Tagged: school Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • DistroMan 20:00 on June 16, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , school   

    Community standards should go up, not down! 

    Just about all societies ills stem from the same problem that has befallen societies throughout history.  They have succumbed to the normalisation of things that should have been stopped before they even got started.  I’m all for freedom and progress, but there are some things that should not be allowed to fall by the wayside in the name of “I’ll do what I want”.

    Freedom of expression is a good thing, but it should be something that is earned like respect.  It’s not be something that you should have from the day you are born.  More freedom as you get older and are able to handle that freedom sounds like a much better deal than kids wandering around telling their parents that they will do as they please.  Should children have the right to express themselves to the point of abusing their parents whenever they try to get them to behave?

    We have allowed our children to get out of hand.  Try walking down the main street nearly anywhere without hearing the most foul language possible from the mouths of minors.  But go and do just that in ‘posh’ suburb and you are quite likely to wind up in court.  Double standards much?

    The bleeding hearts that say you shouldn’t smack your children have it so that parents are so afraid to discipline their children that the children are now beating up their parents.  Respect for one’s parents is dying very quickly.

    Try riding a train and having the peace and quiet to read a book or the mornings paper without having to put up with the music from some idiots mp3 playing phone.

    Get a copy of the road rules and look up what the rules are for roundabouts and then take a chair and sit near one and watch just how many people have no idea how they should work.  It’s become a free for all that is now spilling over onto other intersections.  Very little respect for others on the roads anymore.

    It’s so much fun to get caught by that red light just in time to have some dickhead pull up beside you with his or her music blaring so loud they couldn’t hear an ambulance siren if it was sitting right behind them.  The thumping base must be doing a great amount of damage to their hearing and yet they couldn’t care less.  Why are sound systems of this power legal in cars?

    There are rules about smoking within a certain distance of exits from buildings but when was the last time you saw anyone actually walk outside that area before lighting up?  And then they probably don’t keep going afterwards.  Just last week at our local hospital, visitors standing right next to the sign that plainly says ‘no smoking within the marked zone’ and yes, the zone is marked quite clearly with bright yellow lines.

    I used to think it was quite disgusting to see people spitting into the gutter, but that’s nothing to having people just spit right on the path in front of them oblivious to other people around them

    Roadside advertising signs are another problem these days.  They can be informative, but it should be kept to a minimum so drivers attention isn’t being diverted for lengthy periods of time.  What is worse are the explicit lingerie adverts or others that show scantily clad girls advertising something that has nothing to do with what is depicted.  How many accidents are caused by these advertisements taking drivers attention away from the road?  It’s not just the danger.  How about the blatant advertisement of such things to children?  You couldn’t legally put that stuff in a children’s magazine, so why is it where they can see it day after day? No respect for parents wishes.

    I drive past a school a few days ago only to see a parent getting a small child out of a car that has emblazoned across the rear window the following: Caring Understanding Nineties Type.  I don’t know about you, but when did it become acceptable to throw that in our kids faces right out in front of a school?  If I choose not to have that become a part of my children’s upbringing, it seems that society is now telling me I don’t have that right.

    The big movable signs that roadworkers use to inform you of roadworks and detours are now being used by businesses to advertise sales.  We take our attention away from the road to see what may be important only to find there is a sale on mattresses.

    Just because there aren’t specific laws to stop most of this behaviour, doesn’t mean that it should just be shrugged off and allowed to continue.

    Are we now at the stage that the ‘lowest common denominator‘ is the major stockholder in our collective futures?  If I said that we are now living with anarchy, I’d be wrong, but if I said that we are well on the road to such a situation I’d be right.  Somewhere between now and then, there is a line that will be crossed.  Do we cross that line and then be unable to retrieve the situation or do we hold that line and save some kind of community standards for future generations to live by?

    WHICH WORLD DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN?

     

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 29, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , school   

    Should a Politician put aside their religious beliefs when making decisions? 

    The simple answer would seem to be yes to anyone who understands that to fairly administer a nation for all citizens you need to be able to know what the peoples needs are and how to fulfil them in a fair and just manner, not only from your own persepective, but from theirs as well.  If you are a religious person it seems that it is nigh on impossible for you to do this.  Just lately this has been shown to be true for about 90 percent of the religious community that have had anything to do with decision making.  The Ethics Classes debate has shown most religious people only care about keeping kids in the Special Religious Education classes and not at all about those who don’t attend.  Those who don’t attend are left to fend for themselves and aren’t really bothered about unless they wish to do something useful and then they are stopped.  It seems that Scripture is the be all and end all of their existence and what others needs are don’t matter.

