A number of years back I also stumbled onto an International Newspaper Report published in a prominent Australian Newspaper about the vistation of the Virgin Mary to three sheperd children in a field at Fatima Portugal between the months of May 1917 and November 1917. The children were ridiculed my many who thought they were hallucinating.

On the last day of visitation in November, the children made a request to the Lady to convince the vast crowd of people gathered that the children were in fact seeing the “Beautiful Lady” and asked that a sign be given to prove that those presentwould believe that Lady (and God)existed. As a result the Sun fell from the sky towards the crowd which cowered in fear, and it then retreated back into the heavens. A clap of thunder produced a rain storm from out of a clear cloudless sky which drenched all present, but they were immediately then made dry again.

To this very day many people visit the shrine set up at Fatima because those present on that day in 1917 saw the Miracles (that defy scientic explaination), and over the generations they had past down their experience to those who were not there.

The “Lady” had also told the children the following; a) The current war (WWI) would end the next year, (The Armistice came about on 11/11/1918), b) Russia would be consecreated to her, (today Communism is finished in Russian and many
people of that country attend Churches confidently and without fear of persecution, c) a major catastrophy would befall the World that only God could prevent to show his presence,( is this the problem of a hole in the ozone layer and global warming, both of which man cannot correct??….you be the judge).

I wasn’t around to witness the crucifixtion of Christ, but the Bible (the History Book of the Jews) tells me it happened, as does Roman history which tells me the Roman State executed a troublemaker, and I wasn’t around to see (WWI), but history books tell me it happened. I didn’t see WWII because I was born towards the end of that war, but the many Returned Service personnel who mach each ANZAC day (plus media/history reports) convince me WWII happened.

Why don’t YOU find the Newspaper reports about the visitaion of 1917, and then tell someone else. After all History speaks for itself.

Agreed, but unlike rugby league or medicine a priest’s sole purpose is to provide divinely-inspired moral guidance. If the church is then actively involved in suppressing this issue then it makes perfect sense to reject anyone’s assertion that the institution retains any kind of moral authority.

While you can decry a chauvinist culture in rugby league it doesn’t undermine the game itself, because the game is about rugby. This is simply not true of immorality in organised religion.

While I don’t doubt your religious beliefs are true and have offered you solace in the past that doesn’t mean your god exists or provides any more evidence than the beliefs of those Vanuatans that believe prince philip is a deity.

While you found james’ article thoughtful I was left wondering what his argument or assertion was.

For me faith is a very personal and difficult journey. I would find myself agreeing with many of the disbeliever’s doubts, concerns and critiques of the present form and practice of Christianity. However if a person actually wants to engage on a serious level I would share my experiences of God’s grace helping me through many dark days and turning on a light in my mind and heart.

Martin Luther King and Gandhi both drew upon the profound spiritual traditions of religion. It was the influence of the Quakers in 18th century Britain and the thunderous activism of Evangelicals in 19th century America that powered the abolitionist movement and led to the end of slavery.

Religious people have a human right to free speech, and the vast philosophical perspective of religion easily triumphs over the childish hostility from people who cannot abide a subculture that runs counter to their fickle self-absorbed consumer lifestyle.

Absolutely. It’s odd how false premises are OK on this subject

Caraka & Anthony: Your comments are beyond parody. Any brief look in any Dawkins’ books makes it abundantly clear he shares his scorn with religion in general. You’ve done exactly what you’ve falsely accused Dawkins of, making empty rants on the basis of straw men. Try reading what he’s actually written – http://richarddawkins.net/firstChapter,101

You’ve

Absolutely. It’s odd how false premises are OK on this subject.

When you say most truths are subjective and made up by the individual, do you extend this to your own faith? Given that so many faiths are mutually incompatible, to classify them as all equally valid (all of them being subjective truths) simply runs away from answering the question of whether a belief is a reasonable belief or not. Is the subjective truth of Scientologists as reasonable or believable to you as Christianity? Saying that something sounds like nonsense or is too ridiculous to believe, particularly the supernatural, is not getting worked up – it is looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion. To be specific, in circumstances like the faithful’s belief that they should empty their already sparse wallets to buy Brian Tamaki a new Harley it is not redundant to to oppose that faith. Nor is it redundant to oppose the views of many faiths that preach intolerance, ignorance or harmful nonsense.

