"The Egyptian and Middle East Adventure Holiday"

I believe that was known under the collective term as "Colonialism". a blink of an eye ago in history.

Hoards of middle-class uppity English used it to prance around and feel superior while soaking up the culture - from a polite distance.

Which, of course, was perfectly above board - because they emanated from a "Christian" culture.

LEGO

"But what we are concentrating on is the fact that the two religions are totally dissimilar, and that they have produced entirely different outcomes for the people who live under each belief system."

(1) Yes, indeed, unfortunately OLO's resident clique of dissembling Islamophiles refuses to concede that point, no matter how much evidence is presented.

(2)"The concept of a Christian warrior fighting for God was probably adopted from the Muslims."

Agreed, the Christian Byzantines never adopted the concept of Holy War, which would suggest that it was not part of original Christian doctrine.

There are at least two more ways to consider the 'maths' George...

"Well, Mohamed was born about 620 years after Jesus, and 2013-620=1393, which is a year belonging to Christianity’s late Middle Ages. I know this is a silly observation, but still."

A 'Reformation' of Islam would yield 1517+620=2137 and an 'Age of Enlightenment', (1650 to 1821*)+620=2270 to 2441.

(*Thought the range should include Faraday's electric motor)

Hopefully the globalisation of communications technology will speed things up a bit.

In the meantime, how is all this discussion affected by Section 116 of our Constitution, I wonder?

Dear Antiseptic ,

Your post of 7 August 2013 11:35:34 PM maintained that we need to replace the morality we get from religion. That morality depends on a Big Daddy in the sky watching what we do. He will seek retribution in some way if we don’t conform to His strictures. That kind of morality is an invention of the Abrahamic religions. Kindness, concern for the welfare of others, honesty and other things that most of us think as good do not depend on whether we believe in some supernatural mumbojumbo or not. In the non-Abrahamic religions of the Greeks and the Romans people made sacrifices to the Gods to gain their favour and support. Their morality was not guided by religious rules. They were determined by community standards, philosophical considerations or plain common sense.

Rigid rules of morality should not be enforced by the state or the masters of mumbojumbo. We need no rules of rigid morality. Many of the rules of morality imposed by religion are simply unreasonable restrictions on human freedom. Are we doing wrong because we may eat certain foods like pork or dog? Are we doing wrong if we put parts of our anatomy in the orifices of other consenting adults? Are we doing wrong if we take a mind altering drug like alcohol as long as we don’t drive or operate machinery while we are under the influence? None of those acts should be the business of anybody else. Religious rules which encourage uncontrolled reproduction are not good for the future of my descendents. The moral structure provided by religion need not be replaced because a lot of it is bloody nonsense and the rest is already obtained from other sources. When the state tries to enforce morality as the US did during Prohibition we have opened floodgates to institutional corruption and disregard of law.

I try to be honest, caring, kind, considerate, obey the reasonable (My conscience might tell me to violate an unreasonable law.) laws of Australia and question authority. What more is needed?

Gday David, you've got the wrong end of the stick, I'm afraid. My point was simply that religion and especially a concept of a disengaged but very much aware God that won't intervene in our misbehaviour but will punish us later for having been bad is not unlike the parental model I personally favour. My kids knew full well that if I heard they had been doing things they shouldn't they would not be consequence-free, even if I would defend them to the death in front of others. As a result they have learnt to be self-responsible instead of having to be watched every second in case they go off the rails.

Unless you have some model to replace that means of inculcating personal responsibility then removing religion is simply going to lead to a need for more draconian regulative frameworks and less personal freedom.

You claim a right to choose to ignore rules you don't agree with, but you rely for your freedom to do so on the fact that most people don't do that, because if that wasn't the case then you would either be living in an anarchy or in a police state and in neither case would you be free to act on your own recognisance without fearing some kind of reprisal/assault/punishment.

The fact that Abrahamic religion has been corrupted by a venal mob of hypocritical theologians (rabbis, priests and mullahs/imams alike) seeking favour from secular rulers doesn't make it an inherently bad thing. all it means is that there has to be a big effort made to rid the world of such "moneychangers in the Temple".

You're not using your thinking cap, mate and when you do it's always informative. How do we get rid of the rent-seekers that infest the formal structures of religions?

Thanks for your contribution LEGO. I'm sure someone will read it. If only printers were capable of processing softer paper they might even get some benefit from it.

Dear Antiseptic,

I don't agree that the Abrahamic religions have been corrupted by priests, rabbis or imams. My opinion of the monotheistic religions is that they are simply reflections of the society of the time of their origins and no longer relevant. God sits like a monarch judging us all, and we must submit to his arbitrary judgment. There have been changes in our modes of government, and many monarchies have disappeared. Where they still exist the monarch is a symbol of the nation without real power, and the government is in other hands.

Monotheistic religions preserve an archaic form of society. The rules they set are arbitrary not subject to the discussion and debate by which we determine the laws that govern us in a democratic society. There is no need for them any more than the buggy whip holders that were on some of the very early automobiles.

Absolute monarchs want absolute obedience. IMHO that never was a virtue. Some people will continue to want that type of rule. They still have it in Saudi Arabia and other places. It is oppressive, and the religions based on that model are also oppressive. I see no need for any replacement although I think those who want such a thing have the right to keep it.

However, I don't think they should have the right to subject the children who are our future to such nonsense by having fundamentalist chaplains from Scripture Union in Queensland public schools.