    I do have to say here that the Muslim community have shown themselves to be the more openminded and are quite happy for the classes to go ahead. I and many others applaud their support at this time.

    The Australian Christian Lobby on the other hand are mobilising as much support against the classes as they can muster and seem to be of the mind that they are the absolute arbiters of what should be taught, where it should be taught, when it should be taught and who teaches it.

    Look at what is about to happen shortly and you can see that the religious are getting their way much more than you would have thought.  On 21st June Prime Minister Rudd and the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott will address Australian churches via a web-cast.  I have never heard of such a thing in my life.  What has so radically changed in this country that they are giving in to one group to such an extent?  It just shows that the leaders in this country not only have religious leanings, which in and of itself is alright, but have a bias towards religion that is blinkering their outlook on the community as a whole.  It’s not that there is anything overt being done that has affected us, but more that when we speak, we aren’t heard.  It’s like we don’t exist at times.

    No politician should be giving in to any one group over others consistently or to be seen to be playing favourites in this manner.  There is a section of politics that is fighting back, but they are small and don’t have the numbers to make changes as easy as other factions.  It is up to us, the people who are fed up with the way things are, to support these people and help them make the changes we wish to see.  If  we don’t, then we have no right to be complaining when next our lives are disrupted by religion getting in the way.  We are a bigger part of the community than even most of us are aware and if we mobilise ourselves and make ourselves heard we can bring this country back into balance.

    You, as an atheist, agnostic, freethinker, secularist, humanist or another religous person that thinks the christians in this country have far too great a say in our lives, then you need to start asking what you can do to change things for the better.  Help these brave politicians.  Sign their petitions, attend  parliament, write letters and emails.  It really now has come to the time that you need to make yourself heard.  I hate to have to put it as plainly as this, but…

    IT’S TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUTUP

     

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 26, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , school,   

    Ethics Trial debate is becoming a farce. 

    Abbreviations:

    * SRE – Special Religious Education – Single faith instruction, usually by a ‘chaplain’ of that faith.

    ** GRE – General Religious Education – Comparative religious instruction on many faiths.

    Last night on television here in Australia a show called Insight had a somewhat varied group discussing their opinion on the Ethics Classes that the Education Department hope to introduce on a fulltime basis.  As you have probably seen from previous articles I have written on the subject, the religious community have gotten in on the act and are trying every tactic they can think of to stop these classes going ahead.  We have heard arguments that:

    • it isn’t necessary because they already have religious classes
    • it has no moral basis
    • ethics lacks substance
    • the term ‘ethics’ is problematic
    • it’s not fair and just to the religious children
    • it’s hostile to religion
    • it just shouldn’t happen because they have an agreement with the government
    • you can’t teach ethics outside a religious framework
    • the children’s minds can’t critically analyse ethics
    • philosophy discussion ‘problematic’ at that age (10 to 12)
    • the work of the Greek and Roman philosophers is irrelevant to ethics
    • afraid more children will opt out of SRE*
    • wasn’t implemented in a way they approve of

    They gave some of the children a chance to give their opinion and describe the classes they are involved in.  I was amazed at the explanations of the ethics given by the children and how it was being taught, but the religious in the group could not come up with one reason that countered the children’s wish to continue.

    It was explained by the person who originally put the syllabus together that scenarios are tailored for the age groups they are given to so that the children can not only comprehend the problem put to them, but analyse it and come up with different ways of dealing with them and then discussing those ideas amongst themselves with the objective of finding better solutions to ethical problems in their lives.

    The Anglican Minister confused me with his objections.  I can only think that he has no idea how atheism is defined.  He said,

    “If there was an atheistic teaching system we would be happy with that at the same time. Teaching all faiths is better than ethics with no faith component”

    and something about

    “Atheistic religion it’s a religion of some sort.”

    I don’t know what he is thinking because I’m not sure he knows himself.  None of his objections made sense and he was less than helpful in the discussion.  Whilever we include clueless people in these discussions, an outcome is impossible.

    The children who were removed from the SRE* classes told the audience that they were allowed to:

    • watch movies
    • read books in library or in the back of SRE* Classes
    • played on computer

    This is the part that really upsets the Non Religious parents.  Why, when the ‘religious’ children are being taught something their parents and the ‘chaplains’ are happy with, are our children being made to go without?  Blaming us for not wanting our children in those classes is no more than a smokescreen to reflect the responsibility back on us.  The trouble most of us have with that is that they wan to have their cake and eat it too.  I’ll explain what I mean by that.

