Church attendance across the globe is going down faster than Pamela Anderson in a football team locker room in almost all cases (the exception being those absurd US mega-churches but they are far more a business than an actual church).   Why is this happening? Former Australian Defence Force Anglican bishop Tom Frame is blaming a lot of churches that he’s labelled as ‘weak’, ‘insipid’ and ‘unintelligible’.  Let’s take a look at what he’s said, thanks to the ABC, and see exactly where Frame has gone wrong.

Director of St Mark’s National Theological Centre and head of the School of Theology at Charles Sturt University, Professor Tom Frame, says churches must take some of the blame for the decline.

‘Some’? How about nearly all?  The only other factor that really plays into things is that, as a general rule, society is getting smarter and has finally realised that following the bronze age stories made up by ignorant tribesman to explain things they otherwise couldn’t … and taking it as literal truth … is really rather daft.

“The Christianity that most Australians have encountered is weak and insipid and in more than a few instances uninspiring and unintelligible, and the majority have no idea of what the Christian religion is offering,” he writes in his book Losing My Religion: Unbelief In Australia.

I have yet to encounter a form of Christianity (or any other form of organised religion) which is not intellectually weak and uninspiring.  Religion is usually not unintelligible, they communicate their messages quite well, it is just that the teachings themselves are on the far side of irrational and nonsensical.  Just like you can not make silk purses from a sow’s ear, you can not make tales about a 6,000 year old Earth and global floods make sense.

Professor Frame points to what he believes are three reasons for this.

“To some degree some churches are caught in a time warp, they’ve got the social and cultural forms of the 1950s and 1960s and have been unable to embrace the 1990s and the new millennium, so they do seem to be locked in time and their message with it,” he told ABC Online.

This is something I actually agree with.  Most churches are incredibly backwards in their thinking to a point where they have become no more than a sad parody of themselves.  The Catholic Church, in particular, is extremely guilty of this though I am struggling to think of one which is not to one degree or another.

“The second thing that I would say is that many of the churches are totally overcome by internal bickering about minor points of doctrine about which the world could not care less, because they don’t bear upon everyday life.

This point is another decent one and well explained by the scene in the BBC series ‘Red Dwarf’ where the cat people wipe each other out after waging religious war regarding whether the holy hats should be red or blue (in fact, Lister was going to make them green).  Frame’s reasons are still somewhat missing the point though he comes close; it is not that most people do not care about minor points of doctrine … it is that they do not care about religious doctrine in the first place.  Why? Because they have finally started to work out that it’s bollocks.

“And I think the third thing is that the churches themselves have conducted some of the internal debates in public and given the impression that not even the churches are sure about what they believe.

Well, yeah. That one’s a given.  Though it should be said that having such discussions in public is a great deal better than having them behind closed doors.  In fact, religious organisations doing anything behind closed doors is probably a very bad thing … especially when it involves altar boys.

“And if they can’t articulate a clear message then why should anyone bother listening?”

And again; the communication itself is fine.  It’s the message itself that is irrational and (often) outright silly and bizarre while having absolutely no relation to reality as we know it.  It is like having the most advanced radio broadcast system on the planet and trying to send out nothing but a recording of a drunken David Hasselhoff trying to sing while he has his head in an overflowing toilet bowl (and for any reality TV show producers who should read that last bit; I claim that idea and you can’t use it. So there, you increasingly desperate sods).

At Federation Australia was considered a Christian nation, but Professor Frame points to census figures showing that today a quarter of the population does not have a declared religion.

Yes, because people are getting smarter and as science advances … well, there’s far less room for any sort of deity figure.

He warns that as belief continues to decline, it places in jeopardy the estimated $40 billion worth of public money channelled through religious organisations to deliver social services in Australia.

There is absolutely zero reason that such services can not continue under secular causes.  One could even make an economic argument that if people tithe less to churches then the general economy would be increased and thus more jobs and thus less unemployment … all leading to less need for the services to begin with.  Afterall, I really do not think the Vatican needs to add any more money to it’s rather extensive coffers.

“In addition to that, to some degree, our moral and ethical conversation in this country has been informed largely by Christianity as the majority religion. If you take away that big story and the things that it has contributed to our public life, and our public conversation, there will be a void.”

Um, how? Morality and ethics do not come from religion.  Well, unless you’re in one of those really screwed up countries where you’re now legally allowed to rape your wife but that’s an entirely different matter.  Even then you would have to be pretty whacky in the head in the first place to think that sort of behaviour is ethically fine in the modern age.

I think Frame has missed the point.  Churches are doing what they have always done; it is simply now a matter that society is starting to outgrow the need for them.  People do not need the psychological crutch that is god any longer on an increasing scale.  People are increasingly realising that organised religion is, in fact, responsible for many of the woes and evils the world experiences.