You say that your article has no intention of delving into a conversation about the merits of particular faiths, but then say no one has a right to judge the faith of others. How can you say that a belief is beyond judgement without actually addressing the merits of such belief? This is, again, running away from answering the question of whether a belief is believable or not and similarly providing the Brian Tamaki’s of this world, who’s church’s activities you noted as being extremist, a free ride in their preaching of intolerance, ignorance or harmful nonsense.

The claim that it is a fact that the basic tenets of decent living comes from the church ignores or at least glosses over two important facts about what we now consider such basic tenets. First, these basic tenets are not exclusive to any particular faith, including most have existed prior to most modern religions, making all faiths equally as valid to morality and hence, since they are generally mutually incompatible, equally invalid to morality. Second, what we consider moral is not the result of divine revelation as so much of what any religion sets as its moral basis is little more than a pick and mix of the various possible interpretations of its scripture. This is particularly the case for Christianity which seems very careful in ignoring the more ridiculous bits of the old testament.

As for concepts of morality sitting awkwardly without belief in greater forces this can only be the case for those who think morality is something that you do because God told you to behave that way, rather than a true sense of personal morality. Would the faithful be immoral without God or just unable to judge right from wrong?

While some comments have made you curious perhaps that is because you are completely misquoting what was said. You imply that someone stated that the church had a monopoly on covering up child abuse. No one said that. I, at least, said that “Believing that a former member of the Hitler Youth is infallible because he was elected by a group of celibate men whose organisation systematically covered up child rape is ridiculous.” and, later, that this was relevant to the discussion as the Catholic Church does claim to have a monopoly on judging what is right and wrong. Likewise no one said that the crimes of the institution should be held against it’s innocent members. Indeed it would be a long, long shot to say that anyone implied such a thing, but you can see by what people actually wrote. To start throwing around the term jackass when you are not actually addressing what people said is just silly. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Just saying.

I too am curious, your final comment that “we let people think and act in anyway, but we raise our eyebrows when they believe in the “cloud fairy”, because we think it is strange.” What judgments are you making about what people think and how they act? Indeed, we have a rather full statute books saying how people can or can’t act and religious types are amongst the most enthusiastic about telling others what they should or should not think or how they should or should not act. I’m perplexed at how this relates to eyebrow raising about supernatural belief, be it God or astrology. It is ultimately worth remembering that it is eyebrow raising at supernatural beliefs, or those beliefs justified on the basis of the supernatural, that led us away from believing that the Sun was a god’s chariot, that the Earth is billions of years old and that women are not men’s equals rather than their subjects as the Book of Timothy tells us. Eyebrow raising at beliefs is only a concern to those who don’t want to hold their beliefs up to the torch of reason and evidence. Any view that cannot withstand such scrutiny is not worthy of being immune to judgement or condescension as you seem to suggest they should be.

I am
It seems
Practiced,
In the slippery art
Of resiling.

I can
I find
Slide both ways,
Backwards
And forwards.

Dawkins squats
On my bedside table,
A bookmark
Between his teeth.

I love him.
Such well heeled heresy
Makes my heart race,
Leaves me
Breathless.

But he is all
Crazy about Reason, all
Mad for Science,

And I must
Reject.

Must abjure
My rejection.

Be stretched,
Compressed,
Compelled, it seems
To resume
My original position.

My unoriginal sin,
My terror,
My familiar doubt.

I am
I suspect,
Damned.

True, but on the other hand it is the only institution which claims to take direction from a divine, perfect being. As Stephen Fry said so pointedly of the Catholic church’s complicity in the Holocaust:

“You sit there saying, ‘well, we didn’t know any better’. Then what are you for?”

Paulinem – I would disagree. You may feel yours is the right to preach, and to an extent you may be right. BUT. Do not think you have the right to preach at me. Yes, AT me. Few preachers engage in two-way discussion; you either accept it as fact, or be damned – mighty Christian approach there, in itself.

You do NOT have the right to invite yourself and your friends onto my property and tell me MY beliefs are wrong. You do NOT have the right to force your beliefs on my children. You do NOT have the right to act as moral arbiters when our soldiers are currently prosecuting an illegal, immoral war of aggression, led by a fundamentalist religious nation hell-ben on world domination.