A recent study led by psychologist Will Gervais, found widespread and extreme moral prejudice against atheists around the world. Across all continents, people assumed that those who committed immoral acts, even extreme ones such as serial murder, were more likely to be atheists.

Survey data show that Americans are less trusting of atheists than of any other social group. For most politicians, going to church is often the best way to garner votes, and coming out as an unbeliever could well be political suicide. After all, there are no open atheists in the U.S. Congress. The only known religiously unaffiliated representative describes herself as “none,” but still denies being an atheist.
So, where does such extreme prejudice come from? And what is the actual evidence on the relationship between religion and morality?

How does religion relate to morality?

It is true that the world’s major religions are concerned with moral behavior. Many, therefore, might assume that religious commitment is a sign of virtue, or even that morality cannot exist without religion.

Both of these assumptions, however, are problematic.

For one thing, the ethical ideals of one religion might seem immoral to members of another. For instance, in the 19th century, Mormons considered polygamy a moral imperative, while Catholics saw it as a mortal sin.

Moreover, religious ideals of moral behavior are often limited to group members and might even be accompanied by outright hatred against other groups. In 1543, for example, Martin Luther, one of the fathers of Protestantism, published a treatise titled “On the Jews and their Lies,” echoing anti-Semitic sentiments that have been common among various religious groups for centuries.

These examples also reveal that religious morality can and does change with the ebb and flow of the surrounding culture. In recent years, several Anglican churches have revised their moral views to allow contraception, the ordination of women and the blessing of same-sex unions.

Discrepancy between beliefs and behavior:

In any case, religiosity is only loosely related to theology. That is, the beliefs and behaviors of religious people are not always in accordance with official religious doctrines. Instead, popular religiosity tends to be much more practical and intuitive. This is what religious studies scholars call “theological incorrectness.”

Buddhism, for example, may officially be a religion without gods, but most Buddhists still treat Buddha as a deity. Similarly, the Catholic Church vehemently opposes birth control, but the vast majority of Catholics practice it anyway. In fact, theological incorrectness is the norm rather than the exception among believers.
For this reason, sociologist Mark Chaves called the idea that people behave in accordance with religious beliefs and commandments the “religious congruence fallacy.”

This discrepancy among beliefs, attitudes and behaviors is a much broader phenomenon. After all, communism is an egalitarian ideology, but communists do not behave any less selfishly.

Why do people distrust atheists?

Atheists (Anti-Religious, rather than 'Pro' anything else)
belong to the black-skivvy, café-latte 'Scientific' culture and that culture belongs to...

...Oceania, which can be found in the 'midst' of the New Worlds of South America, Sahul (Australia) & North America.

Oceania - a Region of endless ocean and sea and just a spattering of land in the form of islands and land bridges.

It's opposite - the Middle-East (where Religion came into being), is a empty expanse of desert land, with a spattering of watery oasis and rivers.
It sits in the 'midst' of the Old Worlds of Asia, Europe and Africa.


Now the cruel irony is - that the Middle-East 'goes with the grain' when it comes to the New Worlds.
While Oceania 'goes with the grain' when it comes to the Old Worlds.
Hence you see a growing 'schism' emerging between Media (Oceania) and Politics (Namerica) in ...the USA.

It goes on and gets complicated, but rest assured Raven.
All is going accordingly. ;)

Are religious people more moral?

hhmm, would not necessarily think so.

Course, hard to define 'religious'.
hard to get a standard on morality.


ps, according to Jesus, we are not meant to be religious. We are meant to be Spiritual.
They are quite different meanings.
'You could religiously go to the local newsagent every Saturday morning.'

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 1^st, 2017 at 1:25pm:

Are religious people more moral? hhmm, would not necessarily think so. Course, hard to define 'religious'. hard to get a standard on morality. ps, according to Jesus, we are not meant to be religious. We are meant to be Spiritual. They are quite different meanings. 'You could religiously go to the local newsagent every Saturday morning.'

I am religious on Sundays. Gotta have that bloody-mary with brunch. There's moral in that somewhere.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 1^st, 2017 at 1:25pm:

ps, according to Jesus, we are not meant to be religious. We are meant to be Spiritual. They are quite different meanings. 'You could religiously go to the local newsagent every Saturday morning.'

According to Jesus, should we belong to, and go to, Church ?

Or, is it more important that we should seek God ?



