Dear Yuyutsu,

Etymology tells the origin of words. However, usage is the guide for their meaning. The word, religion comes from religio a Latin word. In the Roman world people believed in many gods. If you take the Roman meaning then you would restrict religion to a belief in many gods. However, the binding of religio is its function of binding believers together not to the entity they worship. Some religions such as Buddhism has neither the concept of god or a search for god. However, it is a religion although in your definition it is not.

A diploma from a recognised medical institution is standard for a doctor. There are no such standards to define religion. Standards are set by the government for tax purposes. However, they don’t agree. Some governments regard Scientology as a religion. Others regard it as a fraud. Indonesia in Pancasila recognises only five religions. You have set up a standard for religion by your definition. However, your definition does not correspond to any usage I am familiar with.

Roget’s thesaurus has some other synonyms for barbaric - primitive, tasteless, uncivilized, unsophisticated. I think religion is a primitive relic of an unsophisticated age. I regard it as tasteless and uncivilized.

However, there are nuggets of good sense in religion. One example is the Christian saying: “Hate the sin, but love the sinner.” Even though I do not have much regard for religion I will do my best to give those who believe in the sin of religion the respect and warmth that I would give any other human. If I ever had the good fortune to meet you I would be courteous and friendly.

Dear Dan,

I agree. Public schools should not be bastions of atheism. They also should not indoctrinate religion. Religious or atheistic indoctrination should be no business of the public schools. The public schools should promote critical thinking and knowledge for making a living or going on to further study. The primary influence on Madison and those who wrote the Constitution was the Enlightenment and not the Reformation.

Good for you max; obviously you're a Ludlam supporter who believes the rednecks who oppose such things as AGW should be censored:

http://www.skynews.com.au/politics/article.aspx?id=968383

You obviously think anyone who doesn't agree with the person who wrote this flim flam should also be censored; is that what you are saying?

Consider what she says: she compares, despite her phony disavowal, her incarceration with Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi; how arrogant is that?

And she laments the outrage "When Malala was shot in the head by the Taliban" but cannot distinguish between the opportunists and economic country shoppers who come here by boat, who risk the live of their children and scorn not only our nation's integrity but the rights of genuine refugees who rot in camps because of the queue jumpers.

It is absolutely revealing that since Abbott eradicated the criminal gangs profit in sending the boat people to Australia that boat people coming to Indonesia have practically ceased:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/asylum-flow-to-indonesia-slashed-says-un/story-fn9hm1gu-1226832129574#

Good post, Cohenite

It is always amazing how person like Max can moralize about: << abusive comments>>

Then unload with quips like this:
<< I have no doubt your views would be supported by the vast majority of decent Australians>>
So anyone who disagrees is NOT decent?

And <<Pages which are defaced by trolls>>

Clearly Max would like to keep the plebs quiet and in their proper place.

Dear LEGO,

I agree with much of your post. Religions are alike in generally being based on some irrational revelation even though Christianity and Islam have very different origins. However, I accept the Christian saying, “By their fruits shall ye know them.” Both religions are missionary religions which have behaved similarly in many cases. They both have spread through violence. At the beginning of the twentieth century the Islamic world with the exception of Turkey and Afghanistan were occupied by imperialist Christian powers. They didn't usually get there by peaceful means.

Separation of religion and state has helped curb the excesses of Christianity, and if it would good if it would happen more in the Islamic world. In the twentieth century there were two instances of the separation being adopted by a Muslim country. One was Turkey under Kemal Ataturk. Turkey is still a secular state even though there is an Islamic party in government. Muhammed Ali Jinnah tried to set up Pakistan as a secular state. However, Pakistan has by now lost any secular character.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/17/us-tunisia-politics-idUSBREA2G0Q120140317

Tunisia’s secular party helped push the ruling Islamists out of office but is open to a coalition with the Islamists if they don’t get a majority in the coming elections.

The above examples show that secularism can arise in the Muslim world. Hopefully it will continue to rise and curb the excesses of Islam as it has curbed the excesses of Christianity.

I agree that all religions have the right to express their views in a democratic context. They do not have the right to use government as an instrument to enforce or spread their religion.

On another topic the length of Laura Vertigan’s incarceration does not affect the validity of her article.

http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html points to Thoreau’s Essay on Civil Disobedience. He spent one night in the Concord gaol, but his essay has inspired Gandhi, Martin Luther King jr. and many others.

Dear David,

The binding of believers together into what Buddhism calls 'Sangha' is a powerful religious METHOD or TOOL, but isn't religion itself. Strictly-speaking, religion can do without it, although walking it alone is usually more difficult and treacherous.

The concept of religion as the process of binding with God, as I use it, is not new. In the West it was promoted by Servius, Lactantius and Augustine, but it is more known in the East under the name 'Yoga', which you surely heard about.

Buddhism of course is a religion because it helps its followers to come closer to God. If eating lettuce 7 times a day helped one to come closer to God - then eating lettuce 7 times a day should also be considered a religion, despite the fact that the eater doesn't need to entertain a concept of God, or any other concept for that matter.

The examples you presented show how ridiculous and dangerous it is to leave the definition of religion in the hands of secular governments, thus how important it is to separate church and state. Religion is commonly experienced by religious people: I share this experience with others around the world and of different cultures who instantly know what I'm talking about (and I know what they are talking about) even when they use very different terminologies. How possibly could others who have no such experience try to define it?

<<Roget’s thesaurus has some other synonyms for barbaric - primitive, tasteless, uncivilized, unsophisticated.>>

Is this what you had in mind when you wrote: "It is the separation of church and state that has limited the barbarism of religion"?

If so, then this would be hardly understood when in the former paragraph you wrote: "To prevent a recurrence of the religious wars that had ravaged Europe they wrote a constitution which did not mention God or Christ and implied separation of church and state."

dear laura..they never listen
till you get to court

you have to tell a lawyer.if you wanna be heard.

well im in court 6 of may
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6293&page=11
you wanna be witness number 4?
do you really wanna be heard?

you have ignored the thread so far
what would jesus do..testify in court like christ had to

it proves your serious
if you are...see you 6 of may..the court numbers change
but will mention that..here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6293&page=11

in contract law silence signifies consent
so if you dont refuse here where the offer is
the offer stiLL stands/i will ask the judge to supoena a few..IF A FEW DONT START IT OFF...BUT IM OPENING A PIPELINE..TO OUR LEADERS.SO SPEAK.. in court 6 may..IF YOU WANNA BE HEARD

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6293&page=11