I suppose some will say now that same sex marriage is written deep into New Zealand's DNA that there's not really a place for Christianity over there. If it can get something as simple as marriage so wrong, how can it be trusted on other things.

An excellent article. I sincerely hope the New Zealanders embrace the Fijian model in its entirety. Perhaps this sensible approach to religion is why the Australian media only tell us about political instability and the not so good things about Fiji?
Progressive Pat... what's your problem? Obsessing about marriage when the topic is one of the most important that affects our freedoms. The tax avoided by religious corporations amounts to several billions of dollars annually. Religious schools that are supported by tax payers at the expense of State schools, are breeding division, intolerance and social unrest.
I wish Australia would follow Fiji, but it's too late, I fear. We are a virtual theocracy.

Thank you to the authors for their attempt. As always, I don't think it deliberate (more of a blindspot) - the definition of religion is ignored. Clearly there is no such existing thing as 'religion' in the abstract, there are *particular* religions which make contradictory claims about what it means to be human, what is the good life, how I must pursue it etc. The authors' *metaphysics take the same form* just lack the transcendent. The issue as always is, for what reason (there may be good ones) does this supra-religion - a standing above all metaphysical position and ruling over them "they are all equal because I am above all and can see why and how" - should be constitutionally established.

I think this goes quite far in the popular imagination because of our strange rapidly changing times. But it would help if an argument were provided here.

60% of Australians say they are Christian and pay taxes, they'd be doubly taxed to pay again to freely associate on Sunday services to worship or pay again to school their children in their own society. That's an issue.

Deeper reflection on this issue was given by the great Remi Brague in his recent "The Impossibility of Secular Society" http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/10/the-impossibility-of-secular-society he brings out the antinomies of democratic society
"Tocqueville noticed that aristocratic man was constantly sent back to something that is placed outside his own self, something above him. Democratic man, on the other hand, refers only to himself."

It is co-incidental that the authors flatter power, the technocratic elite who claim to be able to run things well, so thoroughly in their proposal just as their rule is faultering, fiscally, democratically and internationally - when the one who said "It is very good" and who binds consciences and checks the will of the ruthless is asked by these same people to go away permanently. I think this case the opposite is needed - law turned away from harrassing Christianity and our families and children reminded of their religious heritage.

. . . "fiscally, **demographically**, and internationally

An excellent article.
New Zealand seems to be a much more progressive country than Australia.

I hope Australia separates church and state as soon as possible.
This does not call for any banning of religion at all, but rather just taking silly prayers and references to any gods out of the political arena, where it is not warranted.

There is no suggestion of forgetting any Christian heritage etc, but rather leaving religion out of politics altogether.

"(b) the State and all persons holding public office must not dictate any religious belief;"
The very first thing that should happen is the removal of 'chaplains' from public schools, and replace them with properly trained secular psychologists and councillors.

As long as they are writing a constitution, a bill of irrevocable rights, might not be a bad place to start?
Rights which among others, ought to enshrine the freedom of religious expression, freedom of speech, association and assembly; and "equality" before the law! Regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, colour, gender or gender bias!
And indeed, an excellent example for us yet again, to follow!
Rhrosty.

It might be helpful to readers to note the distinction in practice given between religion and church, and be able to define conscience.

@Suseonline: Australia already has a seperation of Church and state. So I just have to assume what you mean by 'silly prayers' is a complete extirpation of all Christianity from public life: a radically secularist established quasi-church. Quasi because, although Dawkins is trying to start of Church of atheism, atheism generally denies it is a belief at all! (you've heard it said “I just believe in one less god than you” http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2011/05/against-terminological-mischief-negative-atheism-and-negative-nominalism.html), so wouldn't rise to the level of a church - but it would mean the establishment of an athiest conscience, the privatisation of competing beliefs by law. This is 'religious' establishment not neutrality. In other words a person in Parliament may not affirm the Christian conscience - 'silly prayers' are your words. And the Christian tradition by default must go, simply because some feel alienated from it who happen to be walking around today. You may want all this but at least be honest and understand it is not 'tolerant'.