The Problem of Evil
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304541795/93#93

Quote:

......regards organised religion; If you believe that the Book of Revelation, is the "The Revelation of Jesus Christ," then in that book.... Jesus said... "...thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." Revelation 2:6 Revelation 2:15 Nicolaitans??? What does that word, Nicolaitans, refer to ? 'Nicolaitan', refers to those who [Nico] 'rule over' or 'conquer', and [the laity] 'the people'. Jesus in Revelation, and, in the Gospels, said that he hated those hypocrites, who use the authority of 'religion' [turning religion into a 'beastly', false, worldly 'spirituality'], so as to rule over men. Almost every religion of man does this. Some religions [more than others] going to extreme lengths, to exert their authority over their adherents/devotees. Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Popes??? 'Papa'? "....And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." "...But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." Matthew 23:1-13

Jesus came, as an agency of 'God', to call mankind to repentance.

Didn't he ?


Matthew 4:17
From that time Jesus began....to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.



What did Jesus advise ?

In how a man, ought, to try to please God, his creator ?


Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.


Matthew 12:47
Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48  But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49  And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50  For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.



So, what is it God's will ?


I am responsible for my own choices.

That is what God's word teaches me.

This has been an observation of mine over my lifetime.

As a child, I was always under the impression that because a person is religious, they must be good and they must do good things.

Of course that is not true, and in fact, it is more likely that these people seek guidance from a so-called
"higher source" because they lack an innate moral compass.
This may be due to upbringing, innate personalities, or a combination of both.

It's admirable to want to better yourself, however, in most cases, a leopard cannot change it's spots and the nature of one's self sticks.

I don't believe a pinch of poo of what a religious person tells me because I think that they are being dishonest with themselves.
If they lie to themselves, then they will have no problem lying to me.

Religion is the by-product of WRITING.
Once writing was invented by the Sumerians upon the Temple of Ur in admiration and inspiration from Sin (the Moon, Luna, etc).
It was mostly used for logistical reasons like record keeping of crops, harvests, seasons, etc.

Then a family of people called 'JEWS' - decided to keep a record of their own Family Tree and hence 'their' Humanity started with their Ancestry from Adam & Eve.
Thus they, via the more permanency and longer lasting aspect of 'Writing' (in stone) - became IMMORTAL.
The obvious 'empowerment' over others - regarding the haves and the have nots, substantiated history in a personal level.

In time, other aspects of 'Human' nature were set in stone (Writing) and it transcended down through the generations - but even it 'changed' with and by each generation.
Morals became a part of the new elaboration of what the Jews created.

But in truth, Morals can be associated in any industry.

I place Religion in my life as if I was accepting the Middle-East as also a part of this world that I live in and am a part of. To deny Religion - or 'Writing', is to deny the Middle-East does not exist on this planet.
Obviously, my priority is being 'Australian' more than otherwise.

I tend to think that Northern Hemisphere Religion though - is more 'fictional, relationship orientated, soapy, etc'.
The transition of Religion into North America also shows via the emergence of their version (Mormonism) - the same traits.

Australia, here in the Southern Hemisphere region of Sahul.
Well, we have 2/3rd's more paperwork than any other nation. So our 'Religion' is more 'Non-Fiction', Factual, Logistical, etc and I'm pretty sure it will be the same for the other 3 Southern Hemisphere regions too, in time.

Jasin wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2017 at 8:31am:

Religion is the by-product of WRITING. Once writing was invented by the Sumerians upon the Temple of Ur in admiration and inspiration from Sin (the Moon, Luna, etc). It was mostly used for logistical reasons like record keeping of crops, harvests, seasons, etc. Then a family of people called 'JEWS' - decided to keep a record of their own Family Tree and hence 'their' Humanity started with their Ancestry from Adam & Eve. Thus they, via the more permanency and longer lasting aspect of 'Writing' (in stone) - became IMMORTAL. The obvious 'empowerment' over others - regarding the haves and the have nots, substantiated history in a personal level. In time, other aspects of 'Human' nature were set in stone (Writing) and it transcended down through the generations - but even it 'changed' with and by each generation. Morals became a part of the new elaboration of what the Jews created. But in truth, Morals can be associated in any industry. I place Religion in my life as if I was accepting the Middle-East as also a part of this world that I live in and am a part of. To deny Religion - or 'Writing', is to deny the Middle-East does not exist on this planet. Obviously, my priority is being 'Australian' more than otherwise. I tend to think that Northern Hemisphere Religion though - is more 'fictional, relationship orientated, soapy, etc'. The transition of Religion into North America also shows via the emergence of their version (Mormonism) - the same traits. Australia, here in the Southern Hemisphere region of Sahul. Well, we have 2/3rd's more paperwork than any other nation. So our 'Religion' is more 'Non-Fiction', Factual, Logistical, etc and I'm pretty sure it will be the same for the other 3 Southern Hemisphere regions too, in time.

I cannot make your perspective fit into an overall view. For a start, you imply that no tribes before the Sumarians had a religion. Seems unlikely.

And the idea that there were no morals before the Jews is equally hard to accept.

Your connection between morals and industry escapes me.