    We take our children out of the SRE* classes, and they say it’s our fault. Fine, we take responsibility for our own children the same way they do for theirs.  Our children sit doing nothing and they say that’s our fault as well.  Sorry, but that’s not true.  It was part of the agreement they had with the government.  Why they would ever have made an agreement that the non SRE* children were not to be allowed to undertake educational activities is something they need to answer for as it is neither an ethical or moral stance.  So we took appropriate action to give our children a positive educational influence during that time and then they want responsibility back and the authority to stop us teaching ethics to our children.  We took them out of those classes and they didn’t care.  Our children sat idle and they didn’t care.  Why so much concern now?

    They showed a clip of one Minister teaching 10 to 12yr olds with toy bears.  THAT does not seem age appropriate to me.  If you can’t do better than that, it will only reinforce the decision to keep our children out of SRE.  While I certainly do not believe that all ‘chaplains’ would be that bad, I can only assume that they would have tried to show their best to the world.  If that is so, it was a pretty pathetic ‘best’.  They did themselves a great disservice and only managed to show how poor SRE* can be as an educational tool.

    It was also a sad reflection on the Victorian State Government to hear that they wouldn’t allow Humanist/Secular Ethics classes in Victoria because the group proposing it weren’t religious.  It really does show that the Christian Lobby in this country have quite a stranglehold on our Education Departments.  This is inappropriate in this day and age.  It needs to be looked at seriously and a resolution sought that will allow for our children to get better educations free of the restraints being imposed by a ‘special interest group’.  It is their ‘interest’ and not that of the wider community.

    Let’s get to some facts.

    1. They have the classes for their children that they want.
    2. We don’t have an existing alternative.
    3. Their children learn scripture according to their groups beliefs.
    4. Our children are banned from learning anything during that time.
    5. Some parents put their children into the SRE* classes because there is no alternative class.
    6. If there was an alternative, they would change their children over to that class as has already been shown during the trial.
    7. There has been up to 47% drop in SRE* attendance in some classes.

    This whole debate is entirely unnecessary.

    • They have their classes for their children, so why complain?
    • They haven’t cared about our children going without before, so why are they so interested in what we ‘do’ teach our children now?
    • Our children learning ethics is a good thing, so why complain?
    • They have GRE**, SRE*, Church, Sunday School and home. What more do they need?

    It really boils down to this:  The children of religious parents have the right to have their children taught the belief system they choose.  We, as either non-believers or parents whose children’s school does not have a chaplain for their ‘belief system’ would prefer to have our children taught ethics.  Why when they get exactly what they want do they think they have the right to deny us the exact same thing?

    Again, the explanation is simple.  They have to ‘automatically respect’ the other religions so they don’t make a noise about children of other faiths being taught in SRE*.  But we aren’t religious and are not given that respect.  We are nothing to them and in their opinion we don’t have equivalent rights to teach our children ethics.  It would not be in any of their interests for our children to be shown to be becoming more moral and ethical without their so-called religious beliefs.  It would once and for all show to the world that their gods and prophets are not needed for us to be good people.  They will continue to fight this even if we do get these classes approved.  It is not in their interests for us to be good.  How then do they claim that without God, there is no morals, no goodness, no compassion etc?  What use will there be for religion if that happens?

    THE DEMISE OF RELIGION IS AT HAND

     

    • Kat 11:58 on May 27, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I am a strong supporter of teaching ethics in primary and philosophy to high school age students. One of the things that most strongly affected my thinking as a child was that while Mum wanted us to go to Catholic school where our thinking was often stifled – my father taught us many philosophies, encouraged critical thinking and had many ethical discussions on many topics.
      I taught my children ethics when they were primary school age and Philosophy when high school age. Even though my daughter has not pursued it academically – it has helped her make good life choices and decisions. My son is still interested and continually questions and discusses ethics and philosophy daily.

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 23, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , school   

    Questions for Cardinal George Pell and Robert Haddad. 

    In the following article entitled ‘Secular ‘ethics’ drive belittles religious faith‘ Cardinal Pell seems to have missed the point yet again.

    He uses the word secular.  Do you not understand the term?

    It is not religious.  It is not anti-religion.  It is just ‘without’ religion.  It has nothing to do with religion in any way.

    There is no hostility in secularism.  As there is no hostility, hostility cannot be reflected in anything. You state that there is a majority of christians in Australia, which I doubt, but I’ll let you have that for the sake of the discussion.  What has that to do with anything? Are you of the opinion that a religious majority have the right to enforce their religion on the secular minority? All anyone is asking for here is the right to teach our children ethics outside of a religious framework because we are not religious.

