Many citizens don’t agree with Fred Nile’s bold assessment of himself as a modern-day Socrates.

The Oracle of Delphi said no one is wiser than Socrates.

They argue that while the great Greek philosopher deployed reason against dogma, the Christian politician’s opposition to secular ethics classes in schools is demonstrating exactly the opposite.

In addition to calling Nile an intellectual bantamweight, critics are questioning the good Reverend’s framing of himself as suffering tyranny because of his faith.

Instead, they claim that the real people being persecuted for their beliefs are non-Christians because Nile is forcing his particular brand of evangelism down their throats (or at least down their school curriculums).

Some have even been mischievous enough to suggest that if Nile really thinks he has so much in common with Socrates, then perhaps the government should offer him a man-sized serving of hemlock at its earliest possible convenience.

Dying at the hands of an unsympathetic state would certainly cement Nile’s status as both Socrates-esque and Jesus-adjacent.

Yet executing the leader of the Christian Democratic Party is unnecessary given that there is plenty of non-fatal proof showing that Nile and the man known as the founder of Western philosophy are, in fact, identical intellectual twins.

But first, the back story. Alert followers of New South Wales politics will be aware of the almighty commotion over ethics classes in the state’s public schools.

These were introduced on a trial basis last year so primary school students who did not attend scripture had options other than watching Lilo & Stitch on old TVs that had been dug out of the janitor’s cupboard.

(This was an actual summary of the pre-ethics class agenda from one of the state’s many pagan students.)

Of 745 community submissions received about the pilot project – in which children pondered issues such as fairness, virtue and living a good life – 730 were in favour of the new program.

This led to the 2011 roll-out of ethics classes alongside Special Religious Education classes in all public schools.

It has also led to frenzied efforts by Nile to put a stop to the classes via classic philosophical moves such as:

  • threatening to use his party’s balance-of-power votes in the NSW upper house to “torpedo” the government’s public service wages policy;
  • claiming that ethics classes teach children the philosophy behind Nazism and Communism; and
  • suggesting that he and Socrates were pretty much separated at birth

And thus we return to where we started: Nile’s case that – far from being diametrically opposed to the methods and ideas of Socrates – he is just like the lauded philosophical contrarian in that he’s questioning “the majority world view” and what young people are being taught.

Well. As always, it’s tempting to dismiss Nile’s “call me Socrates” claim as yet more look-at-me-ism from a prayer-drunk interventionist who engages in the clerical equivalent of shock jock-ism.

This is, after all, the clergychap who, in 2001, called for child psychologist interventions in Pottermania because it was “strange and unhealthy” for children to be queuing outside shops for J. K. Rowling’s witchcraft-promoting books.

This is the politician who says he avoids unbridled licentiousness by ensuring he’s never alone with a member of the opposite sex, who claims his parliamentary staff only look at so much internet pornography for research purposes, who thanks Almighty God for the fact that his party holds the balance of power in the NSW Legislative Council despite receiving only 3.12 per cent of the vote, and who compares the singer Eminem to Hitler (well, they did both have very successful rap careers).

Perhaps most infamously – this is the man who routinely attempts to wash out Sydney’s Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras by imploring his sky bully to send rain.

(Last time I marched past the Festival of Lighter and his militant prayer group in this parade, they’d only manage to summon a camp little rainbow – in the gay and lesbian colours, no less. All the exertion had, however, turned their straining faces an intriguing celestial coral colour.)

Anyway, while I’m usually more than happy to throw the first “you’re a bigoted old godbotherer” stone, in this case it’s clear that Nile’s I-am-indistinguishable-from-one-of-the-greatest-philosophers-ever-known line is perfectly valid.

Like Socrates (whose face was likened to the head of a crab), Nile (who has eyebrows like a couple of albino ferrets) was born in Athens in 469 BC and devoted his youth to barefoot philosophy. The one slight difference here is that Nile was actually was born in Sydney in 1934 and served in the army before being ordained as a minister. But let’s not get hung up on silly little details.

Like Socrates, Nile’s style is to approach fellow citizens in the street and quiz them about their commonsense beliefs to encourage them to think for themselves. Again, one small variation is that Nile’s method actually involves dictating definitive rights and wrongs from the lofty heights of a successful political and religious career. But only an irredeemable pedant would worry about that.

Continue comparing the lives of these two great intellectuals, and the uncanny coincidences just keep on coming.

Like Socrates, Nile doesn’t believe in writing anything down (so long as you don’t count his web site’s 500 media releases, 12-part introduction to himself and newsletter subscription invitation). 

Also, just like Socrates, Nile is virtually penniless. Obviously there is the $182,428 per year salary plus electoral allowances, but apart from that, he’s pretty much a pauper.

Now let’s consider Socrates’ moving statement at his trial for failing to worship his city’s gods and for corrupting the young men of Athens.

“I have neglected the things that concern most people,” he’s said to have said, “making money, managing an estate, gaining military or civic honours, or other positions of power, or joining political clubs and parties which have formed in our cities.”

Except for the money, honours, power and political parties bits, it’s Nile to a tee.

The area where Nile has most in common with Socrates, however, is his open and inquiring mind.