You verify your original statement by suggesting Europeans brought religion to America. What about native American religion?

A big problem is that you do not lay out what you think religion is. What you mean by denying religion is also vague. I may or may not be religious but I do not deny it exists.

Hi Issuevoter.

You gotta understand that Religion is not Mythology is not Religion.

Religion is a belief system via Writing (Books ...Holy Books).

Mythology, be it Namerican Indian, Viking, Pre-Sumerian, etc - is exactly that ...a mythology.

Once writing was created, Religion was soon born and the first Religion was Monotheistic.

In general, religious people are less moral.

Look at Longweekend -
he's the nastiest person on Ozpolitic yet he calls himself a Christian - go figure?

Jasin wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2017 at 9:05pm:

Hi Issuevoter. You gotta understand that Religion is not Mythology is not Religion. Religion is a belief system via Writing (Books ...Holy Books). Mythology, be it Namerican Indian, Viking, Pre-Sumerian, etc - is exactly that ...a mythology. Once writing was created, Religion was soon born and the first Religion was Monotheistic.

I don't have to understand anything of the sort. In the days before they learned to write, the Zogo men of Papua were the priests of various religions. And the same is true of many other primitive societies. As for your claim that the first religion was monotheistic, I will not even dignify that with a comment.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 10:44pm:

Look at Longweekend - he's the nastiest person on Ozpolitic yet he calls himself a Christian - go figure?

Longweekend is possessed by demons:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1507152247/16#16

Any individual can be a moral person.

Any individual can be an immoral person.

What religion we were born into [or not] doesn't necessarily have any bearing upon this, imo.





Acts 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35  But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.


Jeremiah 9:24
But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.


Psalms 11:5
The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.


1 Samuel 16:6
And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely the LORD'S anointed is before him.
7  But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 10:44pm:

Look at Longweekend - he's the nastiest person on Ozpolitic yet he calls himself a Christian - go figure?

I disagree. Sprintcyclist and Yadda are the nastiest Christians on this forum having a bling hatred of anybody not from their tribe. They are proof that religion doesn't automatically lead to morality.

I would argue that non religious people are more moral because their morality comes from within. They don't rely on dubious rules laid out in a millennia old book.

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 7^th, 2017 at 12:37pm:

Sprintcyclist and Yadda are the nastiest Christians on this forum

https://static4.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Sir+thank+you+so+much+valuable+lesson+_0dcb372db16e5f026342005fa0cffc2d.gif

Bobby. wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 10:44pm:

Look at Longweekend - he's the nastiest person on Ozpolitic yet he calls himself a Christian - go figure?

I don't believe he's a Christian.

As regards religious people....Jesus Christ himself had ONE word for them :

WOE!

Love is the answer, but while you are waiting for the answer, sex raises some pretty good questions.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 5^th, 2017 at 10:44pm:

Look at Longweekend - he's the nastiest person on Ozpolitic yet he calls himself a Christian - go figure?

Longy?

Nah.

You're thinking of Sprintcyclist.

Love, aka Brother Love wrote on Nov 8^th, 2017 at 10:59am:

Love is the answer, but while you are waiting for the answer, sex raises some pretty good questions.

Wanking is in aisle 6

Jasin wrote on Nov 8^th, 2017 at 11:49am:

Love, aka Brother Love wrote on Nov 8th, 2017 at 10:59am: Love is the answer, but while you are waiting for the answer, sex raises some pretty good questions. Wanking is in aisle 6

You are Bogan-fabulous!

Love, aka Brother Love wrote on Nov 8^th, 2017 at 11:45pm:

Jasin wrote on Nov 8th, 2017 at 11:49am: Love, aka Brother Love wrote on Nov 8th, 2017 at 10:59am: Love is the answer, but while you are waiting for the answer, sex raises some pretty good questions. Wanking is in aisle 6 You are Bogan-fabulous!

Thanks Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate.

Love, aka Brother Love wrote on Nov 8^th, 2017 at 10:59am:

Love is the answer, but while you are waiting for the answer, sex raises some pretty good questions.

What sort of good questions?

Quote:

Are religious people more moral?

I would think that with clear exceptions overall they are a lot less moral in the majority of cases.

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 11^th, 2017 at 5:30am:

Love, aka Brother Love wrote on Nov 8th, 2017 at 10:59am: Love is the answer, but while you are waiting for the answer, sex raises some pretty good questions. What sort of good questions?

Well mine would be "How do I get the bra off again?" (It's been a long time in my case  :D )

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 8^th, 2017 at 9:37am:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 5th, 2017 at 10:44pm: Look at Longweekend - he's the nastiest person on Ozpolitic yet he calls himself a Christian - go figure? I don't believe he's a Christian. As regards religious people....Jesus Christ himself had ONE word for them : WOE!