Last night SBS had an edition of their usually excellent ‘Insight‘ program, where people involved in a modern issue come to say their piece in an attempt to deliver and overall balanced snap shot of the story.  Last night was based on the issue of the creation of ‘League Tables’ and transparency within the Australian education system.  Present was Australian Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard who also serves as Minister of Education.  For those who are not in the know, the current Australian Federal Government want to basically overhaul the existing education system and make it considerably more like the United States and United Kingdom models, which is an incredibly bad thing, but you would not realise that from the somewhat one sided presentation given by Insight.

After the show Gillard joined the live online chat that Insight offered, in a bid to answer questions.  Sadly Insight’s chosen chat system was extremely limited and prone to massive amounts of lag; comments typed in would appear anything up to twelve minutes later, which made having any sort of coherent conversation or debate next to impossible.

Even so, the lack of forthcoming answers was utterly amazing.  In usual political style, no hard facts or figures were ever given and the hard questions were simply ignored.  A large number of people were there to question Gillard on aspects of her bizarre scheme but answers simply failed to materialise.  Some of the major unanswered problems with the scheme include:

1. It will only increase stress for all those involved in the educational system.  If staff have to meet certain benchmarks that means that they will receive pressure to do so, this pressure will obviously trickle down to the students who will become more stressed – especially at the already hectic years 11 & 12.
2. More stress means that there will be increased instances of people simply leaving the profession.  Teaching already has a very low retention rate, which approximately half of all graduate teachers changing fields with five years.  This is terrible since new teaching talent does not make it to where it is actually needed.  More stress means that more leave and the problem only grows worse.
3. There is no such thing as two like schools.  This should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has had first hand experience in teaching rather than merely sitting behind a desk pushing papers about.  How can you compare schools without taking into consideration all the unique circumstances that each school has to take on board each and every day?  You simply can not in any fairness.
4. What about school zoning? At the moment, the school where you can enrol your child is limited by your geographical area or school zoning – in short, you can only enrol children in public schools reasonably close to where you love (private schools are exempt from this).  It does not matter in the least if your school ranks lowly on the proposed league tables; you are still basically stuck there and how do you think being stuck at a low performing school will affect not only student but also staff morale?
5. What about private schools? What is to stop a private school turning away students who do not do well on standardised testing? This can only benefit private schools who will then see their own ranking improve massively compared to local public schools – who, of course, will suddenly be burdened with those students who do not do well on tests.  In short, private schools will do much better under the proposed scheme while public will do much worse.
6. Why is Australia trying to move towards a system like that used in the United States and United Kingdom when the available evidence shows those systems simply do not work?  The US’ ‘No Child Left Behind’ policy is almost universally derided as a sad joke, the United Kingdom is backing away from standardised tests as fast as they can.  Meanwhile, when you compare Australia’s current literacy and numeracy scores against those two nations … well, we’re miles ahead.  So why look back and try to incorporate a system which does worse than our current one?  Why not look forward at system that do better than ours (such as Finland and Sweden) and see what they’re doing?
7. The proposed system of national testing will only lead to what has already happened in the United Kingdom and the United States: of schools being unofficially forced to perform the practice known as ‘teaching to the test’.  This will grossly retard teaching innovation since there will simply not be time to indulge in such.  When testing benchmarks become what a school is judged on (and funding is directly tied to it) then that is what schools suddenly need to seek – and the most direct manner in which to do so is to teach to the test.
8. Such nationalised testing can not take into account subjects which are practical in nature and can not be measured on a multiple choice test; Physical Education, Music, Woodwork, Metalwork, Drama, Art and so on.  These fields will certainly miss out entirely and not be included in benchmark results – which is a shame since it will mean that diversity in schools is diminished.
9. Standardised tests simply are not education best practice as anyone who knows anything about education should know.  The multiple intelligences and many other widely held educational theories demonstrate how students all learn and display their knowledge in different methods.  Some students simply are not ‘hard wired’ to do well on tests and instead display their skills in more practical means.  With standardised testing, these students are instantly at a massive disadvantage.

And these are problems that are just off the top of my head.  It is almost certain a great many more would appear with more detailed analysis of the proposed scheme.

Bringing in some minor but still fascinating evidence that further supports the Theory of Evolution, it would seem that some Spanish researchers have found the fossilised remains of a rather interesting ancient organism; marine worms that lived over 475 Million years ago.

Scientists discover fossils of giant marine worms

Spanish researchers claim to have discovered evidence of a type of giant worm that lived 475 million years ago and was up to one metre in length.

The fossilised tracks of the marine worms were found in the Cabaneros National Park in central Spain in an area that was a seabed during the Lower Ordovician period, the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) said.

