Dear Mhaze,

Yes, there are many haters of God, here and elsewhere. It all starts with people wanting to cling to their sins and have them justified - the rest are only excuses.

This is not to say that organised religion has no sins of its own and makes no mistakes: much of the misconceptions about religion are owed to them and should be placed on their doorstep, but beyond these, no amount of logic and common-sense is of use when facing pure hatred by those who are so attached to their sins they may do anything to justify them, libel being the least of those.

What can you say when despite the principle of non-violence (ahimsa) and despite Jesus' instructions to turn the other cheek, people equate religion with... militarism, no less?

For the convenience of haters of God, everyone belonging to a religious organisation (or an organisation that claims to be religious), is in fact religious, so according to them the crusaders, witch-burners, control-seekers, extortionists, the primitive and superstitious, false-promisers and child-frighteners were/are truly and perfectly religious, just as for Jew-haters it became a "fact" that the Jews used the blood of Christian babies for their Passover preparations (and indeed control America and all the banks). Nothing can move them out of that position because the justification of their sins depends on it.

This is what makes admitting that one is a sinner such a great step that opens one's path to God.

david f,

>>“Whether those intelligent politicians have any belief in the supernatural we cannot know. I think all of them are intelligent enough to know they are unelectable unless they claim such a belief.”<<

That is a very insightful comment. And it is one backed up supposedly by the Roman Seneca but this quote is probably not his. It still has a ring of truth about it though.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”

We can never know as you say what politicians believe if they don’t spell it out. Considering they are making social policy in many instances based on religion, it is an unacceptable situation that they don’t. They are elected with the expectation they will work for the informed wishes of the electorate, not for their imagined immortal souls. If they can’t do that, then the priesthood might be a better choice of occupation.

A fair position for a democracy would have all politicians stating their faith beliefs before an election and clearly explaining how those beliefs would influence their decisions if elected.

Giving politicians the power to override sensible social policy because of their secret religious beliefs is not the smartest part of our system of governance.

David

Dear David,

You wrote: "A fair position for a democracy would have all politicians stating their faith beliefs before an election and clearly explaining how those beliefs would influence their decisions if elected."

I think that is a bad idea. There is enough public posturing of politicians to show how one is more virtuous or more religious than another politician. I am turned off by the fact that Australian politicians bring in such irrelevant matters as the footy team they root for. What is important is the politicians record and position on issues.

Julia Gillard is an atheist. However, she truckles to the Australian Christian Lobby. She has pushed the National School Chaplaincy Program. I would rather vote for a religious believer such as Jimmy Carter who supported the separation of religion and state than an atheist like Gillard who has little or no regard for it. Billy Graham was a frequent visitor to the White House. Although Carter was a born again Christian he, like Harry Truman, were the two presidents during Graham's prominence who never had him in the White House.

It is divisive and harmful to democracy to vote for a politician on the basis of that politician's religious belief. The fundies in the US push people to vote for other fundies.

I regard religion or the lack of it as a private matter. I am more interested in what a person does than what a person believes.

I am an atheist. However, that is my business, and a politician's religion is his or her business.

Separation of religion and state is extremely important to me. The belief or lack of it in the citizenry should be no business of government.

david f,

I disagree. It is not the belief so much as what that brings to the political table that matters.

With Julia Gillard we know she is an atheist and therefore her views at variance with rationality are brought about by something else.

Religious beliefs are not a personal matter if they affect the common interest.

David

Dear David,

We disagree very much. I regard people by what they do not by what they state they believe.

Thomas Jefferson said, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

That is my attitude.

david f,

I don't think you read my last post. Yes, it is what they do and a religious person is likely to do what the majority doesn't want them to do or won't do what they do want based on religious grounds against the majority wishes.

As a hypothetical and as opposition to voluntary euthanasia is nearly exclusively on religious grounds, would you vote for a politician who said their religion would prevent them from bringing such a system into law? I'd be interested to hear your answer.

This is the last thing each of us may potentially have to face. Such a politician should openly declare that stance. It may not happen to us personally but compassion for other people is what humans are all about.

Gone are the days, thank goodness, where people can hide in their religion because of undeserved respect for it.

I suggest you put your case on the AFA Forums and battle it out there.

If we are at an impasse then so be it.

David