    You say

    “So you have a few people who suggest that religious considerations are inappropriate in public life.“

    Whether or not we consider it inappropriate or not has nothing to do with the ethics debate currently underway. That is not what is being said at all.  What is being said, and I am getting rather tired of having to repeat myself here, ‘All anyone is asking for is the right to teach our children ethics outside of a religious framework because we are not religious.‘  Please try to understand George, this has nothing to do with you or your SRE classes.  This is about parents who wish to have their children taught ethics.  What has that to do with you? Is it just that a few parents have taken their children out of the SRE classes? They probably would not have put them there in the first place if secular ethics classes were available.  Which just means that you and yours have had a free ride with those children up till now.  You shouldn’t be complaining about that.

    From your friend Robert Haddad:

    It’s not for our sakes, but so our baptised children can hear and know about Christ, wherever they may be.

    Now that’s telling isn’t it.  It’s for his baptised children. He wants to do the best for ‘their’ children.  Good luck to you mate.  Well, we also want to do the best for our children.  Why are you trying to stop us?  Do you have some special mandate that means only you are allowed to do good for your children and that says we can’t?

    and

    “In the end, the volunteer providers of secular ethics will be no more interesting or inspiring than our catechists, nor will they have the staying power of our catechists, many of whom have devoted decades to joyfully bringing Christ to our children, despite the many difficulties they encounter.”

    Not only are you religious, you now profess to be a fortune teller? You can see the future? Oh, what a wise and holy man thou art!  Your comments about others being ignorant and prejudiced just go to show your own failings as a christian and solidify our problems with having people such as yourself teaching anything, especially ethics, to our children.  Take your hostility to your church and teach it to your children, not ours.  He goes on…

    Sorry, I would much prefer to continue my cooperation with Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic and Buddhist SRE providers to have this Ethics course diverted to another dedicated time slot or removed altogether.

    All this shows is that you are trying to remove it altogether.  You know full well that if it went to another time slot that the children would have to forgo some other part of their education and that will not be allowed.  All you want is to stop non religious people being taught ethics in a secular manner. 

    If Christianity were being practised in this country in the way that is being made out by the vocal proponents of Christianity in this debate, there wouldn’t be such a problem.  But the words being used and the tone of the arguments coming from those in positions of leadership within the christian community are one of the biggest signs that religion is past it’s use by date.  When they push a fear campaign to get their way it just goes to show that they have a weak position and they know it.

    Why is it that you’re all fine to allow other religions to teach their special brand of ethics, even if it is one you don’t prescribe to, but we aren’t allowed?  Why do you fear us so much? We are just ordinary people trying to get along in the world and do the best for our families just like anyone else.  If it is just because we don’t believe in your god, then it makes even less sense.  How many other religions don’t believe in your god but you’re fine with them teaching their followers children in that same time slot?  Buddhists don’t even believe in a god but you’re fine with them, so what is your problem with us?

    IT’S TIME YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS

     

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 20, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , school,   

    Cardinal Pell versus Ethics Classes – Yet Again 

    Once again Cardinal Pell finds it necessary to speak out about the Ethics Classes under trial here in NSW.

    “Our state schools are free, compulsory and secular; there’s no reason whatsoever as part of the normal curriculum that secular ethics mightn’t be taught,” the cardinal said.

    Let’s break this down and go through it one bit at a time shall we.

    “Our state schools” – yes, State Schools George.  Not your Catholic Schools.  You get a fair bit of leeway in how you run your Private Catholic Schools and can teach religion in whatever way you wish, but when it comes to State Schools, you shouldn’t. Not even close to having a say.  Just where do you get off thinking you are in a position to demand that our children either sit in your indoctrination classes or sit idle?  If not idle, then why not ethics?  Straighten your frock George, your agenda is showing.

    “Free” – yes, they are to a great degree, but that isn’t what is under discussion here.

    “Compulsory” – No, that is not true. You may enrol your child in a private school or do homeschooling if you so choose.

    “Secular” – No, that is not quite true.  If it were you wouldn’t have your god squad invading them once a week.

    “there’s no reason whatsoever as part of the normal curriculum that secular ethics mightn’t be taught” - Wow, I’m surprised you even said this.  I really am.  That is the whole argument there in one phrase.  If our children aren’t attending your religious classes, then you have nothing to do with them and no say over what we as parents want to have them taught and therefore whatever they are taught IS part of their normal curriculum.

