The secularism of Thomas Jefferson can be contrasted with the Defender of the Faith under Georgian England. Yet, turn the clock forward to today and we find the US is much more religous on the ground than than the British, I suspect. Although, I think, I am correct in saying that in the US, there exists strong lobbying in some quarters, against religious symbols in public buildings. On the other hand, Elizabeth II, as a Constitutional Monarch AND Defender of the Faith, sits as a very unsecular Head of State and Parliament.

Yet;

Curiously, there appears to be more religiuos tolerance under a non-selcular constitution (Britian) than a secular constitution (the US).

p.s. On reflection, it could be added that the religious among the framers of the US Constitution might have been trying to protect religion from government (Armstrong). Going bacl to seventeenth century America the founding fathers would have not had goverment interference in religion, yet would have accepted goverment being directed by gods laws, akin to fundamentalist Islam. In US, in the late 1900s we saw a counter-secularism with the 1,001 Billy Grahams. In Oz, we have not seen 1,001 Fred Niles.

LOudmouth

'So put that aside and try to get on with your fellow-Australians. If we are here now, then we all have more or less an equal right to be here, and equal obligations to contribute to an open and tolerant society, with its vast range of personal values and beliefs.'

By all means disagree with me but don't give me the leftist crap that demonizes anyone disagreeing with their views. You are normally above that.I have lived in this country for over 50 years and have always got along with, worked with and have friends with people of very diverse views. The fact that I express mine does not make me intolerant except in the eyes of those who hate my views.

Hi Runner,

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you were intolerant, simply that we all live amidst people with different views, people who have as much right to their views as you and I do. Of course, when we express those views in a public forum such as OLO, then they (not us personally) are fair game: you don't have to tolerate my views, and I don't have to tolerate yours, we can legitimately argue about them, although of course we 'tolerate' and respect each other as fellow human beings. That's what I meant by an open and tolerant society :)

Dear Squeers,

The First International broke up because Bakhunin could see what Marxism
would lead to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen's_Association

"After the Paris Commune (1871), Bakunin characterised Marx's ideas as
authoritarian, and predicted that if a Marxist party came to power its
leaders would end up as bad as the ruling class they had fought against
(notably in his Statism and Anarchy). "

My Uncle Bill (I don't know his Russian name.) was a Bolshevik arrested by
the czarist police. In 1921 after four years of Lenin he came to the United
States cured of Bolshevism.

Some still preserve illusions with the stench of 100,000,000 corpses.

My innuendos? I quoted from the Manifesto which is a basic Marxist document.
My evidence? What better evidence than Marx's own words. The evils done in
Marx's name were quite consistent with various recommendations of his in the
Manifesto. I mentioned several. You challenged none.

Some did not share the prejudices of Marx's time. One of them was George
Eliot. I have read all her novels. The first of them, "Scenes of Clerical
Life" had several expressions of bigotry. She grew progressively more
unprejudiced which resulted in alienation from her family.

Herman Melville in "Moby Dick" had his protagonist, Ishmael, share a room
with Queequeg, the harpooner.

"And what is the will of God?--to do to my fellow man what I would
have my fellow man to do to me--THAT is the will of God. Now, Queequeg is
my fellow man. And what do I wish that this Queequeg would do to me? Why,
unite with me in my particular Presbyterian form of worship. Consequently, I
must then unite with him in his; ergo, I must turn idolator. So I kindled
the shavings; helped prop up the innocent little idol; ..."

Melville was condemned by the clergy of his day for that passage where
Ishmael worshipped idols with a heathen.

Mark Twain wrote "Huckleberry Finn" which opposed the racism of his day.
Twain was a southerner who had served in the Confederate Army.

Some rose above the prejudices of their backgrounds. Marx did not.

David Fisher

I like the way you make your stories. It is the way my kindergarten teacher did.

Your picture also is suggestive of a childish desire to be noted.

Among the comments to your script, though, the one who mentioned Constantine got nearest to the mark.

This Emperor gifted the Popes of Rome with dominance over a large region of Italy and since, the Catholic Church has struggled between the message of Christ and the defense of the acquired ‘Temporal Power’ or, more cogently, it has cared more for the Temporal Power than for Christ’s message.

Any historian would know this fact but few, very few indeed, if any, have paused to consider its significance to ‘Social Man’ or, more comprehensively, to Humanity and its relation to planet Earth.

Besides, if one attempted to dwell on this relation, he/she would not be given any space in any form of publication to expose the resultant findings.

And church attachment to power continues due to the material (Temporal) wealth it has amassed all over the world and need to protect toot-and-nail.

In Australia Christian churches own unaccountable properties and businesses which produce profits of tens of billions These profits, of which, by far the greatest part belong to the Catholics’, are free of tax and only God, their God, knows in whose pockets they finish.