Dear Graham,

Christian beliefs are no more a standard by which a person's position can be measured than another belief or the lack of of any religious belief. There is no evidence that a believing Christian behaves any better or worse than anybody else. The Australian Constitution in article S. 116 requires that there be no religious test for public office. Your demand that a person in public office state their beliefs is a violation of S. 116. In your particular case you demonstrate and are willing to violate the law by harassing women who want to get an abortion. Other Christians apparently believe that a woman has a right to choose to get an abortion and will even perform the procedure. Christians can differ widely in many areas. Some are conscientious objectors. Some fight in wars. There is no evidence that Christians behave any better or worse than those who believe in another religion or no religion.

The law allows a person who does not believe in any religion to affirm they will tell the truth in a court proceeding rather than take an oath. The law gives equal weight to the testimony of people whether they take an oath or affirm they will tell the truth.

Graham Preston, in my opinion, you are a meddlesome busybody.

@JP, Thursday, 7 August 2014 11:53:06 AM

It is not true that without the rules of religion man has none and is not capable of moral behaviour based on a frank, kind and caring value system. Humans have evolved to be cooperative with one another and to value each other and group/society. Those critical essentials that made humans successful as a species are likely hardwired into the brain. Apart from that, a large enough majority of rational, thinking persons soon realise the benefits of supporting one another and the values that preserve and make life easier.

While I have found many in local mainstream church congregations to be the salt of the Earth and generally honest, such membership is no guarantee of ethical behaviour and can make it very difficult to spot those who use religion as a convenient cloak for shabby acts and law breaking. Similarly, some who criticise religion do do because they are 'rule breakers' themselves and find the traditional more and values of society and laws inconvenient to them.

The sole hope and protection for good citizens and for individual protection against the growing authoritarianism of government is freedom of speech. Especially because those who are unethical and offend, usually posses the guile, rhetoric and the resources, esp lawyers, to conceal and even justify their anti-social offences.

I do not support and I am wary of any outfit that entourages its members to suspend their own critical facilties and rely on the judgement and rules of others, especially where there is no democracy in electing the leaders and in making decisions. However even where democracy applies, it is always imperfect, and very flawed where there are restrictions on free speech.

While I support religious tolerance, within practical limits of course, it must be religion that does not attempt to make rules for me, to censor and restrict my behaviour, or thoughts as some do try to do.

Sorry, 'more' should be 'mores' in the last sentence of the second para, and in the first sentence of the fourth para, 'entourages' should be 'encourages'.

No truer words that are written by the apostle Paul that when men deny their Creator, they are handed over to all sorts of idiotic ideas and immoral actions. The nonsense that flows from the evolution myth demonstrates that so clearly. No wonder our teenagers are so confused and in far to many cases doing themselves in while our professors sprout such ignorance and garbage in our schools and unis.

Graham Preston asks:

"Plantagenent – I’m curious - what significance does it have whether or not I am the person in the article?"

Graham because once people like yourself demand that a person reveal that person's religious beliefs - you will inevitably ask:

"Well then, what's your position on abortion? For example doesn't a belief that abortion is OK conflict with your professed Catholic faith?"

david f – You are correct in pointing out that there is disagreement amongst Christians on at least some ethical issues. That disagreement however does not rule out the possibility that Christianity still does provide ethical principles and that some Christians just get it wrong.

On the other hand it would appear to definitely be the case that if atheism is true then we are completely lacking any ethical standards, beyond of course the personal preferences of each individual person.

If atheism is true then your calling me a meddlesome busybody, for example, really says very little, except as you say, that that is your opinion. Another person may say that I am not, but that would just be their opinion too, and would be of equally little consequence.

It becomes more obviously odd though when we consider that in an atheistic universe, the opinion of someone who says a murdering rapist is a morally good person is just as valid as the opinion of the person who says they are morally bad. There would seem to be no way to establish which opinion is correct.

onthebeach – you suggest that caring and kindness may be hardwired into the human brain. Firstly, it is hard to comprehend how atoms could bring something like that about; secondly, there is much cruelty and unkindness carried out by humans so kindness and caring don’t seem to be very well wired in; and thirdly even if atoms have somehow brought about the tendency to kindness and caring why should anybody take notice of those tendencies if it is in their own interests to not do so? Surely no one needs to be concerned about “offending” atoms?

You also suggest that “a large enough majority of rational, thinking persons soon realise the benefits of supporting one another and the values that preserve and make life easier” - but why should the fact that a majority of people agree with each other make them “right”? A majority of people in Germany in 1938 may have agreed with Hitler but did that make them right?