The Forum > Article Comments > The case for an end to religious privilege > Comments
The case for an end to religious privilege : Comments
By Moira Clarke, published 26/11/2012Australians might be interested to learn that one of the ATO's definitions of 'charity' is the 'advancement of religion'.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Page 6
-
- All
I agree and fully support the separation of church and state. It's just that I was not aware of this use of the word "secularist". It's certainly not what I meant when using 'secular'. What I meant is (by Merriam-Webster) 'worldly', 'temporal', 'not overtly or specifically religious'.
Dear Glen,
<<YuYutsu, I'm trying hard to work out what you are trying to make us understand.>>
Nothing in particular, I was writing to RevDek.
<<Wouldn't the normal sequence of things be that you establish whether something exists before you decide to love and worship it?>>
Where existence matters, yes.
Normal love is conditional.
When you truly love someone, you don't care how they look.
When you love them even more, you don't even care whether they exist.
<<Do you seriously mean that the term was unknown before modern times>>
Again, sorry for confusing the meaning of 'secular'. I think that the term 'existence' was earlier used in a much more loose manner compared with today's scientific precision.
<<But Christians insist that God exists>>
They are wrong on that point.
(that does not make them 'bad' or less religious, only mistaken)
<<Are people objects? What about music, love, disappointment and respect? What about death and taxes>>
Relatively speaking these are, it's workable for ordinary living, but ultimately there is nothing but God, so none really exists and none really is an object.
<<May we ask what religion you subscribe to that regards God as something that doesn't exist but nevertheless needs to be loved and worshipped?>>
I follow the principles of Advaita Vedanta.