    I know that SRE has been going on since approx 1880.  At what time parents were allowed to exempt their children from SRE I do not know, but I do know that nobody has said a word about that as long as those children that were exempt weren’t doing anything ‘worthwhile’ or that may encourage others to remove their children as well.  As I see it, that is the big problem here for you.  You are worried that parents will remove their children and you’ll lose a captive audience.  If those parents only have their children in your classes for the ethics but would prefer a non religious environment if that was on offer then that is their choice and you should not be depriving them of that.  Neither you, nor the Catholic Church have the right to deny anyone a choice in how they learn or live their lives.

    What is the the Jesuit maxim? “Give me a child for his first seven years and I’ll give you the man”?  There it is in a nutshell.  That is what you are losing.  Raw recruits to feed your religious mill.  You know full well that if you can’t get them early enough, you’ll never get them.  If we can teach them ethics outside of your superstitious institution, then they would have no reason to bow before you and the inevitable demise of religion would be hastened.

    I also know that this worries you.  As it should I suppose.  You have given your whole life to the Church and what it stands for, but is that a reason to deny others with differing opinions a chance to learn and to prosper as human beings?  Really George, if christianity, the church, religion or whatever term you wish to use, has a firm enough foundation as you obviously believe, don’t you think it could withstand this?  Facing hardships is one of the things we all know is part of life on this planet and that when we overcome them, we turn out to be better people for that experience.  If christianity/the church/religion can’t survive children learning ethics outside of a religious framework, then it doesn’t have the foundation you think it has and it should be allowed to fall by the way, just as the Ethics Classes shall if they are not worthy of continuing.  Are you worried religion isn’t up to the challenge?

    Once again, I’ll say this.  You have your churches to teach Sunday School for those who wish to attend.  You have your Catholic Schools to teach religion in the manner you choose.  You have SRE classes in State Schools where you can teach religion in the manner you wish to the children of parents who wish to have them attend those classes.  Those are your domains.  Outside of that, it is our domain.  A place where  secular parents can choose to have their children be educated in a secular manner.  Why is it that you are trying to deny us that right?

    DEMOCRACY NOT THEOCRACY

     

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 10, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , school   

    Just thoughts One. 

    Not having had any thoughts about what to write tonight, I have decided to just go with whatever comes into my head while I’m typing.

    ===

    I feel sad at the moment.  Recently I lost a family member to a disease and I’m having a hard time coming to terms with it.  The worst part was that they knew it was happening and didn’t tell me.  I had no part in it and no time to accept it before it was upon me.  This was a much loved person and it wasn’t like we weren’t close enough for them to tell me.  But it does serve to show us that there are depths to even the closest of our friends and relatives that even we are not privy to.  I’ve seen others go the same way and felt a loss, but this one leaves a hole that can’t be filled, even with the time I have left upon this earth.  They were that close.

    I can only hope that anyone reading this might have a change of heart if they are in that position and trying to figure out whether to tell their loved ones.  I would not tell someone I didn’t know.  I would not tell the neighbour down the road.  I probably wouldn’t tell most of my acquaintances, but family and close friends, they should be told.  It reinforces the bond and leaves everyone feeling a little closer and able to accept the change.  Even those that don’t take things very well at least deserve to know.  They could surprise you.  Don’t leave your loved ones feeling like they weren’t quite so loved as they thought.  It is a horrible burden to go on with.

    ===

    I chose to not believe in imaginary friends and I chose to give my children that same right.  They chose to not attend scripture classes at school and it stayed that way.  I choose not to attend church or to watch the Christian Television Channel on the idiot box.  I do this because I do have the choice.  So when our Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott comes along and starts telling children in school that it was warmer in Jesus’ time than it is now and all without their parents permission, I have to seriously doubt his qualifications to lead this country.

    Mr Abbott, please keep your superstitious claptrap to yourself and allow people to bring their families up in a manner of their own choosing.  If we want our children to believe in your skyfairy, we will teach them about it.  We will decide.  Australia is a Secular Democracy, not a Theocratic Dictatorship.  Do you know how many Australian families you insulted today by that show of absolute ignorance?  But I suppose you don’t care about non believers, do you?

    ===

    I’m going to punch the next doctor that tells me the only thing you should stick in your ear is your elbow.

    ===

    My business cards still haven’t arrived and I’m just slightly more than mildly annoyed.

    ===

    Predator would make a better hood ornament than Alien.

    ===

    Tony Abbot, Australia’s George W Bush.

    ===

    Hey look, they’re getting shorter.

    ===

    Om Mani Padme Hum.

