Fantastic book Runner, i can thoroughly recommend it.

more questions,

Have more children been "Kiddy fiddled" by atheists, secularists, humanists, feminists, communists, closet communists & left wing theology than were ever allegedly touched up by Christians?

Is child abuse more common in government schools than in christian schools?

Have any left wing lesbians or bisexual women infiltrated Girl Guides, Girls Brigade or the YWCA Young Women's Christian Association?

if they did, would DOCS or any labour lawyers (who infest our entire legal system & DOCS) investigate it or cover it up?

a scientific refutation of the miracles claimed to have occurred at Lourdes?
is Mise,
i'm sure the poor sods who aren't cured or who have disabilities would challenge your proof.
I can not prove nor can I disprove that there is a God such as the one the likes of you try o portray to us. You know that kind of benevolent one that doesn't appear to put a stop to all the crap that some poor people have to cope with whilst the likes of you have nothing better to do than ensure you're seen walking in & out of a Church on Sundays. Monday to Saturday you're busy getting as much as you can to satisfy your selfishness.
Why aren't you spending your money on helping those forgotten by your God ? If there really is a God then the religious will not be his favourite lot, that much I can believe.
Isn't it weird when a disaster occurs & there is one "miracle survivor". It would have been a miracle if there weren't any casualties at all but one out of many ? I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it is a miracle.

I'm of the view that if its not a necessity then it should not be imposed by government (or its branches). If there is a case for an exeption in special circumstances the qualification for those circumstances should be measurable and based on relevant criteria.

For instance there is a ban on operating a motor vehicle on public propery. The exception to that ban is a drivers license for the class of motor vehicle involved which generally demonstrates that at some point the holder of the license has had relevant training and was able to demonstrate the skills needed to operate the vehicle.

I've got mixed views re knives in schools (and similar issues), on the one hand I think a ban on children wearing knives in school is an essential due to the safety aspect, on the other hand I can see that children could easily become even more isolated from the mainstream of society because of parents beliefs if the exemption is not available. Pragatism vs philosophy.

R0bert

'Have any left wing lesbians or bisexual women infiltrated Girl Guides, Girls Brigade or the YWCA Young Women's Christian Association? '

actually imacentristmoderate some have infiltrated certain denonominations.

Here we go again, that wonderful subject of religion, of saints and miracles, priests trying to outdo the trannies in dress, male bums in the air, exhaling air, Ron L Hubbard's madness, gold leaf wasted on temples etc, come on folks get in the real world and acknowledge that there is no such thing as God in any shape or form, it is all in your imagination, like Father Christmas to children.

An interesting review of an apparently interesting book. With one proviso.

The question whether or not to legally tolerate religion (or even grant it special privileges like recognising conscientious objections, allowing for garments demonstrating one’s religious affiliation/adherence, providing prayer rooms in public institutions like schools, etc), depends on

(a) what is to be considered as religion for these purposes, and
(b) what organisation, community etc is officially recognised by the state as religious.

Otherwise everybody could found a religion and claim tolerance or even privileges.

As for (a), the author is right that points 3. (belief in a metaphysics of ultimate reality) and 4. (existential facts about life) are necessary to exclude ideological orientations or movements like Marxism. This very roughly agrees with Geertz’s anthropological definition of religion (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816&page=0#124645 ). Also 1. (categorical demands on action or prohibition) is needed as a pointer to what is to be, or not, the object of tolerance or privilege.

However, I do not see the need for 2. (insulated from ordinary standards of evidence and rational justification) which does seem more like an expression of an a priori condemnation of what is to be defined, that goes beyond a mere definition acceptable to everybody. And, more importantly, it is irrelevant to the question as to what, if anything, about religion should be tolerated by the state.

“I tolerate you although there is no evidence for your belief that would convince me” replaces the older “I tolerate you although you do not know the Truth that only I (my religion) knows”.

Both “evidence” and “truth” are uncontroversial words when used in trivial, everyday language. On a higher level, when referring to worldviews, they are controversial concepts - neither of them is used as self-evident e.g. in mathematical physics or contemporary philosophy of science - and are discussed in some very abstract branches of philosophy.

So I think, whatever the book wants to say about tolerance of religion by the state will make sense without injecting into its definition the a priori negative point 2.