Tony Abbot: Compulsory Bible Lessons

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by A Monkey Shaved

IMHO Sounds as dumb to me as making Moby Dick compulsory.
Edit, Correction, probably dumber, because it is mostly a load of unintelligable gibberish, which is why IMHO so many Catholic schools in my day avoided it and just indoctrinated us kids with their Catechism instead. I hope Tony Abbot is not thinking about making that book compulsory.

Yeah ,that was the case at the (four) Catholic schools I attended. We were effectively discouraged from reading the bible,lest we become confused.So of course I did,from about 14 to 16.

They were right.The bible bored me stupid and confused the hell out of me,especially Revelations which I thought was gibberish written by a mentally ill person.(still do) Formed an intense dislike of St Paul very early on. I quite liked some of the psalms, the parables and the sermon on the mount. At 14 I was also rather fond of 'The Song Of Solomon'.

[Loki]

I suspect that when Abbot says "all kids should read the bible" or whatever, he does not mean "all kids should read the bible". He means "all kids should read (that is study under direction) specific parts of the bible, to be selected by the usual vested interests". I doubt he is saying that all kids should read the bible from start to finish, but not sure he is aware if this himself. If they did it might even be a win for atheism, as a whole (and in part for my mind) it is unintelligible drivel and would surely make many kids question the sanity of the author or authors.

[smartymarty66]

Can we choose the bits they should read? I was always fond of the whole "Job getting drunk and impregnating his teenage daughters whilst convinicing everyone his wife was turned into a pillar of salt and that everyone he lived near was gay" story.

Hang on I saw that episode on Jerry Springer

[Seamus]

Can we choose the bits they should read? I was always fond of the whole "Job getting drunk and impregnating his teenage daughters whilst convinicing everyone his wife was turned into a pillar of salt and that everyone he lived near was gay" story.

Hang on I saw that episode on Jerry Springer

Now THAT'S funny.


However,"as many bible scholars will tell you" the sin of Sodomy was probably NOT homosexuality,but inhospitality and some other really mean things. (something of which most Christians seem blissfully unaware)

ME? I really don't care,except from an academic point of view, about the mythology of an apparently really rather nasty, petty tribe of bronze age goat herders.-They invented this nasty little god who shared their dominant human qualities,which included: Insular, clannish, paranoid, jealous, petty, vindictive,vicious, ruthless,sadistic and cruel. Much like the bulk of humanity today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Controversy

Main article: The Bible and homosexuality
Whether the primary offense of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah was that of homoeroticism or non-sexual interrogation and inhospitality has been much disputed in recent times, with the arguments primarily centering upon linguistic aspects.

Classical Jewish texts are seen by many as not stressing the homosexual aspect of the attitude of the inhabitants of Sodom as much as their cruelty and lack of hospitality to the "stranger." [3] The Jewish Encyclopaedia [4] has information on the importance of hospitality to the Jewish people. The people of Sodom were seen as guilty of many other significant sins. Rabbinic writings affirm that the Sodomites also committed economic crimes, blasphemy and bloodshed.[5] One of the worst was to give money or even gold ingots to beggars, after inscribing their names on them, and then subsequently refusing to sell them food. The unfortunate stranger would end up starving and after his death, the people who gave him the money would reclaim it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

[dimel]

Originally Posted by DanDare

Just a war story FYI. Our schools are meant to run RE as "opt-in", to provide the qualifications of the RE teacher and the curriculum of the class.

My daughter in year 2 was just shoved in a fundamentalist xtian class without informing us. The RE teacher was a cretin. My daughter, in response to the story of Adam and Eve expressed concern about inbreeding and tried to explain to the teacher about recessive genetic traits. She didn't fully understand this herself yet but had asked me some months before what "inbreeding" meant and I had done my best to explain. Anyway, the teachers response was that "they did not have DNA back then".

My daughters tearful home coming was the first we knew of her attending scripture. We complained. The schools response? They stuck her at the back of the scripture class and told her to be quiet.

In practice, R.I. is indoctrination, pure and simple, and should be expunged.

Reading this forum (and the newspaper article suggested) I am beginning to believe it is time that all signs of religious affilliation are taken out of public view - and that includes clothes that scream to the world I am such and such!; after all one's spiritual affiliations is between the individual and whatever god, fairy at the bottom of the garden, devil or whatnot one believes in and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE ELSE!