Socrates’ position was that the correctness of a belief was not determined simply by the fact that it has been believed for a long time, but by the muscular testing of a position via counterarguments.

Nile is slightly different in that his usual response to opposition is to stick his fingers in his ears yelling “la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-God” (followed by a threat to block legislation), but apart from that minor variation, totally Socratic.

Clearly the old Latin phrase “barba non facit philosophum” (“a beard does not constitute a philosopher”) needs an addition which reads “but apparently being a proselytising old obstructionist does”.
And there endeth the lesson.

ej@emmajane.info

Most commented

84 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Brendan says:

      06:01am | 15/08/11

      Too rough Emma.  Your style is nearly always better than that. 

      I think perhaps that your target is such a petty maladjusted evil jerk its got the better of your usual good humor. 

      Glad that you’re still writing though.

    • Mahhrat says:

      07:44am | 15/08/11

      @Brendan, would agree but I’ve got the feeling that what we’re dealing with is some actual emotion from Emma this morning.

      Agree or disagree, passion is a good thing.

    • Tom says:

      10:33am | 15/08/11

      Brenda, I agree Nile is a nutter. I wonder if you have to do something freaky in order to get your point across in today’s “larger than life” media world. (Eg. consider that rioter who said to a reporter “if we hadn’t done this, you wouldn’t be hear talking to us.”)

      Mahrat, “passion is a good thing” when its running your way? Just don’t squeal when it runs the other way.

      And don’t we just love it when Stephen Conroy puts his fingers in his ears and yells “la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-NBN”. I cannot see a difference.

    • Babe in the Woods says:

      11:17am | 15/08/11

      @Brendan, I agree.  Normally could expect something a little better.  I happen to agree with most of your disgust and intolerance to the man as I feel the same.  Unfortunately you are tarring all christians with the same brush.  Not all are frothing at the mouth, just like not all non-christians are rabid athiests. Anyway, apart from that, you get your point across.  Now, about that trapping flies with honey thing…..

    • Luce says:

      03:37pm | 15/08/11

      I wouldn’t say this was too rough at all. Fred Nile is an abomination of a human being. There are few things more evil than a wolf parading around under the guise of goodness and righteousness, and thinking god’s seal is justification for vile bigotry (except, of course, when that person uses their position to inflict physical harm on others).

    • Colin says:

      07:58am | 16/08/11

      I have long been an admirer of writers who can turn inwards towards thsati cynicism and ability to satirise and then express that into a keyboard. Well done Emma Jane. My favorite line is that relating to Mr Nile’s eyebrows, and there is precedent for this eyebrow exposure, we often welcomed comment about John Howard’s eyebrows. Cartoonists specialised in them.
      My idealism brings about this next comment. Emma Jane is probably tired of the unrepresentative members of the group that inhabits Macquarie Street. I myself feel that Mr Nile could widen his scope in terms of understanding a number of things, particularly ethics classes, and the benefits such things might bring.

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      07:20am | 15/08/11

      Wasnt this the same ordinary politician who had his staffs computers searched because someone had been accessing porn? As you find with all religious nutters they have zero tolerance of anybody elses beliefs or ideals this is why separation of church and state should be adhered to 100%. He is making decisions and policies based on his belief of an almighty sky fairy that created the universe in 7 days 500 years ago, that in itself should be enough to have him in a padded cell and a straitjacket. Peter fitzsimmons wrote the best piece I have read for a long time where he described the difference between himself and a christian commentator.
      There is only a slight difference between himself and the christian, of the 10000 gods that exist the christian has rejected 9999 as make believe and irrelevant, I have rejected just one more than the christian.

    • Timmy says:

      10:29am | 15/08/11

      “There is only a slight difference between himself and the christian, of the 10000 gods that exist the christian has rejected 9999 as make believe and irrelevant, I have rejected just one more than the christian.”

      Actually, as a Christian I see many of them as being existent and a threat. The worship of money, power or ones self above others are gods that exist and their worship can have dire consequences.

    • iansand says:

      06:57pm | 15/08/11

      Timmy - How many Hail Marys is that statement worth?  Although I always think that the false gods argument is very Olympian.  If they are false gods they can be ignored or smitten.

    • acotrel says:

      07:25am | 15/08/11

      Fred Nile is as about as good for Australia, as Ian Paisley was for Northern Eireland.

    • TChong says:

      07:28am | 15/08/11

      Emms
      You forgot one of Freds more theatrical moments.
      Arranging to be pushed around parliament house , pyjama clad ( why) ? , after he broke his arm.
      Very dramatic to his dear old followers, very funny to everyone else.

    • Bilby says:

      07:44am | 15/08/11

      Fred Nile and one of his party members are the only ones that have taken an interest in funding the service my wife works for. It is a non-religious, non-directive medical advice line run out of the Royal Hospital for Women specifically for pregnant and breast feeding women, so where is the support from the feminist lobby? Where is the interest from the secular folk? Before we put shit on Fred, which I totally understand, we perhaps should look at the position that we’ve achieved for ourselves.

    • Brendan says:

      08:49am | 15/08/11

      There’s an old saying “whose bread I eat, his song I sing”.

      I understand why you need to defend this man.