But you believe you are... Hmmm. With a little introspection you would see surprising similarities.

Please note elsewhere in the forums, my stated view of religion and the undefinable subject of "spirituality."

Has anyone else noticed that the most vocal critics of Christianity are also those most likely to give unqualified credit to Islam and the Aboriginal Dreamtime mythology? The Dreamtime is as much a bunch of crap as the Koran and Christian creationism. 

issuevoter wrote on Nov 27^th, 2017 at 9:07pm:

Please note elsewhere in the forums, my stated view of religion and the undefinable subject of "spirituality." Has anyone else noticed that the most vocal critics of Christianity are also those most likely to give unqualified credit to Islam and the Aboriginal Dreamtime mythology? The Dreamtime is as much a bunch of crap as the Koran and Christian creationism.

I'm equally dismissive of them all, even "spirituality". I just do not understand the feeling, I can read it's meaning, I can read their texts but it just leaves me dulled, I don't get it, I cannot comprehend the feelings these people have, it's alien to me, it always has been.

issuevoter wrote on Nov 27^th, 2017 at 9:07pm:

Has anyone else noticed that the most vocal critics of Christianity are also those most likely to give unqualified credit to Islam and the Aboriginal Dreamtime mythology? The Dreamtime is as much a bunch of crap as the Koran and Christian creationism.

No I haven't noticed that.
Just because i don't believe that minority groups should be persecuted because of their race or religious beliefs doesn't mean that I am supporting those beliefs.

That is a common false dichotomy perpetuated by the right wing

All myth expresses the Consciousness of humanity. Therefore, it cant be good or bad, better or worse... All we can do is listen to the stories of our past... of our future and understand that everybody, past and present, belongs to these stories.

Nom de Plume wrote on Nov 30^th, 2017 at 11:39am:

All myth expresses the Consciousness of humanity. Therefore, it cant be good or bad, better or worse... All we can do is listen to the stories of our past... of our future and understand that everybody, past and present, belongs to these stories.

Fair post. :)

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 30^th, 2017 at 11:46am:

Nom de Plume wrote on Nov 30th, 2017 at 11:39am: All myth expresses the Consciousness of humanity. Therefore, it cant be good or bad, better or worse... All we can do is listen to the stories of our past... of our future and understand that everybody, past and present, belongs to these stories. Fair post. :)

Perhaps, but it does not address the fact that these myths are being used to manipulate the way people think.

Raven wrote on Nov 1^st, 2017 at 12:58am:

A recent study led by psychologist Will Gervais, found widespread and extreme moral prejudice against atheists around the world. Across all continents, people assumed that those who committed immoral acts, even extreme ones such as serial murder, were more likely to be atheists. Survey data show that Americans are less trusting of atheists than of any other social group. For most politicians, going to church is often the best way to garner votes, and coming out as an unbeliever could well be political suicide. After all, there are no open atheists in the U.S. Congress. The only known religiously unaffiliated representative describes herself as “none,” but still denies being an atheist. So, where does such extreme prejudice come from? And what is the actual evidence on the relationship between religion and morality?

Around the world? Around the US of A more like it.  Americans are a special case. After all, they elected Trump (ok. Not all of them). 

We have plenty of atheists in Parliament.  We don't suffer from the US anti-atheist affiction.

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 17^th, 2018 at 11:33am:

Around the world? Around the US of A more like it.  Americans are a special case. After all, they elected Trump (ok. Not all of them).  We have plenty of atheists in Parliament.  We don't suffer from the US anti-atheist affiction.

Religion is perhaps more visible now in Australian politics than it has been for almost thirty years. There would seem to be a growing lobby from within the religious right whose overt mission is to exert influence over public policy making in Australia. For some time there has been a federal Parliamentary Christian Fellowship which meets during sitting weeks to read passages from the Bible and exchange views and personal anecdotes on how their faith is tested within politics.

It is an interdenominational membership (as long as you are Christian of course) which crosses party membership, there is no roll call at meetings and minutes are never taken. It is not easy to get the exact numbers but reports have it that the group draws on a regular pool of between 60 and 75. The total number of federal MPs and Senators is only 226, so it would seem that our federal Parliament at least has more than its fair share of committed Christians.

The federal Parliamentary Christian Fellowship organises regular prayer breakfasts - which are addressed by invited ministers.

In 1993 a Parliamentary Prayer Network was established for people to gather and pray in Parliament House. This group has a schools program which links Christian schools with members and Senators.

In 2005 the Parliamentary Prayer Network hosted a two-day conference in the great hall of Parliament House - a conference on the theme of 'Prayer, Nations and Government', which included church services. The guest speaker at that conference was Texan prophet Cindy Jacobs who believes that Christians must take over the world through its governments, exhorts Christians to train their children for martyrdom on the mission field in the final clash of civilizations and has prophesied that Australia will become a theocracy.