The state does not coerce Christianity, Australians are not compelled to go to Mass as we are to pay 40% in income taxes, be conscripted in national defence possibly, or as Swedes are required - to fund their established church.

What we do find worldwide are massacres of Christians. What we do find are quite aggressive laws attacking freedom of conscience at home like Tasmania's attempted abortion law that would have criminalised a doctor's refusal to *simply* refer a patient for an abortion, to the tune of $65,000. Basically the state would be saying the direct killing of a little baby MUST be participated in, or lose your career. Same-sex marriage has very grave consequences for religious freedom similarly and so is intoxicatingly attractive to central government.

I'm a Christian and have experienced this from the inside, needless to say I don't trust your blithe assurances Suseonline

If the religious lost tax exemption status does that mean they could get more involved in politics....could they directly fund and promote candidates that represent their interests....I wonder.

Martin " Basically the state would be saying the direct killing of a little baby MUST be participated in, or lose your career. Same-sex marriage has very grave consequences for religious freedom similarly and so is intoxicatingly attractive to central government. "

Martin, I was a Christian at one time, and so also have experienced believing in invisible gods in the sky. However, I grew out of that.

What rubbish are you on about when discussing legal abortion?
I have worked in both Private and public hospitals. No one will ever be 'forced' to participate in abortions.
To be absolutely sure you won't have anything to do with abortions, a medical professional could work at a Catholic owned hospital in any case.

I never wanted anything to do with male circumcision after the first time I held down a screaming baby while a doctor cut off some foreskin because the baby was Jewish, and no one ever made me do it again.

What grave consequences for religious freedom will Gay marriage cause?
You and other opponents of Gay marriage never have to have anything to do with it, so how will it affect you or any other religious person?

I look forward to the inevitable proper separation of religion and politics.
You can choose to follow your religion and god, just as anyone else can choose not to.
That is called democracy...

I'm not really sure that there is an issue with separation of church and state in either NZ or Australia. s116 of the Australian constitution has not been interpreted in the same manner as the US constitution. But Despite this, I would argue that religion is far more prominent in US politics than it is in Australian politics. Like many atheists I do not like chaplains in schools and I do not like the influence of religion in law making. However, there are many things I don't like the government doing, such as prohibiting psychoactive drugs, allowing abortion, waging war on Arabs and Afghans and restricting peoples ability to earn a living by preventing them carrying on certain occupations without registration (i.e painting). It doesn't mean we need constitutional reform though. The answer already lies in our democratic system. Lobby the government. Vote for parties that support your views. Complain to schools that hire chaplains and demand they have nothing to do with your child. Start petitions and write letters to the editor.
NZ is one of the best countries in the world to live in and yet has no constitution. Zimbabwe on the other had does. Goes to show how useful constitutions are.

Separation of church and state is a requisite for freedom of religion, for the prevention of oppressing one religion by another using the state-mechanism.

In this shocking verdict, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/jehovahs-witness-loses-bid-to-refuse-blood/4985476
the values of one religion were used to trample ruthlessly on the devotees of another.

Where else but from Christianity could the judges obtain that perverted idea of "The sanctity of life"? What but the ideas of certain well-established churches presumably grants them the power to define "life" in a way that prefers biology over spirit?

While the big churches can be trusted to be able to defend their followers (including by getting their members into politics), the smaller ones are left helpless, as well as individuals who hold their private religions.

---

Now as for the Fijian formula, it is in the right direction, but still biased against religious freedom:

It states for example that "Religious belief is personal": sounds great, doesn't it? but belief is a but a small element of religion - religion is first and foremost PRACTICE, well beyond thinking this or that to be so!

Then comes the punch-line: "no person shall assert any religious belief as a legal reason to disregard this Constitution or any other law". In other words, go believe what you like, we don't care (as if we can read your thoughts anyway), but when it comes to the actual practice, our law may still override your religion (even when your religious-practice hurts nobody else).

