Interesting article and I'm looking forward to thinking about it some more.

However, I would take exception to the sub heading for this article, "We are now free from the bonds of religion, but everywhere imprisoned by the bonds of social conformity." Anyone who truly understands Christianity (I assume that's what is meant by religion) would understand what it means to be truly free.

rational debate - Anyone who truly understands Christianity (I assume that's what is meant by religion) would understand what it means to be truly free.

Just to be difficult, I'll argue that there is a GINORMOUS difference between christianity and religion, in fact there is little or no commonality between them. The former is to do with the teachings of one particular individual whereas the latter is a purely human invention intended to provide a very few with power & control over the masses. Just a few snippets to put the two in perspective. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image & Call no man Father. Quite obviously the 'original' church doesn't take any of these seriously. As others have so ably pointed out, there are numerous religious 'franchises' with differing rules, nevertheless they are all to lesser or greater extent about power & control. As with all entities conceived by humans, the power corrupts, positions of power attract the corruptible, and some pigs are more equal than others factors become more prevalent as organization size increases, ie major religious franchises catholic, anglican & islam are clearly more 'interesting' than the rats & mice franchises, exactly the same as the ALP & LNP are more 'interesting' than their equivalent rats & mice. Note that I'm not for a millisecond suggesting that little franchises are inherently as pure as the driven snow, but merely that they have yet to acquire the habits of their more established brethren. One can only hope that in both cases they do not.

We are not free from religion.

Islam is the most aggressive social force and ideology in the world today. Its adherents are a constant menace to our social structure and individual safety.

The idea of the moderate muslim is a canard yet we hear this continually in the context of whatever latest outrage is perpetrated in islam's name.

The history of islamic terrorism shows that the perpetrators came from every sphere of life; some were doctors, teachers, engineers, many university educated and seemingly well adjusted people who had assimilated with the values of Western society.

If even the 'best' of islam can turn and commit atrocities then how can you say there are any moderate muslims when patently moderate muslims have committed atrocities in the past? Is a moderate muslim simply a muslim who has not yet terrorised? Is it fair to brand every muslim with the potential to be a terrorist? If not why and how do you distinguish those who will from those who won't?

It is an impossible task; and for what; what does islam bring to the West; what does it contribute? The only argument I hear is that the West is a pluralistic society and that tolerating islam is a part of that. But that argument doesn't answer the question because that is describing an attribute of the West which islam is usurping in its declared quest to get rid of that tolerance and replace it with sharia.

In fact there is nothing islam contributes to Western society and it is a beligerant threat; it should be treated as such and those who argue otherwise should be treated for what they are.

<<Just to be difficult, I'll argue that there is a GINORMOUS difference between christianity and religion>>

And the heavily-criticised Christian church is different to both.

Religion is any path which brings us closer to God.
Christianity is one such path taught by Jesus Christ.
The Christian Churches are organisations that aspire, with varying degrees of success, to promote religion using Jesus' teachings.

Exerting power and control over the masses is the furthest possible thing from religion in general and Christianity in particular. The fact that churches were involved in such exploitations only means is that those churches have failed in their mission.

Mark

Your essay starts off as a fairly vigorous defence of individualism and the secular state. From my recollection Enlightenment asserted that human reason and scientific inquiry should displace religious belief, and that the legitimate state represented the will of the people (democracy).

I understand your article then proceeds to savagely criticise the "intellectual paradigm" (of reason and scientific inquiry?) that takes precedence over individual common sense, as well as the "moral contrivance" of the democratic state that is acting in accordance with the common will of the people (in this case to minimise the adverse social and personal impacts of gambling).

It seems to me that your article evokes "common sense" as the only legitimate basis for action, yet such an individually-defined perspective is potentially as subjective and emotional as religion

Praxidice - I wasn't suggesting they were the same, just assuming that is what the author intended. Religion is indeed a man-made thing, however, I think you are a little too general in your criticisms.