There is also the shadowy Lyons Forum within  the ranks of the Coalition MPs. The Lyons Forum doesn't proclaim itself a Christian group but has never rejected the tag 'ultra-conservative Christian faction'  and certainly to the 40-50 or so conservatives who are members of the group, its primary role is to pursue the interests of 'families'.

This group was arguably at its hey-day in the 90s but was reportedly reformed in 2003 to reinvigorate its push for government policy in line with traditional Christian values.

And we must not forget that in recent decades, the delivery by religious organisations of services  that were formerly the province of government agencies has increased substantially. The Commonwealth employment services, worth hundreds of millions of dollars,  were  contracted out to largely faith based organisations. Religious organisations run public hospitals and residential aged care and disability services.

Funding changes under the Howard  Government have substantially increased taxpayer money for non­-government schools, the majority of which are church­ based. In the past few years churches were actively encouraged to tender for contracts to provide counselling in custody disputes under the new Family Law Act.

The prominence of religious based organisations in the provision of services, while arguably valuable, can be problematic. Delivery of social services can be effective and respectful of religious liberty; however religious provision can mean clients are denied services available elsewhere. The Catholic Church, for instance, will not conduct vasectomies, tubal ligation or  abortions, though they arc legal and routine in other public hospitals. People in many parts of Australia are discriminated against by having no alternative hospital provider - Bendigo is a case in point.

And of course we have seen a number of government appointments that have called into question the intersection of church and state. The ill-fated appointment of Archbishop Peter Hollingworth as Governor-General,  at a time when abuse of children in church institutions was being hotly debated, and in the context of his inadequate role in responding to the problem, was contentious to say the least.

The more religious the parliament is, the more likely it is to have scant regard for the separation of church and state and the more likely to find religious reasons for decisions - reasons that will be incomprehensible to many non-religious people. Religiously motivated government policy-making, whether based on sincere religious ideology or as a concession to religious constituents, also runs the risk of making superficial responses to complex social phenomenon.

I agree that this is true for the far right organisations you discuss, but in Australian society in general, atheists are regarded more with apathy than anything else. There is no stigma attached to being an atheist in Australia, whereas in parts of the US, there certainly is.

I don't believe that there is currently anything that prevents atheists from becoming a public official - not even in the NT.

I don't think it is entirely fair to attach the sobriquet "right wing" to the religious, if you are only going to do so with Christians. There is a stigma here, that is associated with Nazis. Torres Strait natives still refer to Christianity as the coming of the light. And indeed it was, as they were eating people prior to the arrival of the missionaries. If we want to point out the failings of Christianity we damned-well need to do it with Islam, but we are bending over backwards to accommodate the bastards. Take a look at the way SBS and the ABC is trying to "normalise" their superstition and ignorance with the happy smiling Muzlim as so much a part of Australia society. Forget the aliakbahs.

Raven wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 6:38am:

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 17th, 2018 at 11:33am: Around the world? Around the US of A more like it.  Americans are a special case. After all, they elected Trump (ok. Not all of them).  We have plenty of atheists in Parliament.  We don't suffer from the US anti-atheist affiction. Religion is perhaps more visible now in Australian politics than it has been for almost thirty years. There would seem to be a growing lobby from within the religious right whose overt mission is to exert influence over public policy making in Australia. For some time there has been a federal Parliamentary Christian Fellowship which meets during sitting weeks to read passages from the Bible and exchange views and personal anecdotes on how their faith is tested within politics. It is an interdenominational membership (as long as you are Christian of course) which crosses party membership, there is no roll call at meetings and minutes are never taken. It is not easy to get the exact numbers but reports have it that the group draws on a regular pool of between 60 and 75. The total number of federal MPs and Senators is only 226, so it would seem that our federal Parliament at least has more than its fair share of committed Christians. The federal Parliamentary Christian Fellowship organises regular prayer breakfasts - which are addressed by invited ministers. In 1993 a Parliamentary Prayer Network was established for people to gather and pray in Parliament House. This group has a schools program which links Christian schools with members and Senators. In 2005 the Parliamentary Prayer Network hosted a two-day conference in the great hall of Parliament House - a conference on the theme of 'Prayer, Nations and Government', which included church services. The guest speaker at that conference was Texan prophet Cindy Jacobs who believes that Christians must take over the world through its governments, exhorts Christians to train their children for martyrdom on the mission field in the final clash of civilizations and has prophesied that Australia will become a theocracy. There is also the shadowy Lyons Forum within  the ranks of the Coalition MPs. The Lyons Forum doesn't proclaim itself a Christian group but has never rejected the tag 'ultra-conservative Christian faction'  and certainly to the 40-50 or so conservatives who are members of the group, its primary role is to pursue the interests of 'families'. This group was arguably at its hey-day in the 90s but was reportedly reformed in 2003 to reinvigorate its push for government policy in line with traditional Christian values. And we must not forget that in recent decades, the delivery by religious organisations of services  that were formerly the province of government agencies has increased substantially. The Commonwealth employment services, worth hundreds of millions of dollars,  were  contracted out to largely faith based organisations. Religious organisations run public hospitals and residential aged care and disability services. Funding changes under the Howard  Government have substantially increased taxpayer money for non­-government schools, the majority of which are church­ based. In the past few years churches were actively encouraged to tender for contracts to provide counselling in custody disputes under the new Family Law Act. The prominence of religious based organisations in the provision of services, while arguably valuable, can be problematic. Delivery of social services can be effective and respectful of religious liberty; however religious provision can mean clients are denied services available elsewhere. The Catholic Church, for instance, will not conduct vasectomies, tubal ligation or  abortions, though they arc legal and routine in other public hospitals. People in many parts of Australia are discriminated against by having no alternative hospital provider - Bendigo is a case in point. And of course we have seen a number of government appointments that have called into question the intersection of church and state. The ill-fated appointment of Archbishop Peter Hollingworth as Governor-General,  at a time when abuse of children in church institutions was being hotly debated, and in the context of his inadequate role in responding to the problem, was contentious to say the least. The more religious the parliament is, the more likely it is to have scant regard for the separation of church and state and the more likely to find religious reasons for decisions - reasons that will be incomprehensible to many non-religious people. Religiously motivated government policy-making, whether based on sincere religious ideology or as a concession to religious constituents, also runs the risk of making superficial responses to complex social phenomenon.