Thus the Fijian constitution gently and implicitly fails to support religious freedoms - the freedom to practice one's religion (with the sole provision that nobody else is unwillingly hurt as a result). So long as the state can forbid religious practices, no separation of church and state truly exists.

guilt free baby murder, gw religion, perverted marriage are all results of seared secular conscience. Some are very slow to learn.

The first thing to realise about New Zealand is that they were the first Failed State, in that they declined to join the Commonwealth of Australia, and Wellington Avenue in Burley Griffin's plan for Canberra had to be renamed Commonwealth Avenue.

As a result they missed out on living under one of the finest Constitutions in the world, which can only be amended by the people, not the Politicians. It is now the fourth or fifth oldest in existence, and has overseen the rise of Australia to one of the best countries in the world to live in.

The only thing we lack is the Swiss system of citizen initiated amendment, where the people can enact changes, such as the recent one prohibiting the erection of minarets, in the teeth of the opposition of the political elite, and continue in the old convict belief that the government is the enemy of the people.

The elite hate our Constitution, and so it is not really taught in schools. This is actually a benefit, as when a referendum comes up you can say:

"If you don't understand the referendum play safe and vote NO; if you do understand it you would know why you should vote NO."

One of the best recent examples of people power was when the republic referendum was crushed by the people, who exercised their usual contempt for the political elite.

Section 116 of the Constitution clearly states that the Commonwealth cannot establish any religion, impose any observance or prohibit the free exercise of any religion. That should be sufficient, except that the High Court has come up with such arcane rulings (for example, that our Constitution shall be in force on ships of a foreign country, declaring sections of the Constitution expended, finding implied clauses that were never written) that you can never be sure what twisted logic the elite will come up with.

The only referendum I would ever vote for would be one reducing politicians' enormous bloated salaries, but if you think we would ever get the chance to vote on that, you'd believe anything.

Religious practice is strictly for consenting adults.

Under a secular constitution freedom for AND FROM religious practice is protected by law.

Coercive punishment, by any person or cult, of lawful actions or utterances on the ground that the cult regards them as apostasy, blasphemy, heresy or impiety should be treated as a criminal offence.

Laws barring the conduct of normal business in deference to religious prohibitions should be disallowed as unconstitutional.

@Suseonline. Formal co-operation would have been better, 'direct' is misleading. Material co-operation through my taxes which are put in a pool and used to subsidise the murder of these little ones http://www.buzzfeed.com/personhoodusa/top-10-mind-blowing-images-of-human-life-in-the-wo-drqv is what I meant to distinguish. [Peter Hitchens who was once pro-abortion has a high level discussion on radio with scientist in England who presents a science show. It might help you see why conscientious objection is so precious to our humanity.]

Often a misfortune causes us to lose our faith. I don't get the feeling it was an intellectual conversion, 'invisible sky-god' is a bit defensive. If you trust me you could explain.

This might help understand the connection between the natural moral law and Christianity http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/natural-law-or-supernatural-law.html

As for the implications of abolishing the natural law, everywhere the state touches a citizens (client now) which is pretty much everywhere, will be affected - because this new teaching precedes it. The law is a teacher and shape personalities. Here is just the tip of the iceberg. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp?pg=2

Current EEOC commissioner in the US "“Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-times-the-cheerleader-effect-gays/

Gay 'marriage' tilts the very foundations of society towards the elite, the rich and powerful. They will have the means to maintain a heritage, while removing by law duties to maintain a marriage culture for everyone else. Their schools, charities, churches will have to remain silent about marriage and accept the state's version or suffer the consequences. It is an extraordinary chilling of free speech, of sources of authority and independence apart from our rulers. It is terrifying.

Martin, you are a patient man :)

I guess I just thought that no one has ever actually seen any god, and the only proof we have is from human mouths, and many of those were from people who lived thousands of years ago.
As a nurse, I wonder that if there is a god, why does he/she 'cause' so many miscarriages and child cancers/deaths? I wouldn't like such a god, if they existed.