    ===

    Atheism Rules

    ===

    Peace Out.

    ===

    Out.

     

    • Greybeard 00:37 on May 11, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I DO choose to watch the Christian Television Channel on the idiot box occasionally.

      Up to about one minute per month serves to adequately remind me of how otherwise ordinary men and women can – astonishingly – take complete leave of their senses and choose to spend hours of their time listening to a fraudulent liar talking horsefeathers.

      However, I do find it so excrutiating to watch that I have to change channels after enduring less than one minute.

  • DistroMan 20:00 on May 4, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , school   

    Special Religious Education in Australian Schools 

    The following punchy statement forms part of your site’s protest against the non-religious ethics classes on trial in NSW.

    “What people don’t get, is that the ‘ethics’ that we all value in society today – like don’t steal, lie, murder etc – come directly from Scripture itself.”

    This appears to be based on large helpings of Biblical, historical and cultural ignorance.

    What poorly educated Christians don’t “get” is that all of their valued “biblical” ethics pre-date Judaism and the Christian Bible and merely reflect the culture at the time their scriptures were written. There is nothing uniquely “Christian” about them. The Golden Rule is central to Buddhism and many other religions of greater antiquity.

    Much of what is unique to the ethical codes and injunctions of Judeo-Christianity has been discarded as barbaric and omitted from modern legal and ethical codes. Because these aspects are conveniently expunged from most forms of religious education, modern day Australian Christians are rarely aware of the penalties which the Bible God prescribed for those who break the Top Ten Commandments. With only one exception, the penalty is torture and horrific death at the hands of the faithful. This type of “moral” justice is condemned by modern Australian society and is not reflected in the Australian justice system.

    Only rarely does modern day Christian education inform people of the other rules and commandments which the Jewish God gave to his Prophet along with the Top Ten. These include the admonition to stone your disobedient children to death, instructions on how to beat one’s slave to death (- it’s fine if the slave lives for at least three days after the beating), how to sell your daughter into slavery, when to marry her to any man who rapes her and when to torture and kill her instead. There are prohibitions against eating lobster, wearing cloth made from blends of more than one fiber and handling things made from pig skin. Failure to inform Australian citizens of these injunctions avoids the important lesson that acting on what appears to be a divine instruction may get you jailed under Australian law, or vilified as evil, stupid, sick or insane by the very people who insist that they are followers of the religion which teaches these things.

    Australian law and civil moral codes are based on international views of human rights and dignities which are absent in the Christian holy writings or overtly or covertly undermined. The Christian Bible views women, children and slaves as property and supports genocide, rape, sex slavery and the complete destruction of any nation or people that you can justify as “evil”. It supports animal and human sacrifice, favoritism, petty jealousy and psychological cruelty. It provides models of “godly” behaviour that no properly socialized member of the Australia community would ever want their child to emulate. The Jewish Christian God’s favorite people kill their best friends so that they can marry their wives (David), get drunk and get their daughters pregnant (Noah), offer their daughters as rape victims in order to protect a male guest from a similar fate (Lot) and traumatize their child by preparing them for human sacrifice (Abraham).

    Australian citizens need to know that these models of divine morality are not acceptable behaviour in this society.

    I am appalled at the misinformation which this site is providing to the Australian public. Apparently lack of intellectual integrity of this kind is acceptable under the moral code which you teach. I do not want my child to learn this kind of ethic.

    – By Rosemary Lyndall Wemm

    P.S. This was emailed to the SRE On Trial site. Unfortunately it is unlikely to be seen by anyone but the person who deletes it. :-( Unless people here make it known by other means. Your move.

    THANKYOU ROSEMARY

     

    • Greybeard 13:54 on May 4, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      The bible's 'ethics' are exactly what NONE of us want or need, christians or free-thinkers. It is impossible to have biblical ethics to suit a modern civilisation , because the 'ethics' defined in the bible BELONG to the primitive cultures of bygone eras over 2000 years ago.

      For a civilisation to progress, it is crucial to shake off primitive 'moral' practices.

      It is crazy that christians persist that their book is a moral code of high standards, while the reality is that it is filled with primitive justice, violence, mysogeny and child cruelty.

  • DistroMan 20:00 on April 18, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , school   

    Discrimination against children on religious grounds? 

    Here in NSW the children of non-religious parents and those that, even though they are religious, choose not to send their children to the Special Religious Education classes are being discriminated against.  I would love to be proven wrong here believe me, but the law does allow for the teaching of religion in classes each week and those children not attending are being refused the chance to attend trial ethics classes due to pressure from the religious lobbyists, especially the Anglican Church and Archbishop Peter Jensen.