    • Bilby says:

      09:54am | 15/08/11

      Brendan - I think it’s bizarre that I would end up defending Fred Nile, but there it is. What he’s done is support a service that actually reduces the number of terminations by presenting women with genuine, scientific, supported information. Of all the people that oppose abortion, he and his party member (who’s name escapes me right now) are the only ones to do something decent about it.

    • wearestardust says:

      08:06am | 15/08/11

      Ah, but Socrates was a soldier, having fought in the war with Sparta.

      Hm.  Have you ever seen Nile and Socrates in the same room?

    • Tubesteak says:

      08:57am | 15/08/11

      Fred Nile has no right to impose his dogma on everyone else. It’s a poison eating at the core of democracy. Anything that seeks to limit personal freedom is against our democratic rights.

    • Timmy says:

      09:25am | 15/08/11

      Ah. The old “no right to impose dogma” dogma.

    • TomZ says:

      12:40pm | 15/08/11

      “Personal freedom”? Freedom to murder? Freedom to rape? “One man’s freedom can be another man’s serfdom.”

      How are things going with Wilkie’s poker machines dogma?

    • n_dude says:

      01:15pm | 15/08/11

      I wonder if the same could be said for the Greens and their hold on the Federal govt?

    • graham says:

      02:32pm | 15/08/11

      @Timmy. “No right to impose dogma”, means in this case exactly what is says. In itself it is not a dogmatic statement, any more than “No right to commit murder” is dogmatic. But you know that, don’t you Timmy.
      I suppose the fantasy you and Nile weave for the subjugation of children could be equated with other stories of fear, used to terrorise kids into submissive acceptance, but the majority of Australians know the difference between dogma, and the rejection of dogma.
      My own parents suffered because of the fearful dogma of Nazism being forced into the minds of the young. Was Nazism defeated by dogmatic reaction? No. It was defeated because reasonable people acted reasonably to defeat an unreasonable dogma.
      Remember ‘The Chosen People’? Is there a difference between that and the also mythical “Super Race”? The intent is horrifyingly similar.
      We saw the help given by the largest of the ‘established’ churches to the wroughters of that terrible wrong.
      And please don’t resort to the lie oft-used to separate your mob from the evangelists. There is no difference. You are all in the battle for children’s minds and the power over them that ensues.
      God? There are no gods. They all died laughing when one of them said, “There is no other god, but me!”.

    • Timmy says:

      03:34pm | 15/08/11

      graham,

      I was merely commenting on the amusing irony of the “it is my view that you should force you views on others” attitude.

      But now that you mention it. It has been a while since Fred and I got together to plot and scheme our way into the minds of Australian children.

      Gosh we suck at it.

    • acotrel says:

      11:04pm | 15/08/11

      @Tubesteak
      ‘Fred Nile has no right to impose his dogma on everyone else.’
      How do you know that, - we don’t have a Bill of Rights in Australia ? How are we to know what our ‘democratic rights’ are? Perhaps we should ask John Howard !

    • Freeman says:

      09:34am | 15/08/11

      at one point Fred Nile said his main gripe with the ethics classes was what was to be taught during them. He said they don’t teach ethics at all?  any truth to this?

    • Timmy says:

      09:57am | 15/08/11

      His stated problem was with the concept of “situation ethics” this being that we assess what is ethical to be entirely dependant on the situation.

      As a Christian, he believes that ethics are absolute. That some things are right/wrong regardless of the situation. For Christians the absolute measure is God.

      Problem being that he is posing his view, which on the surface appears to be extreme, against another view, which is also extreme.

      Not having looked at the ethics course material, I cannot comment on its merits.

    • Freeman says:

      10:44am | 15/08/11

      Thanks for the good explanation, Timmy.

    • Tubesteak says:

      10:50am | 15/08/11

      Timmy
      “some things are right/wrong regardless of the situation”

      So, “Thou shalt not kill” is ok if it’s part of the Crusades in someone else’s country who didn’t realyl provoke you but is living on your special place?

      These religions really are screwy.

    • Timmy says:

      11:06am | 15/08/11

      Tubespeak:

      1. From the Hebrew it is “You shall not commit murder”

      2. The crusades were terrible. The crusades are not supported by biblical Christianity. Judging a system by it’s malpractice is pretty harsh don’t you think

      3. “some things are right/wrong regardless of the situation” I strongly believe this, though there are many shades of grey.

    • Tubesteak says:

      01:00pm | 15/08/11

      Timmy

      Christianity exists solely through it’s practices.

      Otherwise it’s just a case of “do what I say, not what I do”

    • Timmy says:

      01:28pm | 15/08/11

      Tubespeak:

      Christianity says that Christians are sinners too.

    • Timmy says:

      01:39pm | 15/08/11

      “Christianity exists solely through it’s practices.”

      Thanks for the pointer - I should take that back to my church and let them know that we have been doing it wrong all these years.

      OR

      I feel that it is not a good idea to make categorical statements representing the beliefs/traits of others that are untrue or partial truth.

    • Luce says:

      03:55pm | 15/08/11

      Timmy, if religious practices were stopped, there would be no religion, so in reality what Tubesteak is saying is true.

