david f,

I appreciate your apology but it was not necessary. We differ on how we perceive religion in society. A politician’s religion is not as you have stated, similar to a footy-team preference. Religion is a world-view; footy is a pastime, albeit in some case, very close to one.

I know you are honourable in your efforts to have religion and atheism draw closer where there are perceived mutual ties. However, the AFA is an organisation, not an individual and it does not share that opinion. There can be no common ground as it considers supernatural edicts that have no basis in sound evidence should not be used to govern populations.

Here is how I think it should work. All politicians should be asked to answer by survey if they agree with, disagree with or are non-committal on a list of policy issues that the electorate want made into law or taken out of law. If they disagree with, and let’s use voluntary euthanasia as a case in point, then the investigative media must question such a politician more deeply as to why they hold that opposing position when the public are all for it. Out of such a conversation it would most likely arise that the politician is opposed to VE on religious grounds? The public should know this.

Even if the politician denies that religion has anything to do with her/his opinion on VE and has chosen that stance on empirical grounds, the reporter is bound in my opinion, to ask the politician about any religious-affiliation. This should be requested of all politicians opposed to VE whether they are known to be religious or not. It is no different than the reporter asking if the politician has any affiliation to the palliative-care industry or is restrained by party-politics or any other biasing-factor.

Religion is negatively affecting politics and people’s lives all over the planet and it is not acceptable that those in power can use it as their own, sometimes, secretive private-way to heaven against the wishes of those they lead.

An informed-public makes for better-policy.

David

Dear David,

Religion is a worldview, but it is also a label. What a person does is more important than the religious label he or she wears. There have been many wars and atrocities against people because of their label.

I much prefer, Jimmy Carter, a born-again Christian, with respect for the separation of church and state, to Julia Gillard, a professed atheist, who seems to have respect for it.

If I have a common purpose with somebody I will work together with them regardless of their beliefs. If AFA does not share that opinion I do not and will not belong to AFA. Religious people and non-religious people can have considerable common ground. To deny that is to deny their common humanity.

I object to segregation in schools by race, religion or any other criteria not relevant to their education. I don't even know the religious beliefs of my next door neighbour. Several days ago our neighbour, Adam Lawson, knocked at our door. He was muddy and in his work clothes. He told us that our water line had sprung a leak and was pouring down on his property. Since the leak was our side of the water meter we were responsible for its repair and not the local council. Adam told us he would get the needed parts and take care of repairs. Adam is a plumber and knew what to do. He also told us not to worry about cost. He would just do the job for us, and we owed him nothing. We went to look, and it was as he said. A flow of water was coming from our line on to his property. Adam shut the meter off and went to work.

Adam is a great guy, and I don't care if he worships the new moon.

Dear George,

<<So your guru is apparently Swami Vivekananda whose roots are obviously Hindu.>>

Swami Vivekananda was a disciple of Ramakrishna. I had no fortune to meet him as he died before my times (in 1902).
As well as various forms of Hinduism (itself a multitude of faiths), Ramakrishna also spent time practising Islam and subsequently practising Christianity in order to verify that they too are legitimate paths to God, then he concluded:

"The Divine Being is seen in many different ways in different cultures. Worship your God, but honor the forms in which he appears to others as well. Don’t condemn other paths to God. If other people follow that path with full sincerity, they will definitely reach God. Go on calling to God in the way you understand him, but don’t criticize other faiths. All religions are true.”
(from http://www.yogachicago.com/nov04/ramakrishna.shtml)

Dear David F.,

<<However, Yesh Atid would be unnecessary if the religious hadn't formed political parties in the first place.>>

Let's then analyse how it all started:

*Israel's ultra-orthodox Jews generally pay no tax and live-on-welfare because they don't work.
*They can't work because they are supposed to study.
*They study indefinitely in order to have their army-service deferred.
*While most ultra-orthodox would have liked to enlist, they won't serve in the army because that would expose their young males to women, contrary to their doctrine.
*The state-of-Israel insists on having one army for all, thus unable to satisfy the ultra-orthodox need for gender-segregation.
*Ultra-orthodox parties were formed in-order to protect and enshrine in legislation their constituents' right to not be exposed to the other gender.
*Since state's insistence on conscription to a single army caused poverty, they also apply political pressure to receive generous welfare-packages.