    You see, there have been moves over the past few years to introduce Ethics Classes so that these children can learn ethics and good behaviour in a non-religious environment.  It would seem to most clear thinking adults that the more ethics we can teach our children, all of our children, the better our society would become.  So why is the religious community so averse to these children learning good values in this way?  I can only assume that they are worried it would alert everybody to the fact that religious institutions are not the sole purveyors of morals and ethics as they would have you believe.  They don’t want people going around thinking that you can be ‘Good without God’.  This has been seen with their opposition to the Atheist bus advertisements and the religiously backed refusal to fund the Atheist Convention in Melbourne earlier this year when hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money has been used to fund various religious events.

    Even though I don’t agree with their attitude towards the secular community on the whole, I can understand their position and from whence it came.  But the pure bloody-minded attitude that has arisen over this ethics trial is now hurting our children.  This stance is unsupportable and should not be being condoned by our government.  For the trial to have been ‘postponed’ due to religious pressure is unconscionable.  I don’t care if it is myself, Archbishop Jensen, Premier Keneally, Prime Minister Rudd or the freaking Pope, nobody, and I do mean NOBODY has the right to discriminate against children on the basis of religious belief.  Even if it’s their belief and not the childs.

    I call on the government to honour it’s word and continue with the trial as planned.  I also call on the people of NSW and Australia to let our politicians know that their children are not bargaining chips for them to move around in the hopes of gaining votes.  Give our children the best start in life by doing the right thing and not just the religiously popular thing.

    POPULAR IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT OR JUST

     

    • Greybeard 02:25 on April 19, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Spot on, DM. Recent statements by that nitwit Jim Wallace – that Ethics belong to Christianity alone – are unbelievably wide of the mark. They actually believe that ethics are the sole property of the church!

      Christian morality is to force feed their crazy ideas onto as many innocent children as they can, before they are old enough to think for themselves. The rest are not worth worrying about and are to be left twiddling their thumbs.

  • DistroMan 20:00 on April 9, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , baptism, bookburning, , , exorcism, , , inquisition, , Latin, , , , , , school, ,   

    Where will more religous power in government lead? 

    I’ve just been sitting here thinking about dictatorships.  I haven’t been able to come up with one where the people are truly happy or even halfway happy with their situation.  Even in some so-called democracies these days, one person or group has so much control that they are effectively dictatorships.  When and only when the politicians know that their jobs rest upon the peoples safety, health, education and job security, will the country be in adequate hands.  I say adequate because at my age, I’ve learnt enough about governments to know that they aren’t all about the people.  But I digress.

    The old saying of ‘power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely’ is one worth bearing in mind at the moment.

    We have seen over the past couple of decades, the church gaining more and more influence in political circles whether by lobbying or by getting their own candidates into power.  There are so many bible wielding politicians running around here in this country that it scares me.  I can’t cope with the idea of what it must be like in the USA.  But this is the fate we are all facing, whether we are there now or not.  As they gain more control, they exert more pressure and are able to pass laws, block laws and repeal laws of which they do not favour.  Are you starting to see where this is going?

    Go a little further down the track to when they have enough power to control a political party that has the power to pass laws at will without needing votes from the opposing party.  Say goodbye to freedom, abortion, women’s rights, gay rights, children’s rights, freedom of thought, atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, skeptics, humanitarians, condoms, divorce, adult entertainment, scientific progress, freedom from slavery, modern forms of justice, freedom of religion, freedom from religion, secular education, sex education,  sex before marriage, mini skirts, see through blouses, bikinis, cleavage, blasphemy, freedom of speech, IVF, the Internet, advances in medical science, evolution etc.  We may as well turn the clock back to around the time of the Dark Ages.

    Look forward to compulsory church at least once a week to start with, compulsory baptisms, shorter life spans, higher rates of death during childbirth, book burnings, witch hunts, restriction and requirements on how we bring up our children, weekend exorcisms in the park, holy wars, compulsory Latin classes, One 24 hour Evangelist Tv channel, Xtian Music Radio only and The Inquisition.

    This is not just for us atheists.  Think about it.  Just how many of your xtian friends would really want to live in that world?  I honestly can’t think of any of mine that would.  Most of them are way too addicted to modern society to want to give all that up.  I think we should let them know just what kind of world that they are advocating for and that they don’t even realise it.

