Hello Rhys, how do you do?

I see that you are the party who initiated this thread. I can also see by your posts that you appear to be quite passionate about the matter. That's good, I like people being passionate about things.

But, about religion and spirituality as I see it, it offers freedom of choice. One can embrace any brand of belief or as you've chosen, to abstain from it. No one forces anyone to follow any particular doctrine in Australia and you can choose what you want. I like that.

Now, your main issue, if I've interpreted it correctly is the inclusion of religious ceremonies in the various houses of state. Furthermore, it would seem that you have interpreted these references to pertain to the Christian God in particular. So it is these matters I shall address.

1. The God referred to in Australian state institutions is not branded. The God is generic, thereby being applicable to any and all who hold a faith in spirituality. The God is not declared to be specifically Christian, so is universal.

2. Your presumption that 33% of non-believers puts you in a majority position, by dividing the believers into their separate groups and allocating to them minority status, is incorrect. The God people, 67% are in the majority. This is why you don't see a lot of action to bring about change to secularism as you would like. The majority don't want it.

3. Despite there being conflict between different brands of God, an investigation of history reveals that Jews, Christians and Muslims of all their brands, tribes and differences actually all have the same God. So when you add them all up together, they'll make a significant amount of that 67%. Whatever that percentage is, I don't know, but it is important to understand they're all talking about the same God.

3. Historians attribute 120 million deaths to the work of Marx in the 20th Century, so secularism is not innocent of mass crimes against humanity.

Keep up the passion, but please be tolerant of others.

Are many so-called representatives of the people being hypocritical by taking part in religious ceremonies before commencing business? I would say so, but what's new about hypocricy in government?

These ceremonies are part of tradition and, like many traditions, now mean much less to probably most people than they once did. But they are of so little significance to most of the public that a general outcry against them is most unlikely. And possibly some of us may like to think, at least for the genuine believers in parliament or council, that being part of a religious ceremony may encourage them to act in an honest manner. And pigs may fly!

What I suggest is the main concern of the public in regard to religious activity in parliament or council is that the religious beliefs of various influential people guide the lawmaking which then affects all of us.

Maximus said:
'Historians attribute 120 million deaths to the work of Marx in the 20th Century, so secularism is not innocent of mass crimes against humanity.'

I'm not sure how the various revolutions, counter revolutions and purges of communist regimes are relevant to a discussion of the relative merits of superstitious subservience in our society. Communism versus aristocracy or capitilism does not equate to secularism versus religion.

While it may be true that some proponents of communism attacked the established religious institutions, often because they were an integral part of the state machinery of oppression, to equate communism with secularism draws a very long bow indeed.

The god of the bible engages in genocide on a massive scale (the flood, firestorms against the Canaanites, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc etc).
Christians have murdered Muslims, Jews, witches, heretics and each other as well as millions of Africans, South Americans, Indians and almost the entire populations of North America and Australia: so there can be no doubt on whose hands the most blood lies.

And they have the gall to call this the god of love and hope!

You are certainly correct that Christians, Muslims and Jews share the same god, thereby earning them the tag 'Axis of Superstition'.

Unfortunately for everyone on the planet their age-old fratricide is now affecting everyone and threatening our very survival as a species.

Considering less than 15% of Australasians attend a place or worship regularly, puts the argument for god further down the scales. Don't forget atheists and monotheists make up a small percentage of our population There are more people who have fully open minds and don't need a crutch to bash people with.

As with all things, evolution in the end rolls over them and so it will be with having god as the ceremonial figure head. Many of us would like to avoid the outcome of god's constant attempts to hold back the tide of evolution violently and have peaceful, graceful transitions.

Interesting how they deny religious influence in our parliaments, yet fully support the deeply religious politicians running our country. Their a perfect example of a true monotheist, bleed the people, enslave them and feed their gluttony, all the time praying to their god.

The zealots will say, their not true followers of god, its just me who understands. So we end up back where we started, backward parliamentary system run by backward followers of god, praying every day as they lie, cheat the people and destroy the planet. These people pray everyday, have party meetings, and determine policy on the basis of their absurd morals and beliefs Yep sure sounds like god to me.

In July this year, several NSW liberal party members revealed on national television that their party was being taken over by extreme right wing Christian branch stackers. The revelations all point to the remarkable influence of one man: Liberal MLC and Opus Dei member David Clarke.

Rhys

Fact 1: Your "fact" is prefaced with “no credible”. Credible to you presumably.

Fact 2: The problems with using this to support your position in a democratic society have been covered. So why would people try to go along with religious relatives when atheists seem to be more intolerant?

Fact 3: It means it is a valuable tradition that is part of who we are. When women (and men in 25% of cases) were burned as witches it rejected tradition. As early as the 5th Century it was clearly held by a Christian Synod that anyone accusing a person of being a witch is rejected by the Church until they recant. Participating Christian countries thus broke tradition until the issue was raised at an Inquisition and the governing body considered it a hoax and ordered people not to discuss witches. Friedrich Spee von Langenfield, a Jesuit priest, who wrote that the accused confessed only because they were the victims of sadistic tortures was instrumental in ending a later resurgence. I don’t know all about lord or lairds traditions but we weren’t taught about that one at high school.

Fact 4 Doesn’t this support the heritage argument?

FACT 5 The loss of faith in the Catholic Church had little to do with science. Since the 60s formation of priests and secularization of Church institutions has created most of the loss of faith. A good example is the very sudden loss that occurred due to the sexually offending priests and the Bishops who accepted them as cured on the advice of psychologists and allowed them to reoffend. This had nothing to do with an advance of science.

FACT 6: While retaining this heritage won’t remove hypocrisy and appears hypocritical for some it might stop the problem from getting as out of hand as it would if they simply cut loose (like some of those Catholic priests). The atheists in government may simply not be bigoted and may respect and accept the heritage of their country. Bowing silently instead of disrupting is thus not necessarily hypocritical

MJPB,

You win.