by any institution, or denomination, He transcends all man-made efforts to confine Him to one particular type of worship.  It is to Him I ask you folk to look not to His people, we all let Him down. We are not perfect, only He is. He holds the gift of Truth, love and life. Seek Him. All I can do is encourage you to seek Him and He will be found.  Jesus does not wish to control you or wield power over you I promise you. He offers so much more.

Reg says:

10:21pm | 25/11/10

And you know all this how?

The non-believers are not a group, they are what’s left when you take out the part who agree with you. This means that you are classifying those who do not agree with you as non-religious. And you’re doing so without either consulting them or from any position of authority.

True Believer says:

10:02am | 26/11/10

Reg:
Thank you for your question and comment. “And you know all this how.”

Commonsense, maturity, experience, study and knowing where to look. :0)

I do not recall referring to non-believers as a group. It is a generic term for those who choose not to believe in the God and His Son Jesus from my perspective. I do not claim to have any authority just the privilege of knowing Whom I worship.

There are of course those who follow other beliefs. I hope that clarifies it for you. :0)

True Believer says:

10:02am | 26/11/10

Reg:
Thank you for your question and comment. “And you know all this how.”

Commonsense, maturity, experience, study and knowing where to look. :0)

I do not recall referring to non-believers as a group. It is a generic term for those who choose not to believe in the God and His Son Jesus from my perspective. I do not claim to have any authority just the privilege of knowing Whom I worship.

There are of course those who follow other beliefs. I hope that clarifies it for you. :0)

Steely Dan says:

10:06am | 26/11/10

@ Reg

TB ‘knows’ it through faith, not reason.  Definitely not reason.

True Believer says:

11:18am | 26/11/10

Steely Dan:

Oh there you are!!! :0)

Yes you sadly have only reasoning, the product of chemical processes in your brain to you I guess - I admire your tenacity in clinging to your belief, confined though it is to only what you can comprehend or have others comprehend for you.

For me I have a reason to know there is so much more. Search on my friend. Have a great weekend. :0)

Steely Dan says:

12:14pm | 26/11/10

@ TB

“Yes you sadly have only reasoning”
Yes, it’s tragic.  I’m a prisoner of reality.

True Believer says:

01:35pm | 26/11/10

Steely Dan:

Yes a prisoner of your narrow perception of reality.  That is not all there is my friend, just your perception.  All there is is far wider, far higher, far deeper, far more meaningful than the human mind can comprehend. If you are content with your perception of reality, who am I to argue. I just ask you to respect that others may have knowledge you have not yet attained.

Steely Dan says:

01:50pm | 26/11/10

@ TB

“Yes a prisoner of your narrow perception of reality.  That is not all there is my friend, just your perception.  All there is is far wider, far higher, far deeper, far more meaningful than the human mind can comprehend.”
When hippies tell me this, I roll my eyes and tell them to stop talking over the Michael Franti set.

True Believer says:

02:40pm | 26/11/10

Steely Dan:  I am not a hippie. I am telling you the truth, but you choose to reject it. Your choice.

Steely Dan says:

03:14pm | 26/11/10

@ TB

“I am telling you the truth, but you choose to reject it. Your choice.”
Should I have taken the blue pill or the red pill?  ‘Whoa’.
I choose to reject bad thinking, because it doesn’t have a great track record when it comes to finding out the truth.

True Believer says:

03:33pm | 26/11/10

Steely Dan:

I notice whenever your back is to the wall you resort to cynicism. Is that wise or is that all there is in your “arsenal of knowledge.” :0) 

Trust me, there is more, what do you have to lose?  If you reach out to Jesus with an honest heart He will reply. No one will know. You will not lose face. What are you afraid of?  That He might be there??? Hey do not be afraid. You have nothing to fear, but fear itself. He will welcome you with open arms.  :0)

Steely Dan says:

01:29pm | 29/11/10

@ TB

“I notice whenever your back is to the wall you resort to cynicism.”
My back is not to the wall.  You’ve agreed that you don’t have a reason to say that god exists, but you do it anyway.  There’s no debate any more, you opted out when you declared that you had an irrational belief.

“Is that wise or is that all there is in your “arsenal of knowledge.”
Don’t use {”} unless you’re quoting directly.

“Trust me, there is more, what do you have to lose?”
I should no better than to argue with the irrational (that may actually be irrational in of itself), but I’ll address the points because they come up frequently.
1. What do I have to lose?  A rational view of the world.
2. I can’t just believe something at will.  Don’t believe me?  Believe in Zeus for a day.  Then get back to me and tell me how it went.

“If you reach out to Jesus with an honest heart He will reply.”
Tried it.  Guess what happened?  Nothin’.