Very good post Raven.

issuevoter wrote on Jan 18^th, 2018 at 10:31pm:

I don't think it is entirely fair to attach the sobriquet "right wing" to the religious, if you are only going to do so with Christians. There is a stigma here, that is associated with Nazis. Torres Strait natives still refer to Christianity as the coming of the light. And indeed it was, as they were eating people prior to the arrival of the missionaries. If we want to point out the failings of Christianity we damned-well need to do it with Islam, but we are bending over backwards to accommodate the bastards. Take a look at the way SBS and the ABC is trying to "normalise" their superstition and ignorance with the happy smiling Muzlim as so much a part of Australia society. Forget the aliakbahs.

It's the extremist Muslims (and far right Christians) that are the trouble.

Add a bit of mental weakness and you have a recipe for disaster.

Don't forget that it was mostly average moderate  Muslims who practically eradicated the ISIS cancer from Iraq at a considerable cost in lives.

Survival of the fittest.  Religious extremists have no "evolutionary" advantage.

issuevoter wrote on Nov 30^th, 2017 at 10:35pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 30th, 2017 at 11:46am: Nom de Plume wrote on Nov 30th, 2017 at 11:39am: All myth expresses the Consciousness of humanity. Therefore, it cant be good or bad, better or worse... All we can do is listen to the stories of our past... of our future and understand that everybody, past and present, belongs to these stories. Fair post. :) Perhaps, but it does not address the fact that these myths are being used to manipulate the way people think.

People manipulate each other... always have done and will use whatever means to do so.

The issue for me is why the rise in peeps identifying with faith? It is a form of tribalism. Perhaps, it is a sign of insecurity.

John_Taverner wrote on Jan 20^th, 2018 at 9:38am:

issuevoter wrote on Jan 18th, 2018 at 10:31pm: I don't think it is entirely fair to attach the sobriquet "right wing" to the religious, if you are only going to do so with Christians. There is a stigma here, that is associated with Nazis. Torres Strait natives still refer to Christianity as the coming of the light. And indeed it was, as they were eating people prior to the arrival of the missionaries. If we want to point out the failings of Christianity we damned-well need to do it with Islam, but we are bending over backwards to accommodate the bastards. Take a look at the way SBS and the ABC is trying to "normalise" their superstition and ignorance with the happy smiling Muzlim as so much a part of Australia society. Forget the aliakbahs. It's the extremist Muslims (and far right Christians) that are the trouble. Add a bit of mental weakness and you have a recipe for disaster. Don't forget that it was mostly average moderate  Muslims who practically eradicated the ISIS cancer from Iraq at a considerable cost in lives. Survival of the fittest.  Religious extremists have no "evolutionary" advantage.

You should clarify what you mean by a moderate Muzlim. Turk Erdogan for one, will disagree before you start. All Ali Akbah attacks in Australia have been from the so-called moderate Muzlim community.