    • Michael Larkin says:

      04:13pm | 15/08/11

      2. The crusades were terrible. The crusades are not supported by biblical Christianity. Judging a system by it’s malpractice is pretty harsh don’t you think

      Thanks Timmy, I’ll bring this up next time Hitler and Stalin is brought up in regards to atheism

    • John of Brisbane says:

      07:52pm | 15/08/11

      @Tubespeak ... Timmy
      “some things are right/wrong regardless of the situation”

      So, “Thou shalt not kill” is ok if it’s part of the Crusades in someone else’s country who didn’t realyl provoke you but is living on your special place?

      These religions really are screwy.
      Religion aside and all the usual jokes about catholic priests ... where does peadophilia fit in you spectrum of grey? rape? abuse of wives? etc etc. and on what philosophy would you base these . Most western ethics are based on a judeo-christian ethical base. Roman and Greek culture based their societies on the fact that all others were barbarians and their “citizens” open to all kinds of abuses.  Buddhists have no problem with bearing arms against christians in some asian countries .. but won’t step on an ant.

    • Timmy says:

      08:10pm | 15/08/11

      Hi Michael

      “Judging a system by it’s malpractice is pretty harsh don’t you think

      Thanks Timmy, I’ll bring this up next time Hitler and Stalin is brought up in regards to atheism”

      Sometime I feel sorry for Hitler and Stalin - everyone wants to be on the opposite side of the debate to them .....

      I wouldn’t try my line if I were you. Atheism has no rules. It isn’t a system like a religion is. I would go with the argument:

      The existence of evil atheists does not imply 1. that atheism is evil in and of itself and 2. that all other atheists are evil.

      You can replace atheists in that argument with most religious nuts.

      I think it was Ghandi who said something along the lines of “I like your Christ. I just don’t like you Christians”. Christianity isn’t evil in and of itself, just some Christians

    • Chris L says:

      09:39am | 15/08/11

      One has to wonder what possible justification he could have for opposing ethics classes.

      He may well ask “what ethics will they teach?” and “who will teach them?”, but if he really cared about that sort of thing he might want to ask those questions of the scripture classes that have been running for decades.

    • Timmy says:

      10:21am | 15/08/11

      Initially mainstream churches opposed the ethics classes not because they exist, but because they are in competition with SRE. They maintained that every student should have this opportunity. There was also some concern about the development of the courses. Despite its name, The St James Ethic Centre is not Christian and some animosity exists between them and Anglicans/Catholics (unsure of details)

      When they (mainstream churches) realised that (a) they were not losing students to ethics classes where they do exist and (b) because theses classes are realistically statistically irrelevant. The opposition dissipated somewhat.

      Fred Nile does not represent these church groups, the people he needs to keep happy as a politician are still upset about this storm in a tea-cup. The media showing him opposed to the classes and the resultant ad hominem attacks against him is exactly what he needs to maintain the faith with his constituency.

    • James1 says:

      11:36am | 15/08/11

      “They maintained that every student should have this opportunity.”

      And they did have this opportunity.  All they needed to do was forego SRE classes.

      That’s a dishonest and rubbish argument.  They really just didn’t want other people’s kids to have the opportunity.

    • Timmy says:

      12:09pm | 15/08/11

      They should have the opportunity to do both, not one or the other, is what they were getting at.

    • James1 says:

      12:25pm | 15/08/11

      They do have the opportunity to do both - kids can learn about their parent’s religion any time they like.  That opportunity is not limited to SRE lessons at school (they also have Sunday school or church/mass/mosque/synagogue, for instance).  However, kids cannot discuss the philosophical basis of ethics with their peers in a structured fashion any time they like.  No matter how you cut that cake, Nile and his supporters are saying they want to deprive kids of the opportunity to learn anything if they weren’t going to learn about Jesus.  The argument is dishonest.

    • Huey says:

      09:40am | 15/08/11

      Emma - I think you were pretty balanced and demonstrated restraint. After all you were writing about Fred Nile!

    • Jack says:

      10:05am | 15/08/11

      ...but Lilo and Stitch is awesome.

    • Mankind says:

      09:11am | 16/08/11

      Try watching it repeatedly for a year.

    • Beach Ball says:

      10:14am | 15/08/11

      I don’t know why the left care so much about Fred. Christians have lost or are losing on every issue they care about in recent memory, e.g. R18+ rating for video games - lost, taxpayer funded gay mardi gras and abortion - lost, gay marriage - losing, ethics classes - lost, same sex adoption - lost, embryonic stem cells - lost, asylum seekers -lost, and crucially, churches can now be fined if they don’t share their property with groups that would see the churches transformation.

      So, the secular have decimated the churches influence on Australian society, to treat Fred like they do just looks like the left are poor winners.

    • Chris L says:

      12:37pm | 15/08/11

      Still got that tax free ride to put a stop to (with charity work being treated to the same breaks as secular charities).

    • n_dude says:

      03:54pm | 15/08/11

      This has nothing to do with Christians “losing” and everything to do with the separation of Chruch from state! The churches still have influence on their own followers but little influence on everyone else, and that his how it should be.

    • Hartog says:

      10:30am | 15/08/11

      I wonder if Niles is aware of Socrates’s reputation as homosexual pederast?