"Gay 'marriage' tilts the very foundations of society towards the elite, the rich and powerful"
I don't understand this statement?

Are you suggesting that Gay people who are activists for Gay marriage are elite?
No other group in society is more elite, rich or powerful than some of the churches like the Catholic Church. Do they tilt the very foundations of society? Probably...

No, Gay marriage, in such a small percentage of the population, would have no effect on anyone else, except perhaps the pride of some religious people.

Maybe some people may think it is another step towards a fully secular society , and they find that confronting.

Martin Ibn Warraq writes: ” Gay 'marriage' tilts the very foundations of society towards the elite, the rich and powerful. They will have the means to maintain a heritage, while removing by law duties to maintain a marriage culture for everyone else. Their schools, charities, churches will have to remain silent about marriage and accept the state's version or suffer the consequences. It is an extraordinary chilling of free speech, of sources of authority and independence apart from our rulers. It is terrifying.”

Such is the arrogance of those who seek to deprive the individual of freedom from religion's authoritarian rule.

Free speech isn’t only freedom to speak it, it’s also freedom to hear it. Children, the most vulnerable section of society, are deprived in Roman church schools and Moslem madrassas of hearing what others including historians say about the repressive cults the pre-Enlightenment thought police peddle. They would be punished for example for reading the literature of one of the most clear-headed and good-hearted historians of our age who writes under the pseudonym of Ibn Warraq (Google him). He can’t use his real name as he doesn’t have the benefit of freedom from religion and doesn’t want his head cut off. They would also be punished for studying the majority view that homosexuality is not a perversion and the widespread view that there is no moral law against marriage equality.

Martin Ibn Warraq finds terrifying the prospect of children hearing the voice of reasoned dissent as well as those of the cults that rule the schools, charities and churches (and presumably also mosques and madrassas) whose unfettered grooming he wants protected – to say nothing of growing up to live the lives the cults deem sinful or un-Islamic.

Dear Suse,

<<no one has ever actually seen any god>>

Thank God for that: a god that can be seen is not God.

<<As a nurse, I wonder that if there is a god, why does he/she 'cause' so many miscarriages and child cancers/deaths? I wouldn't like such a god, if they existed.>>

Neither would I. Fortunately that's not the case: God does not exist, hence nothing stands in the way for you to love Him.

<<No, Gay marriage, in such a small percentage of the population, would have no effect on anyone else, except perhaps the pride of some religious people.>>

Pride is an obstacle to religion. Anyone who aspires to be religious should therefore embrace such opportunity to be humbled.

<<Maybe some people may think it is another step towards a fully secular society, and they find that confronting.>>

Reflecting on that, I think it may be true, that it is not gay people who push for gay-marriage, but others who see it as just one step in their pursuit to use the state-mechanism to oppress religion, others who care not indeed for homosexuals, who use them as a tool and if/once successful in bringing down religion, once Julian's evil empire is established, they may well choose homosexuals as their next victim, using the state-law to oppress and bring down homosexuality just the same.

Yes, the thought of being thrown in prison for teaching one's children about life's true purpose, is confronting. It can indeed test and purify one's faith.

Down in history, religious people were thrown to the lions for bowing down to God alone rather to the emperor, or for not recognising the emperor as god. Many died as martyrs, many were forced to hard-labour in gulags for teaching their children about God and what life is really about, yet religion survived and will survive longer than this earth, because Hedonism is short-lived and but to pursue God there is no other reason for us to come to this world.

I certainly would prefer to be miscarried or die of cancer over living in Julian's empire.

@Suseonline
-If you mean it's a long story (my email: breadofthepresence.at.gmail.com) otherwise no, it's just that I identify.

-Biblical faith is more than seeing, in the Bible it does mean loyalty based on reasonable probability, like the trust you give a friend. Miracles don't necessarily effect it. Israelites - golden calf, Gospels -“astonished at their calloused earts”.Mark 3:5 – Judas - disciples fled Holy Thursday night - Jesus expressly executed for them John 11:45-53. The God of the Bible wants to make creatures like Himself, so like Jesus, with the things that make relationships work, sharing, understanding, sacrifice. Love.

Having said that, and given love, friendship and thoughts are invisible themselves, the Bible is mostly history – memory is essential - Christianity is false if Jesus didn't rise from the dead. youtube NT Wright or William Lane Craig debates. Christianity is an historical religion and uniquely susceptible to disproof.

-Suffering is horrific, God provides Jesus on the Cross, also ultimate victory. [words are thin in the face of suffering but God acted in Jesus] Love requires freedom, God thought it valuable enough to preserve, and and provide rescue from sin.

-These things I know from the inside too, and its humiliating, but when I repent he always returns and my trust grows

Disestablishing marriage, redefining it to be agnostic to the reality of the sexes! [45 y.o man can use girls changerooms] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/10/10976/ ,and blind to children http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/study-children-fare-better-traditional-mom-dad-fam/ is to at a stroke make all marriages gay 'marriages'.

-Yes they would be elite, homosexuals are disproportionately wealthy and highly educated and in position of cultural influence. Not my point, they are 2% as you say, our cultural elite want an excuse to continue their transgressions – http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/08/the-elite-project-of-gay-marriage/rr-reno gays want their sexual norms accepted and heterosexuals of privilege largely want the same thing. "

Michelangelo Signorile, a prominent gay activist, urges people in same-sex relationships to “demand the right to marry not as a
way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution”. They should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake … is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely”.

Marriage is now a status marker for the upper class "Sociologist Charles Murray argues that the great divide is less a matter of race than social status. “In 1960,” he wrote last year, “just 2% of all white births were nonmarital. When we first started recording the education level of mothers in 1970, 6% of births to white women with no more than a high-school education … were out of wedlock. By 2008, 44% were nonmarital. Among college-educated … less than 6% of all births were out of wedlock as of 2008, up from 1% in 1970.” http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2013/03/04/looking-for-marriage-in-all-the-wrong-places-a-must-read-book-on-marriage/

So called wealth of the church http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/19/harvards-budget-ten-times-that-of-the-vatican/

I don't expect the sexual revolution ideologues to accept the negative aspects of their legacy, but if we told them to stop warring and retire we could heal our families, lower dependency and divorce, and give kids a chance at marriage.

Martin, I admire your deep faith in your subject.

However, having known several gay couples, I just don't see this conspiracy to change the notion of family, or to destroy any church.
They just want to be able to marry each other legally.

Can't the churches just marry heterosexual people, like they always have, but leave the state alone to marry homosexual couples legally?
Why does the church have to worry about that?

No one is asking religious people who object to gay marriage to marry a person of the same sex, or to agree to marry a gay couple in their church.

The state should be separate from the churches.

Dear Suse,

<<Can't the churches just marry heterosexual people, like they always have, but leave the state alone to marry homosexual couples legally?>>

Why should churches marry only heterosexual people?
Some churches already marry homosexual couples - it's so beautiful!

More will come. In time, more churches will recognise that gender and sexuality are merely superficial issues, that a true bond of love has nothing to do with it.

Marriage is a beautiful thing: it should not be spoiled by legal matters. The concept of "legal marriage" is rotten to the core, self-contradicting and should be done away with. If two or more people want to have legally-binding arrangements between them, regarding their finances and custody of children, then let them sign a contract to that affect, yet this is in stark contrast with love and should have nothing to do with the act of declaring a couple's bond of love before God and those they wish to share their happiness with.

Yuyitsu, you can be confusing at times.
Are you saying that you are ok with gay marriage, as long as it isn't legal?

People get married so they can have the legal papers saying they are married.
Others also want to marry in their church of choice, supposedly in front of their god.

If they don't get married legally, then they are de-facto couples, which is not enough for many couples.

I am of the opinion that if you are really dedicated to each other, then legally marrying each other, whether that be in or out of a church, is a strong statement of your commitment to each other.

Gay couples naturally want the same choice...

Dear Suse,

Of course - why on earth should I not be OK with gay marriage?

What I'm not OK with is government's involvement in our personal relationships. There should be no link between marriage and the state, between marriage and legal matters.

In other words, I support marriage equality: nobody should be married by the state, regardless of their gender and sexual orientation. The state must not register marriages, nor should the word "marriage" and its grammatical derivatives appear anywhere in its volumes of legislation.

If you personally feel that your marriage-commitment should include legally-binding financial/custodial arrangements, then by all means go ahead and sign a legal contract of your choice as part of your wedding. Perhaps invite a notary as well to witness and register it, or perhaps even some private company or non-profit body that specialises in providing this service, and if you want a piece of paper then they could provide it as well - that's all your private decision, just that the state should have nothing to do with it.

Yes, gay couples must have exactly the same choices as heterosexuals, same for intersex people or anyone else, even while the titles they give themselves change faster than my spell-checker. I really don't believe that people should define themselves by gender and sexuality or make a big deal out of it: when two people love each other and honestly commit to nurture and support each other faithfully for the rest of their life, what else should one ask of them? why bother checking their anatomical bits?

@Suseonline. You mentioned 'gay activists' I quoted a well known one. Doesn't mean all homosexuals are radicalised.

'Marriage' has to be defined. There's no reason to abstract the word from its ground in the sexes, procreation, nature, the body, law, tradition and Christianity; and shackle it to 'strong emotion' and the number 2. Neither of which can hold (polyamorists and Muslims will see the number 2 as unjust discrimination if conjugal view is 'bigotry' "motivated by animus" !).

Let's talk seriously, marriage has been eviscerated http://dalrock.wordpress.com/ and very few homosexuals want to adopt the moral norms of marriage, ('pride' at being non-bourgeois). They don't take to it where it is legal for the reasons Dalrock shows.

This is not a homosexual issue, despite media attempts, wouldn't get a hearing without the culture class elite [See RR Reno above] We don't hear from ex-gays or gays against redefinition of marriage. It is a ruling class assimilation of power, a cosmological religious turn and noone wants to discuss the ramifications. E.g doing away with the natural law, which isn't specifically Christian but has been stewarded.

Christians may or may not be inspired to stand up for the majority. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9129750/Poll-suggests-70pc-oppose-gay-marriage.html but it isn't a Christian issue per se, it's a civil society issue.

The state *is* seperate from churches constitutionally, a reason Muslims give for the weakness of Christianity which combines the deity and politics, what we're moving to now. http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2013/04/tocqueville-for-tax-day/ Same-sex marriage means a regress to pre-Christian type. A degraded type, flat and violent - absent the leaven and light of Christianity. See Pope Benedict XVI Regensburg lecture on the low veiw atheist secularism and Islam have for reason, both are voluntaristic (there is no order or nature of things, only will/desire - the individual as sovereign or Allah as sovereign).

Our new religion will not brook competitors. We have a deranged ruling class, CAGW, Iraq adventures, GFC etc they're closed in on themselves.[Their propaganda arm, the ABC doesn't have a single conservative in a broadcast role].

"The best essay on modern freedom I've read" Scott Stephens ABC Rel&Ethics http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/05/20/3763423.htm

amend:

*seperation of church and state is grounded in Christian teaching "my kingdom is not of this world [the kingdom of God]" "render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, render unto God what belongs to God". This seperation is seen as a weakness by the Islamic tradition and proof of Christianity's falsehood"

Religious cults all rest on compulsions and prohibitions. So do states. Both the cults and the states apply these rules to individuals. Application of the rules limits the liberty of the individuals to whom it applies. Cults and states differ in the foundation of the rules and the class of individuals to whom they apply.

Cults base their rules on assertions, proclaimed by clerics of this or that ilk without recourse to demonstrable evidence, about the will of a god or gods hidden from all but the power-seeking or gullible. The currency of cults is codification of the rules and their enforcement either by persuasion or by something stronger. In a decent society respectful of humanity the rules of religious cults apply only to individuals who freely consent to follow them.

There are at least two in this thread who would regard this individual liberty as a terrifying evil empire and would rather die than have it apply to non-believers. Much more than two if one also counts those who couldn’t feel secure in their relationships if homosexuals were accorded the same freedom. There’s a Pearly Gates joke about that, too ribald for this forum.

States base their rules on universally enforceable laws enacted to protect the liberty of each individual from abridgement by other individuals and to protect the commons. In a secular state, every individual is protected by law from coercive abridgement through religious compulsions and prohibitions of his or her civil liberties, including freedom of speech. The spirit of liberty is in collision even in Australia with that of theocratic tyranny. Even on this thread.

The question, Julian, is whether any of what you call a 'religious cult' is indeed religious or whether it only pretends to be religious.

Religious progress can only be attained by freely choosing to do good and reject evil. If one gets no evil option to reject, then they cannot progress, then they do not get any religious merit by taking the only remaining path - even if that exact same path could otherwise, if freely chosen, possibly lead another person closer to God.

If anyone, myself included, attempts to enforce their religious beliefs and practices on another either against their will or through deceit, then they are not truly religious.

Separation of church and state is a two-way road: the churches don't interfere in state matters and the state does not interfere in religious practices.

As the secular state is blind to spiritual matters and has no way/mechanism whatsoever to discern which practices of its citizens are religious and which are not, it follows that the state must not interfere with ANY practices and allow its citizens to do whatever they like, giving them the benefit-of-the-doubt that their practices may be religious (of course the state would still not allow practices that hurt other citizens, but that's food for another topic).

Religious people should be at the spear-head, the first to demand and fight for individual liberties.

@EmperorJulian. Ok ok you have my attention.

I tend to think Moldbug would be of benefit to you, if you're brave enough to take the red pill:

"I'm afraid .. we do have a state church. It just doesn't call itself that. By this simple twitch of the hips, like a receiver dodging a linebacker, it has faked your intellectual immune system off its feet. Not to worry! Our red pill is here to help."

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html

It wouldn't help to explain that a true theocracy executed Our Lord on Good Friday would it? Pointing you to expert mediaevalists, jurists and philosophers?
-Remi Brague, internal link 'Are Non-Theocratic Regimes Possible?' http://ethikapolitika.org/2012/03/21/sacred-ambivalence-reflection-remi-bragues-are-non-theocratic-regimes-possible/
-PBXVI 'A Listening Heart: Reflection on the Foundation of Law' to German Parliament http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/09/23/3324937.htm

Probably not.

**
Julian was naive http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/08/julian-our-contemporary If you have a taste for tragedy it is being wasted.

And if you're not a true Pagan like Julian, likely libertarian, as edgy young things tend to be, you'll have to drop the maverick routine - you're the establishment my friend. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/two-nations-under-mammon/

And if you want to substitute our cult/ure at least understand what one is, whose discipline you accept now and its costs, and what is shaping your personality today http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1815 'After Liberalism' Kalb. Then you might help to reconstruct a viable one, stolen before you were born, with the guidance of the luminous, Christopher Dawson, and Philip Rieff 'Toward a Theory of Cutlure' 1966 http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1098&loc=r

And search out a variety of voices re: same-sex 'marriage'. Ex-gay porn actor

"Sciambra: At its core, I believe the push for gay marriage is a political ruse foisted upon the gay community by the Democrats and some within the elite liberal gay-lobby movement. Back in the early 1990s, when I was an out and proud gay man, I saw this same thing happen with DADT [Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy] in the military. It became a political rallying-cry in which the gay community could lock-step behind; even though this policy affected relatively very few gay men or women.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-porn-actor-left-it-all-for-jesus-after-near-death-experience

God speed and turn off your TV
http://prezi.com/6gusii8btxjf/i-shop-therefore-i-am/
http://prezi.com/9pixrztrnqaj/the-economy-since-1947/
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2011/07/will-there-be-zombies/