I can also be prejudiced, but I consider convinced atheists more moral people. Although I do not like the word "morality" at all. These people simply understand that you can not kill people, steal, cause suffering, simply because, rather than because they will punished for this after death)
Most often  religious fanatics or people those who hide behind an ostentatious religiosity are the most terrible and evil people)

Don't question the morals of those who are good without god.

Pity those who need god to be good.

Interestingly, a study that is repeatable has shown that children from "religious families" are less altruistic than those from "atheist families".  :o


Religious children meaner than agnostic and atheist kids, study finds
THE AUSTRALIAN NOVEMBER 06, 2015 4:00AM


John Ross
Higher Education Reporter

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2015/11/05/1227597/959205-527d314c-82bc-11e5-b7f9-ef4fc8c05fd4.jpg
An international study has found children in religious families are meaner than their godless peers. Source: Supplied


They grow up in wholesome households, raised to love their neighbours, but new research suggests righteous kids are the tightest.

An international study has found children in religious families are meaner than their godless peers. The report, published today in the journal Current ­Biology, challenges notions that equate piety with charity.

“Religion and morality are two different things,” said lead author Jean Decety, a Chicago University neuroscientist.

“Past research has demonstrated that religious people are no more likely to do good than their non-religious counterparts. Our study goes beyond that, showing that religious people are less generous — not only adults, but children, too.”

In the study, more than 1100 kids aged between five and 12 were asked to share stickers with anonymous schoolmates. The subjects lived in North America, the Middle East, South Africa and China, and included Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus.

Those from agnostic and atheist households consistently proved less likely to keep the best stickers to themselves. “The more religious the parents, the less altruistic the children, irrespective of the religion,” Dr Decety told The Australian.

He attributed the findings to a phenomenon dubbed “moral licensing”, where people’s perceptions that they were doing good — in this case, practising religion — exempted them from the obligation to perform other worthy deeds. “Apparently, doing something that helps strengthen our positive self-image also makes us less worried about the consequences of immoral behaviour,” he said.

The study also found that when the children were shown videos of “mundane” affronts, such as people bumping and pushing each other, religious kids were more inclined to decide harsh punishment was warranted. Dr Decety said this supported previous findings that organised religion promoted intolerance and punitiveness.

Dr Decety, who identifies as a secular Jew, said the team’s findings supported “solid” sociological and historical evidence that religious people were not necessarily more moral than disbelievers. He said most white opponents of America’s civil rights movement had been ­religious, while most white supporters had not.

The same applied to South ­Africa’s apartheid regime, which was supported by devout Christians and Jews and opposed by atheists.

He said the findings contradicted a “common sense notion” equating religiosity with moral behaviour.

“This view is so deeply embedded that individuals who are not religious can be considered morally suspect — especially in the US, (where they) have little chance of being elected to high political office.”


www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/religious-children-meaner-than-agnostic-and-atheist-kids-study-finds/story-e6frg6so-1227597959661

I reject all god-prophet-messiah-heaven-hell-afterlife religions for this reason. Morality is salesmanship, because preachers know it appeals, but once the person becomes a follower, the cannot count on it. It is then the hierarchy that matters. You never know what people believe, you only know what they say they believe. Cosmic truth is personal. It's not a club.

Looking at matty, I wouldn't say so.

issuevoter wrote on Nov 30^th, 2018 at 10:35am:

I reject all god-prophet-messiah-heaven-hell-afterlife religions for this reason. Morality is salesmanship, because preachers know it appeals, but once the person becomes a follower, the cannot count on it. It is then the hierarchy that matters. You never know what people believe, you only know what they say they believe. Cosmic truth is personal. It's not a club.

Morality is also fluid, what's moral today may not be moral in a thousand years.

This is what is concerning about god-prophet-messiah-heaven-hell-afterlife religions, morals in religious texts are set by God and therefore are unchanging.  But they argue that "it's taken out of context" because they know deep down that it is reprehensible.

Spot on Raven.

A "moral compass" is formed by the culture that a person is brought up in.

Morals change over time and vary between cultures.

For example: In some cultures, liars were highly regarded, in our current culture, liars are generally not well regarded.

In some cultures, nudity is OK, in others, it is "immoral".

Degrees of nudity that are "accepted" change over time even withing a given society.

Some cultures find cannibalism "moral" ... others don't.

In "Old Testament" days, it was "fine" to murder all the women and children (except the virgin girls who were kept as sex-slaves) in war ... see "Moses".

Numbers 31:15-18 King James Version (KJV)
15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Today, mass murder of women and children in war is frowned upon.


[/quote]


BTW ... This order from Moses for the mass murder of women and children came after he supposedly received the Ten Commandments ... which contained the rule from God that:  Thou shalt not kill.

Moses must have had an extremely short attention span.  ;)

On face value, the idea that morals are fluid may seem accurate, but I don't accept it without caveat. It's very neat, and it plays right along with the tenet of multicultural philosophy which insists everything is relative. It also plays into the hands of ancient scripture-ists who need morals to be "written," because society might change them.