    • Sam says:

      10:41am | 15/08/11

      Can someone please explain to me why we have the School Chaplain program in our schools?

      There should be no religion at all in our public schools, no chaplains and no Religious education, full stop. If people want their kids to get a religious education then they should send them to a church private school, or if they cant afford that then they can take them to church and/or Sunday school on the weekend.

      I am astounded that in this modern age we have a Federal Govt that actually spends money on this nonsense. Chaplains should be replaced with Guidance Officers like we used to have, as for Religious education that should be binned and replaced totally with Ethics Classes.

      I would much rather see a child taught about ethics than taught from that horrible disgusting book called the bible. Maybe Christians should read all their bible and not just the nice sounding fluffy bunny stories! The bible is nothing more than disgusting bronze age thinking, laws and fairy stories.

      People like Fred Nile represent others who never grew up, they cant brush off these fables like they did Santa, the Tooth Fairy or The Easter Bunny. Fred Nile and his like just cant accept the fact that when you die, you die ! Thats it full Stop, End Of Story, Thats all she wrote ! So if this rubbish is being taught in our schools then why dont they also teach children about Santa , The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy ?

      Not really a tough choice is it ? Children learning Ethics, or children learning how to be a bronze age citizen.

    • Timmy says:

      10:59am | 15/08/11

      Point 1: School Chaplains and SRE are two different things.

      Point 2: School Chaplians are opt in: The school has a chaplain because the school wants a chaplain.

      Point 3: The religious background of the school chaplain is also the school’s choice.

      These three points are all part of Australia being a mature secular society which recognises many people have spiritual needs in their life and it is good for society to support these needs.

      Maybe if we did this a little better we would all understand the difference between established religious doctrine and 20th Century marketing tools.

    • Sam says:

      11:34am | 15/08/11

      @Timmy :

      “....which recognises many people have spiritual needs in their life and it is good for society to support these needs….”

      Timmy why is it good for society to support the spiritual needs of others? If a person has some form of religious belief then thats up to them, thats something for them in the privacy of their own home or church, there is absolutely no requirement for us to support this spiritual need in our schools.

      The reason religion survives to this day is because children are raised with this nonsense being drummed into their head, by the time the child has grown very few can discard this brainwashing, they live their adult life believing in this rubbish and pass it on to their children.

      If you have Chaplains in our schools , if you have religious ed in our schools then you risk damage to the child. Yes damage, I see that any effort to convince someone that something is true when it isnt can damage that person. Children should be allowed to grow up and then when they are Adults they can look at religion and make up their own minds, but the religious groups dont like that idea, they know that if a child is raised and educated without the influence of religion then there is a much higher probability that as an adult they will not believe in Gods.

      Chaplains and SRE are one and the same. You cannot have a Chaplain that doesnt have their religious ideals as their guiding force, and like a virus they will attempt to pass their religious disease onto vulnerable children. In fact at least with SRE its a classroom and you have the option to take your child out, with Chaplains its your child in a room with the Chaplain, a Chaplain that will always try to convince the child about the supposed benefits of religion, as has been found in many schools, the Chaplains are preaching their religious garbage and not helping the child.

      You must take religion out of schools.

    • PTom says:

      12:33pm | 15/08/11

      Timmy,
      If SRE and chaplains are so important to their follows why are they not funded by the churches themshelves.

    • John says:

      12:34pm | 15/08/11

      Where to start, Sam?

      “The Bible is nothing more than disgusting bronze-age thinking…”  I think you’re confusing the Torah with the Christian Bible.  Sure, some of the Old Testament is representative of bronze-age ideologies, but to think that that is of much relevance to the majority of Christians, who put the most significance on the words of Jesus in the New Testament, is a bit shortsighted, and really just poor rhetoric all round.  It seems to me that the only people who seriously adopt the dated philosophies of the Old Testament are Evangelicals, or the like, who have other motivations.

      To infer that the Bible has no positive lessons for children to learn is ridiculous.  The messages of the New Testament, (which, by the way, is not bronze-age), concerning love and faith are ones that should not be neglected.

      I’m not Christian, I just don’t let the fact I’m not blind my common sense.

    • Sam says:

      01:25pm | 15/08/11

      @John

      Gidday John, When you talk about the bible you cannot pick and choose, the whole book is supposed to be the word of God, and that unfortunately is the problem. Too many times we see kids in SRE, RE, Scripture or what ever its called these days being taught only fragments of a book that is the basis of the religion. The bible wasnt written so people can choose which bits are real, which bits relate and which bits dont, the whole book is to be followed.

      Chaplains believe in the bible if they are Christian Chaplains), they follow it word for word.

      As you correctly say the Old Testament is Bronze age, the New Testament is based on a supposed period 2000 years ago. If you read the bible you will see that the new testament simply regurgitates and plagiarizes stories from the bronze age, changed to suit the Christian Faith.

      When you mention the bible having positive lessons, again I say you cant pick and choose. When you raise your children you did it in a manner where you instill what is right and what is wrong, what is socially acceptable and what is not, there is no need to pollute the minds of the young with the nonsense in the bible.