It said the creatures lived in horizontal galleries of five metres in length and 15-20 centimetres in diameter under the seabed.

The galleries were lined “with mucous secretions to harden them and prevent their collapse, which has facilitated their preservation,” said palaeontologist Juan Carlos Gutierrez Marco.

They are the “oldest tracks of giant worms” ever discovered, pre-dating those found in Devon, England, this year and which dated from 200 million years ago, the CSIC quoted him as saying.

He explained why the worms, which were up to one metre in length and 15 centimetres in diameter, could attain such great size.

“For more than 450 millions years ago our country was part of a marine platform of an ancient continent called Gondwana,” Gutierrez Marco said.

“The Iberian Peninsula was then near the south pole of the era. Organisms living in very cold water have a metabolism that allows them to grow bigger – what is known as polar gigantism.”

A story coming out of Glasgow caught my eye just now, one regarding a modern art gallery holding an exhibition titled “Made in God’s Image”.  This exhibition had a Bible on display and they actively invited people to write in it.  Now that said Bible has had messages written in it they don’t like, certain people have claimed it has been defaced and are upset.  Of course, they reach this conclusion without actually thinking the matter through at all.

An art gallery is a place designed to be an expression of ideas, ideals, emotions and personal thoughts.  This is a very good thing indeed.  An exhibition where they actually invite people to place their personal thoughts and feelings into a book (regardless of what it might be) should not be surprised in the least if they get responses which are from right across the spectrum of opinion.

People, specifically Christians in this case, should have no right to be upset if they end up with messages in that book which don’t mesh with their personal beliefs.  The Christian faith (varying from denomination to denomination) actively marginalises whole sections of communities which, of course, is going to annoy others.  You go and invite those people to express their thoughts in writing and … well, I don’t think I need to join the dots any further.

It is also very hard to figure out how the writing in the exhibited Bible could count as ‘vandalism’ when people where doing exactly what the gallery had asked them to do; write down their thoughts in the book.  They might not liked what those thoughts and feelings were but that’s just tough luck – Christianity has no one to blame for certain people being annoyed at them except Christianity itself.   This does seem to be yet another case of a religion crying out about being offended/persecuted/whatever when they bring it upon themselves and have no respect for the feelings/beliefs of others.

Some of the so called offensive comments are anything but:

This is all sexist pish, so disregard it all

That’s certainly true. The Bible has some extremely sexist passages which direct policy of many denominations in the current day.

the biggest lie in human history

Debatable but certainly a valid comment, since said text has continually failed all manner of tests of authenticity (archaeological, geographical, historical, etc etc etc).

Mick Jagger and David Bowie belong in here

If you can get better moral guidance from Optimus Prime than from the Bible, then you might be able to get it from two old rockers. Fair enough.

I am Bi, Female and Proud. I want no god who is disappointed in this

And what could be possibly wrong with this? A person wrote down their experiences/feelings/thoughts on the Bible/God/Christianity – specifically that the Bible teaches entirely backwards thinking and closed mindedness. Fair enough.

The artist responded with: “I had hoped that people would show respect for the Bible, for Christianity…”

I would respond with: Maybe the Bible and Christianity should show respect for everyone else first and stop trying to interfere in places it has absolutely no right to do so.  You can not set up a place for people to express their thoughts on religion/god/whatever and then get miffed if they write in something you do not necessarily like.

Anger after Bible defaced in British gallery

Christians voiced anger and dismay on Tuesday (local time) after a Bible, which was part of an exhibition inviting viewers to add their reflections, was defaced with offensive, foul-mouthed scrawl.

Glasgow’s Gallery of Modern Art has decided to put the Bible in a glass case after the exhibit – called Untitled 2009 and part of a show entitled Made In God’s Image – was vandalised.

Artist Jane Clarke, a minister at the Metropolitan Community Church, asked visitors to annotate the Bible with stories and reflections, as a way of making it more inclusive.

But visitors to the gallery took the invitation a bit further than she had anticipated.

“This is all sexist pish, so disregard it all,” wrote one person, while another described the Bible as “the biggest lie in human history”. A third wrote: “Mick Jagger and David Bowie belong in here.”

On the first page of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, someone had written: “I am Bi, Female and Proud. I want no god who is disappointed in this.”

Clarke said: “I had hoped that people would show respect for the Bible, for Christianity and indeed for the Gallery of Modern Art. I am saddened that some people have chosen to write offensive messages.

“Writing our names in the margins of a Bible was to show how we have been marginalised by many Christian churches, and also our desire to be included in God’s love.

“As a young Christian, I was encouraged by my church to write my own insights in the margins of the Bible I used for my daily devotions – this was an extension of that idea.”

On Tuesday, over 100 people gathered outside the gallery to protest at what they said was vandalism.

Letitia Reid, a housewife from Glasgow, said the Bible should not be desecrated.