I do not believe society or scripture are the custodians of morals. Certain customs like nudity for example are not really moral issues, but cannibalism is, because the victim has to be murdered first. There are those who, in the PC hope of not offending any culture, will claim that cannibalism was only a ritual. That is completely false. A relish for human flesh is well recorded, if anyone cares to really study the matter. Some societies carried out human sacrifice, Muzlims still do in suicide attacks which are trained, but such sacrifices were always the habits of immoral societies.

Moralists believe we require a reference in some form. That is reasonable for society to have a legal code, (this is due to the human trait of lying to one's self to justify the immoral) but it is not a philosophical requirement. On important issues like murder and theft, humans, unless they are sociopaths of mentally deranged, know when they have crossed a line of uncivilised behaviour, from which morals and law are supposed to protect us. That awareness is evident in children.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0MoPX1U0AAy6Ty.jpg

...and the parents of the little boys who were abused.
Turned a blind eye and kept them quiet.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0RvacdUUAU_40j.jpg

Speaking of which

https://www.news.com.au/national/george-pell-found-guilty-of-child-sex-abuse/news-story/96f368233ea0e5cdec684ddebc9b57b2

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 26^th, 2019 at 10:24am:

Speaking of which https://www.news.com.au/national/george-pell-found-guilty-of-child-sex-abuse/news-story/96f368233ea0e5cdec684ddebc9b57b2

This guy was in the running to be the Pope.

"Australia’s highest-ranking Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, raped a choirboy in the 1990s and molested another.

"His victims were two 13-year-old boys on scholarships to the prestigious St Kevin’s College."

It is totally disgusting.

These fraudsters are supposed to be "intermediaries" between man and God.

What a load of rubbish!  >:(

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2019 at 10:29am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 26th, 2019 at 10:24am: Speaking of which https://www.news.com.au/national/george-pell-found-guilty-of-child-sex-abuse/news-story/96f368233ea0e5cdec684ddebc9b57b2 This guy was in the running to be the Pope. "Australia’s highest-ranking Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, raped a choirboy in the 1990s and molested another. "His victims were two 13-year-old boys on scholarships to the prestigious St Kevin’s College."

Where's some rope?

Bobby. wrote on Feb 26^th, 2019 at 12:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26th, 2019 at 10:29am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 26th, 2019 at 10:24am: Speaking of which https://www.news.com.au/national/george-pell-found-guilty-of-child-sex-abuse/news-story/96f368233ea0e5cdec684ddebc9b57b2 This guy was in the running to be the Pope. "Australia’s highest-ranking Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, raped a choirboy in the 1990s and molested another. "His victims were two 13-year-old boys on scholarships to the prestigious St Kevin’s College." Where's some rope?

http://archive.shipoffools.com/gadgets/pope/media/soap_on_a_rope.jpg

I don't think religious people are either more or less moral.

Religion didn't invent morality, they just codified it and we all have an innate sense of what's moral.

Religious peeps are most certainly more flaky, and filled with righteous indignation, .


JESUS WEPT


Its pathetic

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2019 at 1:44pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 26th, 2019 at 12:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26th, 2019 at 10:29am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 26th, 2019 at 10:24am: Speaking of which https://www.news.com.au/national/george-pell-found-guilty-of-child-sex-abuse/news-story/96f368233ea0e5cdec684ddebc9b57b2 This guy was in the running to be the Pope. "Australia’s highest-ranking Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, raped a choirboy in the 1990s and molested another. "His victims were two 13-year-old boys on scholarships to the prestigious St Kevin’s College." Where's some rope? http://archive.shipoffools.com/gadgets/pope/media/soap_on_a_rope.jpg

LOL Jeez Greg , I just quickly passed over your pic and for a sec it looked like a penis pump..lol

Same model I have,

BigP wrote on Feb 26^th, 2019 at 4:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26th, 2019 at 1:44pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 26th, 2019 at 12:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26th, 2019 at 10:29am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 26th, 2019 at 10:24am: Speaking of which https://www.news.com.au/national/george-pell-found-guilty-of-child-sex-abuse/news-story/96f368233ea0e5cdec684ddebc9b57b2 This guy was in the running to be the Pope. "Australia’s highest-ranking Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, raped a choirboy in the 1990s and molested another. "His victims were two 13-year-old boys on scholarships to the prestigious St Kevin’s College." Where's some rope? http://archive.shipoffools.com/gadgets/pope/media/soap_on_a_rope.jpg LOL Jeez Greg , I just quickly passed over your pic and for a sec it looked like a penis pump..lol Same model I have,

You're Catholic? :-?

This Topic was moved here from Atheism by freediver.