      A parent should teach the child, not a 2000 fairytale, the laws and rules of todays society bear no resemblance to those of 2000 years ago.

    • Timmy says:

      01:26pm | 15/08/11

      PTom:

      SRE is not funded by the Government.

      In my opinion the Chaplains should be renamed to Pastoral Care workers and recognition of spirituality should be one part of their role.

    • P. Darvio says:

      01:42pm | 15/08/11

      Quote: “It seems to me that the only people who seriously adopt the dated philosophies of the Old Testament are Evangelicals, or the like, who have other motivations.

      To infer that the Bible has no positive lessons for children to learn is ridiculous.  The messages of the New Testament, (which, by the way, is not bronze-age), concerning love and faith are ones that should not be neglected. “

      What rubbish is this ? – Your Fictional Jesus Person (FJP) approved Old Testament BIBLE LAW and believed in Noahs Ark. Go read your BIBLE - If you claim a Christian faith you are required to believe in the Bible and that is both Old and New Testaments as approved by FJP and that it is the “Authorative Word” of your Christian GOD. Denial of Old Testament BIBLE LAW is denial of the Christian faith.

      I’m not sure what positive lessons from the Bible for Children you are referring too. Your Bible advocates the Genocidal Slaughter of over 4 Billions humans – and the rape, torture and murder of children.

    • Timmy says:

      03:16pm | 15/08/11

      “If you claim a Christian faith you are required to believe in the Bible and that is both Old and New Testaments as approved by FJP and that it is the “Authorative Word” of your Christian GOD. Denial of Old Testament BIBLE LAW is denial of the Christian faith.”

      Just a slight misrepresentation of the role of the Law and lack of understanding of what Jesus says when he is the fulfilment of the law.

    • Timmy says:

      03:23pm | 15/08/11

      “If you read the bible you will see that the new testament simply regurgitates and plagiarizes stories from the bronze age, changed to suit the Christian Faith.”

      Please point me in the direction of a peer reviewed journal article by an Ancient Historian that supports the notion that the stories in the NT are based on pre-existing pagan deities. It is my assumption that that is what you are inferring to above.

    • emel says:

      12:49pm | 16/08/11

      Sam,
      Not growing up into intelectually rigorous thinkers is fundemental to religious existence.
      Easter Bunny, Santa, Humphrey B-Bear and other important icons of my childhood seem to remain somehow ‘good’ to this day. The Bible on the other hand, only throws more and more awful questions the further you read.
      It is anti-educational to provide ‘pastoral care’ to enquiring minds from someone who cannot distinguish reality from magic.
      As a 25 yr Principal I am devestated to find that this policy exists under an ALP Govt.

    • Traxster says:

      11:21am | 15/08/11

      WHAAAT????????????
      Parliamentarians and F. Nile,in particular make
      $182,428.00 per year ?????
      No wonder they come around trying to crawl up my a**e six weeks before the election.
      I going into politics right now.
      Where do I sign up ?

    • Loxy says:

      11:26am | 15/08/11

      I wish we had the option of Ethics classes for our kids in Queensland - it’s so backward up here it will no doubt be at least another 10 years before we get them!

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      11:53am | 15/08/11

      I think ZSRenn has changed his name to Timmy.

    • Chris L says:

      12:47pm | 15/08/11

      To be fair, Ronald, I saw some thought provoking commentary from ZSRenn on a different subject just recently.

      Also Timmy seems to be making fair points without getting preachy or appealing to authority.

    • Direct says:

      12:26pm | 15/08/11

      I don’t understand what people’s problem with Fred Nile is. He may well be a polemic, but he’s simply another voice in a healthy active democracy. Politics is supposed to be a contest of ideas and Fred Nile is simply out there promoting and espousing his.

      I suppose it’s easier to whine on an online forum, than it is to get out there, start a political party, get your message heard and get politicians to take actin on it.

    • Luce says:

      04:02pm | 15/08/11

      That’s the beauty of a healthy, active democracy: everyone is free to express their opinions without fear of being silenced, which is what people are doing when they express negative thoughts on Fred Nile. No one is trying to silence him, but a lot of people are very willing to contest his ideas.

      For the record, he is a pretty despicable human being.

    • Johnny atheos says:

      01:49pm | 15/08/11

      An old Greek man from 2,500 years ago always made a lot more sense than entire collection of fictional works of the Abrahamic religions. Why we don’t teach our children that the ancient Greek philosophers are the foundation of much of the Worlds knowledge and progress remains a mystery. Also that many of the ideas on reason and logic from the ancient Greek philosophers were used to make the Abrahamic religions workable, is not commonly acknowledge by them.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      02:23pm | 15/08/11

      What’s the difference between “Secular Ethics” & “Religious Ethics”
      The answer is: Nothing. Ethics are ethics.
      Today our schools are full of children who come from various religious backgrounds: Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Judaism & Buddhism - technically this latter is not a religion for they very meaning of the word ‘religion’ is predicated upon the belief of some other-worldly, omniscient, omnipotent being & Buddhist don’t believe in such a being.
      Incidently the teachings of the Buddha were being taught over 500 years before the birth of Jesus & Jesus’ teachings are almost identical to those of the Buddha!
      It is possible that before Jesus began teaching at 30-odd he actually was in India learning from the Buddha & adapted the Buddha’s teachings so as to become acceptable to the, mostly, Jewish population!!
      Our schools are secular. There are plenty of decent, honest men & women who are not attached to any religion who are entirely capable of counselling our children, teaching them how to behave, react without interfering with those children’s parents religious beliefs.
      Personally I think children should not be introduced to any form of religion until they are old enough to really understand what they are getting into & then make their own decision. Some would argue that to force a child to follow, join any religion before they have developed the insight & understanding required is a form of abuse.