Of course that ignores the brainwashing of small children (as Dawkins says there are children of Christians, Muslims etc., not Christian or Muslim Children!) but hopefully if all the public religious bilas is removed children will grow up to have a more balanced view of life, the world and their place in it?

It could be the quickest way to remove the current invasive pervasive smell of religion that has moved into everything!

Notice the way the media is playing the 'we shall pray for help etc' services after every traumatic event?

In a Peter Singer book about changing attitudes he suggests excluding the offender from social acceptance so what would happen if we started ignoring anyone who wears clothes telling us they are part of a religion? And that would include dog collars!

This would be a variation of Gandi's social disobedience.

Personally if I walked into a doctor's surgery and was faced with a doctor wearing a hijab I would turn around and walk out!

And I am waiting for the day that someone wearing a bike helmet, with face visor up, is prevented from going into a bank while a completely hijabbed woman is allowed in!

How many little ways are there for individuals to show their distaste for religions and religious proselytizing?

To end on a humorous note: I have a cousin who was standing, exhausted after a late shift, on Granville Station at some unearthly morning hour when a man danced up to him and asked "do you know Jesus?" The reply was a sting of every obscenity known to man!

Of course, that could be another way to react to religion?

[dimel]

Originally Posted by dimel

Reading this forum (and the newspaper article suggested) I am beginning to believe it is time that all signs of religious affilliation are taken out of public view - and that includes clothes that scream to the world I am such and such!; after all one's spiritual affiliations is between the individual and whatever god, fairy at the bottom of the garden, devil or whatnot one believes in and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE ELSE!

Of course that ignores the brainwashing of small children (as Dawkins says there are children of Christians, Muslims etc., not Christian or Muslim Children!) but hopefully if all the public religious bilas is removed children will grow up to have a more balanced view of life, the world and their place in it?

It could be the quickest way to remove the current invasive pervasive smell of religion that has moved into everything!

Notice the way the media is playing the 'we shall pray for help etc' services after every traumatic event?

In a Peter Singer book about changing attitudes he suggests excluding the offender from social acceptance so what would happen if we started ignoring anyone who wears clothes telling us they are part of a religion? And that would include dog collars!

This would be a variation of Gandi's social disobedience.

Personally if I walked into a doctor's surgery and was faced with a doctor wearing a hijab I would turn around and walk out!

And I am waiting for the day that someone wearing a bike helmet, with face visor up, is prevented from going into a bank while a completely hijabbed woman is allowed in!

How many little ways are there for individuals to show their distaste for religions and religious proselytizing?

To end on a humorous note: I have a cousin who was standing, exhausted after a late shift, on Granville Station at some unearthly morning hour when a man danced up to him and asked "do you know Jesus?" The reply was a sting of every obscenity known to man!

Of course, that could be another way to react to religion?

Just had another thought about how to make a statement AGAINST religion and that is for everyone to start wearing the clothes that make a statement about their GOD/NON GOD. Towards the end of his life Alan Watts started wearing what were seen as outlandish clothes that expressed his FREEDOM; what if EVERYONE DID THAT until the religious statement via clothes began to look old hat and uncool and generally disappeared into a mass of colourful clothes?

More fun than ignoring or swearing at people!

[DanDare]

Originally Posted by dimel

Reading this forum (and the newspaper article suggested) I am beginning to believe it is time that all signs of religious affilliation are taken out of public view - and that includes clothes that scream to the world I am such and such!; after all one's spiritual affiliations is between the individual and whatever god, fairy at the bottom of the garden, devil or whatnot one believes in and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE ELSE!

I would love to agree with you there dimel. Sadly that would also do away with football supporters clothing and trekkie outfits etc.

Originally Posted by dimel

Just had another thought about how to make a statement AGAINST religion and that is for everyone to start wearing the clothes that make a statement about their GOD/NON GOD. Towards the end of his life Alan Watts started wearing what were seen as outlandish clothes that expressed his FREEDOM; what if EVERYONE DID THAT until the religious statement via clothes began to look old hat and uncool and generally disappeared into a mass of colourful clothes?

More fun than ignoring or swearing at people!

Much better. Buy a red atheist A t-shirt or pin from the www.richarddawkins.net shop or a brights badge from www.the-brights.net or make up your own stuff.