“As a Christian I am offended by this because Christians hold the Bible to be sacred. For it to be publicly defiled in this way is very offensive,” she said.

When good/cool stories come out of the world of science, they need to be noted.  This is one such story; it regards the creation of the worlds’ biggest optical telescope so that even more information about the Universe can be gathered.  And yes, this sort of research is really important and has directly led to some massive improvements in technology that is used every day.

Big bang: Australia on board for telescope project

To coincide with the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing, Australia is about to once again engage in exploring space by ploughing tens of millions of dollars into the world’s biggest optical telescope.

Scientists say the telescope, to be built in Chile’s high altitude desert, will revolutionise human understanding of the universe.

The Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) is so powerful that astronomers peering into space will be able to see back into time, to just after the Big Bang.

They also hope to find new planets and even evidence of life on other planets.

Science Minister Kim Carr says 40 years after the historic lunar landing, another giant leap forward is being taken with Australia pledging $88 million for a 10 per cent stake in the powerful optical telescope.

The stake will secure observing time for Australian astronomers.

“Just as 40 years ago we were part of the first moon landings and places like Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek and Carnarvon and Tidbinbilla, Australia once again is at the cutting edge, very much at the forefront of the global space exploration,” he said.

Professor Harvey Butcher heads the Astronomy and Astrophysics Research School at the Australian National University in Canberra which will help build part of the new telescope.

“If we can build a somewhat bigger telecope like the GMT, then we will be able to see objects all the way back to the beginning, just after the big bang,” he said.

“We know right now for example that the universe was a much more interesting place 5 to 8 billion years ago.

“There was a lot more star formation, galaxies were being ripped apart and were colliding with each other but we don’t know what the first objects were just after the big bang and we don’t know quite how galaxies started to form.

“We don’t know about black holes. When did they form and how did they evolve?”

“These are things that we will only be able to study if we can make more sensitive telescopes.”

“We think probably the first luminous objects that we will be able to detect will certainly be 12 billion years ago, probably closer to 13.

“We think the universe is just over 13 billion years old, 13.7 … we’ll be pushing right up to the time when there were no luminous objects and there wasn’t anything to see.”

The observatory in Canberra will be able to steer the telescope remotely and collect information for ground breaking local research – shedding more light on phenomena such as dark energy – the mysterious energy causing the universe to expand much faster than anyone understands.

“And we have people who are very busy finding other planets and we really would like to find earth-like planets – planets where life might have started independently of here on Earth and we can’t do that yet,” Professor Butcher said.

The Government hopes its investment will help Australia secure the world’s most powerful radio telescope – the Square Kilometre Array (SKA).

“We believe we have got the best scientific site in the world in Western Australia,” Senator Carr said.

“This is downpayment on our commitment to building international megascience with the optical telescope is properly being built in Chile – the SKA should properly be built in Australia.”

This story out of the United States of America (where else could it come from?) made me laugh in a sad sort of way.  A church in Kentucky celebrating firearms and even giving a free handgun away in a raffle.  That is sure a great way to spread peace and non-violence.  Bring your guns to church … just make sure, like always, you leave your brain at the door.

Kentucky pastor preaches ‘BYO guns’

Posted 4 hours 56 minutes ago

A church pastor in the American state of Kentucky has held a special service where the congregation were invited to bring their guns.

Pastor Ken Pagano says the gathering was intended to promote safe gun ownership and celebrate the right to bear arms.

People arriving at the church had their guns checked to make sure none were loaded.

The sermon was followed by a raffle in which the first prize was a handgun.

The United States of America has the questionable honour of possessing one of the worst educational systems in the developed world.  One of the worst aspects of this system is the policy known as ‘No Child Left Behind’.  At the core of NCLB is the idea that if a school does not perform up to standards then funding to it is reduced.  This, even to the most dense of people, should set off all manner of alarm bells in peoples heads.

Sadly it would seem that the National Curriculum system the Australia Government is working on incorporates the same idea; if a school is unable to get students past certain progress benchmarks then they will get less money from the Government.

There are numerous problems with this:

Reducing funding will in no way assist schools in meeting standard.  It will actually do the exact opposite; lack of money meaning services and support would be the first things on the proverbial chopping block.

Private schools, who have the ability to pick and choose which students enrol at them, will only choose those most likely to succeed.  Students who try hard but never-the-less fail to meet standards shall be forced to attend public school who do not have the right to refuse enrolments.  This can only lead to funding being increased to private schools while public schools are forced to deal with more problematic students with less money.

How can this possibly help students, especially those who need support the most, achieve the best possible success?  The system has clearly not worked in the United States so why would the Australian Government even be considering it?  Why has the Australian Government refused to take proper input/counsel from practicing teaching professionals?