    Think about your current life.  Think about the things you and your family have worked hard for and then think about how much of all that you would have to give up.  How many of your freedoms would be curtailed?  What is the future for your children?  Grandchildren?  How many of you business owners would have to shut down once they start listing things the devil might like?  No video shops for sure.  Cinemas would only show children’s movies.  Most would have to shut through non-attendance.  These are only a couple and you know the list will grow and grow as they get more power.  All you xtians that have your little xtian dances and discos.  Do you really think they will last?  Not on your life.  Xtian Rock Bands?  They’ll go.  Unless they change their clothes to a more sedate style and only sing hymns.  This sounds scary I know, but that is just a taste of what is to come if they get their way.  Think hard xtians.  It wasn’t just the ungodly that suffered the last time the church was in power.  Xtians died in their millions too.   Didn’t matter whether they were innocent or not.  All that mattered was that the Church was seen to be doing something, whether the people liked it or not.

    WELCOME TO YOUR FUTURE

     

    • Greybeard 13:10 on April 9, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      If we lived in a theocracy, we would find ourselves unable to criticise christians, jews or muslims, unable to bring pedophile priests to justice, unable to sue the church for their misdeeds, unable to prosecute those responsible for covering up crimes committed in the name of god.

      We would have public holidays on religious festivals. We would also be forced to give churches full tax exemption and relieve them of any basic fair trading requirements to tell the truth about their products. We would have people killing other people in the name of Jesus and flying planes into buildings in the name of allah. We would be supporting the right of parents to brainwash their children from birth and we would have religious chaplains in schools and hospitals. The government would pay huge sums of money to faith schools and we might also all have our genitals forcibly mutilated to please god.

      Oh, wait a moment. That's just the stuff we already have………….

  • DistroMan 20:00 on March 5, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , school   

    Labels… 

    1. If a xtian wears a cross, they are showing their beliefs and devotion and that can be respected.
    2. If a sikh wears a turban they do so because of their religion and that can be respected.
    3. If an atheist wears a t-shirt with atheist or a big red A on it, they are accused of being intolerant and fueling sectarian conflict.
    1. If a xtian goes to church, sings, prays and engages in fellowship they are being good xtian people and following their faith.
    2. If a muslim goes to a mosque, chants and prays they are being faithful and good people according to their religion.
    3. If atheists meet and talk about science we are accused of attacking religion and causing division in society.
    1. If a xtians child goes to school they can be taught xtianity at school according to their parents beliefs.
    2. If a muslim goes to school they can be taught about islam according to their parents beliefs.
    3. If an atheists child goes to school, um, ah, hmmm. I suppose it’s tough shit for them. Not such a good day.
    1. Xtians preach that their god is the only god and their religion is the right one.
    2. Islam teaches that their god is the only god and their religion is the right one.
    3. Atheism teaches that their god… Um hold on, they don’t have one. Have a good day.
    1. Xtians teach that unbelievers will go to hell and burn forever.
    2. Islam teaches unbelievers will be tormented by Allah’s angels
    3. Atheism teaches, um, no, we don’t teach. Have a good day.
    1. Xtians gets Xmas Day, Boxing Day, Easter Sunday and Good Friday as public holidays.
    2. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs don’t have any in Australia.
    3. Atheists will use yours and still have a good day.
    1. Christians tend to view homosexuality either as none of their business all the way to ‘put them to death’.
    2. Muslims tend to view homosexuality either as none of their business all the way to ‘put them to death’
    3. Atheism and homosexuality are two completely different topics. Have a good day.
    1. Xtians blow up abortion clinics in the name of xtianity.
    2. Muslims blow up themselves, others and buildings in the name of islam.
    3. Atheists blow up balloons.
    1. Buddhists have temples.
    2. Jews have temples.
    3. Atheists have pubs.
    1. Catholic, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhists get tax exempt status.
    2. Islamic, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Daoists get tax exempt status.
    3. Atheists pay their own way.

    HAVE A GOOD DAY

     

    • Nathan 17:15 on March 8, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Don’t get me started on the tax free status that religions get to peddle their rubbish. The catholic church is a MASSIVE enterprise. Absolutely no reason why it shouldn’t pay tax (just look at how they dress their pope.. http://nathan-lee.com/blog/2009/07/10/pope-writes-to-fight-greed-signs-with-gold-pen/ ). I have a few accountant friends that have done audits for various (small) churches and they are amazed at just how much money they have that they do ZERO CHARITY WITH.
      I think they need to split up religions into the “just the charity part, no preaching” and “the preaching” part. After all, if they are truly charitable they won’t be expecting to convert people desperate for their help.

← Older posts

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel