Dear Yuyutsu,

I am not opening the door to anything. People have a right to have barbaric or any other ideas. Thought and most speech is free. Religion is free to advocate anything. However, actually carrying out some actions which harm persons or property or directly incite such actions is proscribed even though it is done in the name of religion.

It is a barbaric idea to think there is some Big Daddy in the sky watching over us. Of course not all religions have that particular idea, and your repeated statement that religion is the search for that imaginary entity remains nonsense since non-theistic religions are not concerned with that idea.

You wrote: "It is ridiculous to grant either a person or an organisation the title 'religious' on the sole grounds that they claim to be so, how more so when their actual actions are totally inconsistent with religion."

It may be inconsistent with your definition of religion, but that definition is limited and nonsense. As far as I am concerned I do not pass judgment on claims to be religious. I think it is arrogant to do so. If a person claims to be religious or have a religion I will accept their claim.

I find it hard, indeed impossible to take seriously anyone who equates Pat Robertson, a conservative Christian who has no plans to get rid of the separation of church and state with Islam which is implacably seeking the replacement of the Western secular model with sharia.

It is an absurd position. Robertson has ultra conservative views on some social issues and quite liberal views on other issues such as the legalisation of marijuana. He is also an alarmist. So he has some commonality with the progressive nitwits such as the author of this piece.

Robertson is tolerable by the secular Western system despite his extremism on some issues because he works within that system. Islam doesn't and has its own constitution to replace the secular constitutions of Western nations:

http://archive.hizb-australia.org/hizbut-tahrir/draft-constitution

You may also care to point out the various acts of terrorism Robertson has committed which enable you to place him on par with the extreme violence of Islam.

Dear David,

Running a search on 'barbaric', the first result that came up was:

[
bar·bar·ic/bär'barik/ adjective - the savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal.
"he had carried out barbaric acts in the name of war"
synonyms: brutal, barbarous, brutish, bestial, savage, vicious, wicked, cruel, ruthless, merciless, villainous, murderous, heinous, monstrous, vile, inhuman, infernal, dark, fiendish, diabolical "barbaric crimes"
]

When you first wrote: "It is the separation of church and state that has limited the barbarism of religion", was it not in this sense of the word?

<<your repeated statement that religion is the search for that imaginary entity remains nonsense>>

A statement I never made!

<<I do not pass judgment on claims to be religious. I think it is arrogant to do so. If a person claims to be religious or have a religion I will accept their claim.>>

So if a person claims to be a doctor you also accept it blindly?
What is a doctor and who is a doctor anyway when some universities are notorious for selling doctorates for a fee!
How would you feel if I took that fact in isolation and claimed that "thievery is a basic feature of being a doctor"?

<<It may be inconsistent with your definition of religion, but that definition is limited and nonsense.>>

My definition is etymological, from the Latin "religare": bind, or re-establish the bond between oneself and God. One's inability to understand this process of binding with God doesn't render it nonsense. If you don't understand it, then you could either ask more questions or you could at least have said instead: "since I don't understand 'religion' I make no presumption to tell who is religious and who isn't", but then you wouldn't be claiming emphatically that "Barbarism is a basic feature of religion".

I am religious, I have many religious friends and none of us is barbaric.

Yuyutsu,
Well done for holding David accountable, and pointing out a few of his inconsistencies.

David,
Madisson was your man. Now you're intending to disagree with what he said? Perhaps you want to have it both ways. Though it was not Luther alone, but Protestant teaching in general that helped raise the concepts around church and state separation. You can see today how political and religious freedoms are enjoyed in countries directly proportionate to the degree to which they've been influenced by Protestant Reformed teaching. 

You can't have it both ways. If you want Australia to be secular with everyone having a right to freedom of conscience, then you shouldn't dictate what people should be allowed to believe or not believe. You can't force your atheist opinions onto others, and how they should bring up and educate their children. Parents have the right to choose their own faiths and values for their families.

Your idea of secularism is to force your style of atheist values onto us all. Yet in Australia, separation of church and state means the following; no more and no less:
Ch5 sec 116 the Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required for any office or public trust.

All tax payers have a right to proportionate government assistance for their children's education. Secular education is not meant to mean schools are turned into bastions of atheism. The definition of secularism does not equate to atheism.

If I am reading you right (correct me if I am wrong), you are claiming that all religions are as bad as each other. And that all religions should be prevented from influencing the political process..

Taking your first premise. Christianity may once have been worse than Islam is today. But the Christian leadership of the past was not following the teachings of it's own prophet. The ideology that the man Jesus Christ taught was pacifism and tolerance. The most "fundamentalist" Christians today are the notoriously non violent Amish and Quakers. It is true that the Christian churches are responsible for all sorts of crimes against humanity. But the essential truth is, that those Christians who behave in that way can be regarded by other Christians as not being Christian.

Islam is different. It was started by a warlord who invented a religion similar to the old Shinto "Samurai" or Nordic religions where dying in battle was the most wonderful and religious act a man could do. Mohammad did this to justify imperial expansion and to make his soldiers invincible in battle. Those Muslims who reject violence in support of their religion can be considered as being un-Islamic by other Muslims. And that is exactly the charge that Muslim terrorist groups constantly make towards non violent Muslims.

Whereas both religions are responsible for in all sorts of infamous acts throughout history. The difference is, is that the ideology of the Christian religion proscribes such behaviour, even if their priestly caste and political leaders chose to ignore it. While the Islamic teachings of the Prophet openly encourages it, and it is still advocated by Muslim mullahs today.

For your second premise. All religions have right to influence the political processes in a democracy. The Christians in the USA have tried repeatedly to elect a President who will fulfil what they see as God's law. But only the Islamic religion demands that church and state is inseparable. And that the purpose of government is to advance Islam.

Onya, SPQR.

Laura, I have no doubt your views would be supported by the vast majority of decent Australians who take the time to look at the facts and think about what this policy means in terms of human suffering, especially the suffering of innocent children. I join with Bruce Haigh in congratulating you on a courageous stance and a beautifully written article.

Bruce called attention to the anonymous, abusive comments, which have now reached plague proportions. Although I sympathise with Graham’s concern for freedom of opinion, I believe the case for authors taking responsibility for their views by identifying themselves is, all things considered, stronger. There is room for exceptions if a case is made for secrecy, but thoughtful readers are unlikely to comment on pages which are defaced by trolls.

A recent paper is listed as ‘the most discussed’ for the week because it attracted 184 comments. In fact it was the least discussed, with only one comment on the article. The remainder were private debates on controversial issues which had no relevance to the topic, and whose authors might have been expected to submit their own essays.

Thanks for taking the trouble to write this paper; I look forward to reading more articles written in the same vein.

Max Atkinson