Jardine,

To deliberately not vote is a crime, but is it a crime to deliberately vote Informal?

An informal vote is still a vote but it's a moot point as it is impossible to prove that a crime has been committed without surveillance, which in this case would be a crime and thus inadmissible as evidence.

Those who are moved to write insulting things on ballot papers or to poke pencil holes in them are very safe.

'I bet in millions of years time when we have all departed ,our spirits will still be spooking around somewhere, '

Ojnab slags off at the Christian faith and then comes up with the above comment. Hilarous! Your logic is as twisted that as those who claim that order came from chaos and that your ancestors were monkeys.

Certainly the Christian faith does seem hard to believe at times until you look at the totally idiotic alternatives.

btw Ojnab the Scriptures don't single out homosexuality as sin. It is listed along side fornication, lying, adultery, theivery, drunkedness. The reality is that all people are born with a fallen nature and that includes you and me. Out of the many school chaplains I have known none have taught in schools that homosexuality is sin (even though it is). Is this just another made up lie from the god deniers?

Part of the reason for the virgin birth that you seem to mock is so the Son of God would be born sinless (having not had the sinful nature passed down to Him).

Dear Matthew,

As for "WHY IS ANYONE BOTHERING TO ENTERTAIN THIS NOTION AT ALL?", the reason is because religion is what life is about.
Life is not about society and politics, life is not about material survival or progress - life is an opportunity to approach God.

However, while religion is the foundation of life, the NOTION of "religion" is unworkable.
Indeed, there is no way a secular body could ever define "religion".
Indeed, larger organisations are better equipped to protect the freedoms of their members than smaller ones and individuals.

Therefore, in order to ensure that the state never comes between a devotee and God, thwarting the whole purpose of life itself, everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt that their actions are religiously-driven, thus be free to do whatever they do.

Alternately and more practically, membership in a state (i.e. citizenship) should be optional, not mandatory, so if/when one believes that a state interferes with their religion, one can simply avoid having anything to do with that state and not consent to fall under its jurisdiction.

So would murder and rape become legal? - well yes and no!

For those willing members (citizens), it will remain illegal.
Non-members will not be subject to state-laws, but society/state need not compromise on its security and could still take all necessary measures to defend its members from harmful actions by non-members. Protection of citizens will thus become a matter of defence rather than a matter of crime/justice. In other words, it will be done FOR its members rather than AGAINST those who do not agree with the state. One implication is that the state will not interfere with what it believes to be crimes when neither the perpetrator(s) nor the "victim"(s) are its citizens (or visitors who consented to fall under its jurisdiction).

Dear Foxy,

Distinction between sacred and profane as well as having a belief-system and rituals, are examples of common religious methods. In other words, all being well and good, these are limbs of religion rather than religion itself.

Yuyutstu,

You claim that "religion is what life is about"

. . . that "Life is not about society and politics, life is not about material survival or progress - life is an opportunity to approach God"

This is the main problem with the "religious" mind right there -

Why do you conclude that IF I do not have a belief in God and certain religion that I MUST assume life is all just material and meaningless.

WHY?

Try reading some philosophers starting at Greece and up to now [especially the existentialists] and you will see there that meaning, beauty, purpose and love are all being discussed and defined there WITHOUT the need for a transcendental and unprovable force.

It is precisely when one lets their beliefs of love and universe, purpose and social morality etc., become bogged down into particular ethnic, racial, cultural and historical tribal elements which [almost always] become as the religion's necessary foundation meaning that an outsider may never be welcome.

Yet surely a metaphysical and high purpose thing like religion apparently is CANNOT allow itself to e so ridiculously and wrongly tied down?

This is what leads to ALL religons being bad. That does not mean some elements can be still used and separated as good in themselves.

Is Mise

Yes it's a moot point because although the statute requires an elector "to vote", so in theory it's an offense to fail to vote by voting informally, on the other hand, the prosecution could not
a) get the evidence because of the law making ballots secret, and
b) satisfy the standard of proof from a merely informal vote, for fear of persecuting the moron class for being morons.

However the prosecution might be able to satisfy a court beyond reasonable doubt where it was obvious that an elector intended not to vote, for example by an insulting remark.

Yet I persist in feeling safe in writing insulting remarks in my ballot papers.

All
The problem with explaining the existence of religion in terms of religions' own understanding - god stories and all that - is because they are all inconsistent with each other, besides the fact that they are wanting and dodgy in terms of evidence and reason - highly improbable and dubious at best.

Similarly the blandishments of anthropologists that religion is to understand the mysteries of life etc., or to promote social harmony, are all rather general and question-begging.

Evolutionary theory speculates that religion may be sexually selected. Like the peacock's tail, it evolved not because it helps survival per se - witness all those who die for religion - but because it helps reproduction. According to this theory, so long as it helped on average to increase reproductive success, that explains this phenomenon.

There's loads of evidence of religion increasing reproductive success:
- charisma of religious founders and leaders - Moses, Mohammed, Joseph Smith et al
- privileges of sacerdotal class - Hindu temple deflowerers, confessors extorting sexual favours etc.
- increased sexual marketability of ordinary guys as moral, social paternity etc.

What about that eh?

Dear Matthew,

<<Why do you conclude that IF I do not have a belief in God and certain religion that I MUST assume life is all just material and meaningless.>>

I have not made any such conclusions.

To begin with, belief in God does not prove that one is religious, nor the lack thereof that one is irreligious.

Then there are those who dis/believe in God yet assume that life is just material and/or meaningless: all 8 combinations abound.

<<WITHOUT the need for a transcendental and unprovable force.>>

I have not mentioned a force. God is not a force, if that's what you were implying.

<<It is precisely when one lets their beliefs of love and universe, purpose and social morality etc., become bogged down into particular ethnic, racial, cultural and historical tribal elements which [almost always] become as the religion's necessary foundation meaning that an outsider may never be welcome.>>

I can't see how that's got anything to do with religion. The foundation of religion is our inherent attraction, or yearning, to merge back into the source or essence of who we really are - God. This attraction was present long before any humans, races, cultures, tribes or beliefs existed.

<<Yet surely a metaphysical and high purpose thing like religion apparently is CANNOT allow itself to e so ridiculously and wrongly tied down?>>

Definitely. It's ignorant people who try to do so. It may affect culture, but has no impact on religion itself.

<<This is what leads to ALL religons being bad.>>

This simply means that most behaviours and organisations that most people and social institutions pass for "religion", do not in fact deserve that title.