True Believer says:

02:08pm | 29/11/10

Steely Dan:

My belief is not irrational only in the opinion of minds closed to all there is such as yours. Your response is irrational, but you cannot yet see that.  Whilst you are fixed on the illusion that all you can understand is all there is, you are captive to that narrow view, as I was once myself.

What an arrogant young pup to criticize my punctuation - another way of avoiding the difficult questions you refuse to examine. Hitting out at others by whatever means is avoidance of examining one’s own self of course.

So a “rational view of the world” is your preference. Well was mine too, till I matured to realize and accept there was more. 

No point in believing in Zeus he was a figment of man’s imagination - I read of him in mythology many, many moons back.

‘“If you reach out to Jesus with an honest heart He will reply.”Tried it.  Guess what happened?  Nothin’ ‘

Well it takes a humble, honest, repentant heart - no wonder there was no reply! Keep trying, but first have the good grace to embrace humility. I think you will find that helps.

He is God He does not come on your terms or at your behest.  You appear to want a little computerized ‘god’ methinks - you click, your little ‘god’ responds - that is no ‘god’ worth knowing.

I wish you well. :0)

Steely Dan says:

03:01pm | 29/11/10

@ TB

“My belief is not irrational only in the opinion of minds closed to all there is such as yours.”
Don’t try to back out now!  You proudly proclaimed that reason had nothing to do with your beliefs!

“Your response is irrational, but you cannot yet see that.”
Let me guess, all I have to do is be irrational (in a good way, like you), and then I’ll see that my response was irrational (in a bad way, like me)?

“Whilst you are fixed on the illusion that all you can understand is all there is”
No.  All that we see evidence of is all that we can say there is.  Only the irrational see a lack of evidence as reason to believe.

“What an arrogant young pup to criticize my punctuation - another way of avoiding the difficult questions you refuse to examine.”
Actually, I both criticised (note the correct spelling - unless you’re from the US) your punctuation and your flawed logic. 

“So a “rational view of the world” is your preference.”
Yes, it certainly is.

“Well was mine too, till I matured to realize and accept there was more.”
You ‘matured’ to an unreasonable position?  How do you discern the difference between enlightenment and senility?  And it’s ‘realise’. 

“No point in believing in Zeus he was a figment of man’s imagination - I read of him in mythology many, many moons back.”
Odd, I read of the Christian god in a book many moon’s back too.  How is the Judeo-Christian god real and Zeus not?  And why not believe in Zeus?  Scared you might understand the Truth?

“Well it takes a humble, honest, repentant heart - no wonder there was no reply!”
I’m the only one in this conversation who is humble.  Remember, you’re the one who thinks that you know the one-word answer to everything.  I’m the one who can say ‘I don’t know’.

“You appear to want a little computerized ‘god’ methinks - you click, your little ‘god’ responds - that is no ‘god’ worth knowing.”
I want a God that would expect us to use the brains given to us.  I guess that’s way too much to ask.

True Believer says:

03:52pm | 29/11/10

Steely Dan:

Well the real person will out in the end eh. You have shown your true colours.
 
You humble???? Give me a break.  Someone wiser than both of us once said, ‘if you don’t think you have the problem with pride, you have the problem with pride.’ 

Your “senility” comment and endeavours to correct not just my punctuation, but now my spelling eschews gross immaturity.

My computer actually reverts words to the US spelling and having been to the US and having many US friends I use both. It is called flexibility - new word for you.

Come back and chat when you have grown up a bit. I find it useless to have a serious conversation about important matters with an immature mind.

Kika says:

02:12pm | 26/11/10

hahaha yeah. Ok. Sure. I’ll get ready.

True Believer says:

09:03am | 29/11/10

This is what I mean about the mindless rudeness of the brave new atheist. Not brave at all. Not a thinker, just resorts to throwing insults.  Is this the face of the new mindset or is this an abberation???

Steely Dan says:

03:05pm | 29/11/10

@ TB

Did you read the comment?  He disagrees with the article that argues that churches should be allowed to impose their will on non-believers.  Just like you do.  And you assume he’s an atheist?

xyz says:

03:32pm | 29/11/10

I think True Believer is a troll.

Steely Dan says:

03:45pm | 29/11/10

(Correction) ...that churches should not be allowed…

Steely Dan says:

04:10pm | 29/11/10

@ xyz

I did too for a while.  But after meeting people who really are like her, I’m not so sure.  Unfortunately, fundies are indistinguishable from those who parody them (Poe’s Law).

True Believer says:

06:09pm | 29/11/10

Children, children - go wash your hands - bit of soap in mouth for michael J might help too - Steely Dan it is humble pie for you.

xyz Your opinion of me is as irrelevant as most of your posts. :0)