    • Bilby says:

      03:11pm | 15/08/11

      So if I impart my values to my kids, but you happen to disagree with them, that’s abuse is it? Fascinating. At what point do you suggest I tell my kids that they’re to be excluded from a major part of my life? That I am refusing to allow them to learn about something that I hold dear? And having asked those questions, I follow up with another: Am I, personally, religious or not?

    • Luce says:

      04:09pm | 15/08/11

      Bilby, there’s a difference between forcing your beliefs on a child, and teaching them what you believe but also teaching them that they should question things in life and come to their own decisions.

      Some house holds will disown a child if they decide not to follow the same religion as their parents. Is that really fair on the child?

    • Bilby says:

      04:49pm | 15/08/11

      Luce, I believe that what you call “forcing your beliefs on a child” is in fact “parenting”. A young child has no capacity to make a rational decision based on all the available information. That will come later. Until then, they should be expected to simply accept their parents’ wishes.

      Rebelling against your parents is a natural developmental stage, and I believe that each family has the right to decide how far that rebellion should go before there are repercussions. Personally I can’t think of anything that would make me disown my kids, but that’s just me. Other people feel much more strongly about a whole range of subjects, one of them being religion.

    • Luce says:

      05:05pm | 15/08/11

      Bilby, I respectfully think you are incorrect when you say a child has no capacity to make a rational decision based on all the information available.

      Yes, this is how everyone starts life, but children can, and do, learn skills of critical thinking at very young ages, and the only thing hindering this process is the adults around them assuming they are incapable. A truly good parent should be teaching these skills to their kids early on instead of teaching them to simply be sheep. Before the age of 7 is a crucial stage of intellectual development, and teaching them to reason instead of repeat at that age would make such a difference for them later in life

      I don’t really see how rebelling comes into it, as a lot of the time the decision to follow a different religious path to the parents is not out of rebellion, but out of a belief that what they are doing is right.

    • stephen says:

      03:43pm | 15/08/11

      Here’s an ethics question : what sort of a Parliamentary system do we have where a state member gets just over 3% of the vote and holds the balance of power in the State Legislative Assembly ?
      This is something the High Court should be looking into, rather than wasting everyone’s time and money holding up the transfer of refugees to Malaysia.

    • John of Brisbane says:

      08:06pm | 15/08/11

      The same where we have a Federal Government who did not win a majority in the election and hold power on the support of a minority athiest party. It’s called Westminster democracy. Love it or leave it.

    • James Hunter says:

      04:16pm | 15/08/11

      Emma,
      Marvelous as we expect from you.
      I realy like the reference to Freds “open and inquiring mind” pure gold ,go straight to the centre podium.
      Maybe what Fred realy needs are ethics classes at an introductory level of course.

    • tiMMeH! says:

      04:51pm | 15/08/11

      Ever since our “Christian” country has lost it’s Christian and traditional values, crime-rate is soaring, murders, child molesters, etc.
      At least this man is trying to stand up and promote these “old values”. If it worked back then, why wouldn’t it work now?
      I for one am an advocate for smacking my child if I believe he/she deserves it. I also don’t believe if someone kills someone they have a right to plead insanity, get a few years of therapy and then step back into the community.
      Can’t people see that things are just getting worst, and this is in direct correlation with the more right’s people have.
      Go live in Saudi or any other country that has these old school laws, and tell my what the crime rate is over there (with the exception of rape, but that is another topic in itself).
      If we are living in such a free country, then no one should be punished for anything wrong they do as it is a “free country”. This is being used liberally and inappropriately.
      I for one hope that one day people will come to their senses and realise that maybe we need to revert back to the olden ways, and bring back some order back to this country.
      I was born in the 80’s, so I am no an “old-timer”, but I know that if I didn’t get disciplined (smacked), I would be one of the hooligans running a-muck, hooning and carrying on.
      Spare the rod, spoil the child.
      Spoil the child, ruin the country.

    • Jason Todd says:

      09:17pm | 15/08/11

      You mean our ‘christian’ country primarily founded by convicts, with those of who that were christian had to disobey one of the fundamental tenets of their religion to get out here?

      Crime rate is not soaring. Look into the statistics. In a lot of places the crime rate is going backwards, it’s just we are more aware now of when things go wrong.

      You have highlighted the problem yourself:  ‘Old values’. They are old and times have changed, leaving them outdated and sadly wanting. We have a greater understanding of our world now, and simply put, following a doctrine of understanding that was laid out over 2000 years ago makes no sense given our modern world. You wouldn’t advocate a return to 2000 year old understanding of construction, medicine or science. Why would you do the same with ethics?