You can see how the government-of-Israel started all the trouble. In one word, conscription.

I certainly don't advocate gender-segregation, but as-above, I respect others' forms and techniques of worship.

Separation of church and state is a two-way street, where the state too mustn't interfere with the religious needs of individuals.

Had religion not been attacked, no religious-parties would be needed in self-defence.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

"I can also envision this written in a book and subsequently, 6000 years later, read by a scholar in some future stable society that has no wish, or even no concept of 'changing the world', who looks at it puzzled saying "what a mumbo-jumbo!"
.

It could be sooner than you think, Yuyutsu. But I guess we'll never know.

If it's religion, it is short term. If it is science, it is medium term. If it is reality, it is long term.

Unfortunately, my imagination is not capable of projecting any further than that.

.

Yuyutsu wrote:

Let's then analyse how it all started:

*Israel's ultra-orthodox Jews generally pay no tax and live-on-welfare because they don't work.
*They can't work because they are supposed to study.
*They study indefinitely in order to have their army-service deferred.
*While most ultra-orthodox would have liked to enlist, they won't serve in the army because that would expose their young males to women, contrary to their doctrine.
*The state-of-Israel insists on having one army for all, thus unable to satisfy the ultra-orthodox need for gender-segregation.
*Ultra-orthodox parties were formed in-order to protect and enshrine in legislation their constituents' right to not be exposed to the other gender.
*Since state's insistence on conscription to a single army caused poverty, they also apply political pressure to receive generous welfare-packages.

You can see how the government-of-Israel started all the trouble. In one word, conscription.

I certainly don't advocate gender-segregation, but as-above, I respect others' forms and techniques of worship.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Your analysis is somewhat inaccurate. They don’t study indefinitely in order to have their army-service deferred. They study because that’s the way they think they are serving God. They would not like to enlist. They want to study. There are segregated units for the few ultra-orthodox who want to serve.

Ultra-orthodox parties were formed to protect their privileged status. The state's insistence on conscription to a single army did not cause poverty. Their refusal to work caused poverty.

The state of Israel started the trouble not by conscription but by giving them special privileges in the first place.

Ben Gurion gave them special privileges because he thought they would gradually merge into the population, and they were only a small number initially. They didn’t merge but had very large families and are no longer a small number.

david f,

After the anecdote about the plumbing problem involving help from an ‘individual’ and other inferences about ‘people’ and after misreading and apologising for misreading what I have said before, which I accepted in good faith, you again imply a similar falsehood in this sentence.

>>”If I have a common purpose with somebody I will work together with them regardless of their beliefs. If AFA does not share that opinion I do not and will not belong to AFA. Religious people and non-religious people can have considerable common ground. To deny that is to deny their common humanity.”<<

Common purpose is destroyed by the ubiquitous acceptance of state controlled religious indoctrination.

The AFA is not opposed in any way to individuals or persons whether they are religious or not. If individuals hold a faith or don’t, unless they are personally acting against the real interests of others, they are not on our radar. It is the bad parts of religion itself; that is, the harmful ideology to which the AFA is opposed.

I am very disappointed you have misrepresented me/AFA twice. But, if you can supply quotes from this thread where I have shown any signs of being unjustly negative about our “common humanity”, that might clear the matter up.

It appears you have never been a member of the AFA. You may not be a joiner but it has been going a long time and you have only just discovered this alleged anomaly.

People join the AFA for many reasons. They might do so as it is the most recognised atheist body in Australia and feel that adding their voice strengthens the atheist message. They can see it as a focal point for their lives or an escape from religion. They may wish to take advantage of social-media via Facebook or the AFA Forums although membership is not a prerequisite with those. But I feel the main reason people join the AFA is that social justice is high on their list of priorities and they recognise that is what the AFA is all about.

David