      Correlation, as they say, does not imply causation. It is a great speculative leap to say “Look, the world is going to shit because people have more rights.” It is much more complicated than that and you know it.

      While I support the dicipline and teaching of children, I believe it is something that should be handled with a modern day understanding of our world. Returning to out-dated, out-moded and in some cases, just plain wrong morals and ethics will not be a step forward for our society, rather, a large leap backwards.

    • graham says:

      09:44pm | 15/08/11

      So you think that likening himself to an acknowledged pederast is a value that we should admire? Nile is a believer, as you apparently are, of ‘the old ways’. A time when, (as you noted), we heard little “child molesters” etc. Now it’s an every day occurence.
      Is that perhaps because the non-christian majority have finally decided that enough is enough and now demand that paediphiles are brought to answer for their evil. The only haven for child molesters under ‘the old ways’ was the church. No more! And that you support this way of life shows the reason why children should be taught ethics. Not ‘religous ethics. That’s an oxymoron.
      Of course, children who disobeyed the priest’s/bishop’s/ archbishop’s
      demands were given your “rod”. Until they bowed down.
      Away with you!

    • cybacaT says:

      11:08pm | 15/08/11

      Sorry, but this was an underwhelming article not up to your usual standards.  You picked a very soft target, went as hard as you could, but in the process lost your humour - and your lack of any sense of balance lost you credibility.

      The guy’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but he does some damn good things - and that’s why he keeps getting re-elected.  And the more people howl and jeer while throwing verbal tomatos at him, the more publicity he gets and the more likely he is to stick around.  So you’re somewhat self-defeating with an article like this.  Yes - I can see the irony is dawning on you now.  grin

    • kate says:

      09:56am | 16/08/11

      “he does some damn good things”

      Really?  Examples?  I seriously cannot think of one good thing he has done in the (what feels like) 350 years he has been in Parlt. 

      Seriously, I would be very interested to hear what you think he has done which is worthwhile or beneficial to the community.

    • Demoman says:

      01:08am | 16/08/11

      Not a Christian but I do appreciate its ability to act as a set of moral and social standards that are currently lacking in the populace. Seems to have been replaced by consumerism, nihilism and moral relativity.

      Morality by democracy is a bit worrying to me given the intelligence of the average voter.

    • kate says:

      09:37am | 16/08/11

      The ethics curriculum is set out in some detail on the website primaryethics.com.au.  Here’s an extract - no wonder the fundies are worried!

      “Our students will learn to recognise good and bad moral reasoning very early on, by introducing notions such as relevance, the difference between relevance and truth and the idea of weighing reasons against each other. Throughout the curriculum, children are asked to provide reasons to support their arguments/positions and Ethics Teachers are trained to test the validity of given reasons. Blind appeal to authority and moral relativism are exposed as bad moral reasoning in Advertising and Whaling respectively. Later lessons progressively introduce logical concepts and processes, including conditionals, assumptions, induction and validity.

    • Poli Waffle says:

      09:03am | 16/08/11

      Any politician who believes in God, surely must alsobelieve in fairies, goblins and Harry Potter’s magic.  Therefore, they are not fit to be in parliament or inflict god fearing chaplins teaching fire and brimstone in the class rooms of a secular nation.

    • RT says:

      09:58am | 16/08/11

      EJ, I have never read anything you have written before but this is fantastic. Thanks.

    • Justin says:

      01:49pm | 16/08/11

      What does Fred Nile have in common with Socrates???......Read from Wikipedea…“Claiming loyalty to his city, Socrates clashed with the current course of Athenian politics and society. Socrates saw his position as a social and moral critic. Rather than upholding a status quo and accepting the development of what he perceived as immorality within his region, Socrates questioned the collective notion of “might makes right” that he felt was common in Greece during this period. Plato refers to Socrates as the “gadfly” of the state (as the gadfly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians), insofar as he irritated some people with considerations of justice and the pursuit of goodness. His attempts to improve the Athenians’ sense of justice may have been the source of his execution’.....I am sure some would also want to execute the Rev. Nile.!!

    • xenical prix says:

      12:06pm | 01/09/11

      Find last only has matter being the. The Certain who are L4 also and. What however, spine some like out is own or front.

    • Roberto says:

      10:23am | 22/11/12

      Thank you for the event especially for the propmt kick off 7am.and for marking the route with posters indicating the distances covered in kilometers.The colour & material of the race T-shirt were fantastic.; though the size of the neck for my t-shirt was too tight- choking hence I had to abandon it.Area for improvement.Next year , please design vests with the Hared colours; and lets keep time as we have done in the previous lasat edition ( 2010 & yesterday’s)Thank you the race was a big succeess !!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ToryShepherd: Onya, @KRuddMP“@newscomauHQ: BREAKING: Kevin Rudd has come out in support of same sex marriage: http://t.co/CFaHrxyV5G

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @newscomauHQ: BREAKING: Kevin Rudd has come out in support of same sex marriage: http://t.co/2KEO6yEx5F

Daniel Piotrowski

True Rudd style. Bazillion word folksy statement

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @Rob_Stott: Like a lot of Republicans in the US, it's much easier to support gay marriage when you're no longer in a position to do anyt…

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter