When Kevin Rudd realised the loss by the Australian Labor Party in 2004 was directly attributable to the proclamation by Mark Latham of his Atheist status, OLO published his article on that subject. Rudd then set out to court the Christian vote, realising that Kim Christian Beasley was very sensitive about his middle name. With the rise of Law Schools as seminaries of Atheism, and the substitution of “The Law” for teaching the principles of Christianity, a corresponding departure of respect for Judges and Magistrates has emerged.

These seminaries of Atheism, subscribe to the pre Christian Pagan concept of multifarious Gods, and their predominant philosophy is the Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy. Somehow they believe that the collective minds of a gaggle of Parliamentarians is better than the New Testament as a moral and philosophical guidance, for “peace order and good government”. Pierre Schlag in his articles 'Clerks in the Maze” and “Law as a continuation of God by other means” documents this compulsory adoption of Atheism and the substitution of a Judges opinion for common sense.

As a consequence I am declared a “bete noir” a danger to the compulsory atheism, a vexatious litigant in four jurisdictions in Australia. A symptom of the widespread dissatisfaction with the Status Quo was expressed in the 700,000 votes given to Palmer United Party in the last Federal Election. The catch cry of the now defunct Democrats was “Keep the bastards honest.” They committed suicide when they attempted to abolish “Prayers” in the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

Christian teaching in the New Testament is that there is One paramount Almighty God and that this entity is triune, Father Son and Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. The system adopted by the English that was anathema to Roman Catholic teaching was to have a Justice as representative of Almighty God through the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen, and the Holy Spirit representing “the Comforter” would descend on the twelve people sworn on the Holy Bible to find the truth and true justice would be done.

Peter Vexatious,

You've nailed it. There are far too many lawyers in the world. And the judges/judiciary really live in a disconnected world of their own.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember, also that USUARY was sinful in the Catholic Church. Now look at the corrupt banks and our enslavement to them.

“They Don’t Care About Us” – Michael Jackson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNJL6nfu__Q

Here is a comment of the video:
shakaama

“The original video of this song was banned, and removed from all media outlets. (now that's some power). What could they possibly fear from a video from Michael Jackson hmmmmmmm They feared it so much that they banned it. Remember Madonna was still grinding onstage, doing nearly a full on porn in public, but MJ video is banned?”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Don%27t_Care_About_Us

Michael Jackson was a messenger.

And so is Morrissey.

.

Dear George,

.

You concluded :

« Whether we like it or not, there is no satisfactory ”explanation” of afterlife beyond these various interpretations, so one has to either believe or not, and settle in the ensuing world view orientation. »

.

Thanks for clarifying that. Don’t worry, as I am sure you have understood, I was just expressing my concern for the terrible tragedy caused by religious fanatics programming psychologically fragile young minds with the false promise of “afterlife”.

Though I now understand and, naturally, respect your personal interpretation of the concept, that is obviously not the version that has been instilled into the minds of those gullible young candidates for suicide bomb attacks.

In my view, the religious authorities of the Abrahamic denominations which promote or, perhaps, simply condone such belief, now have a moral responsibility to speak up and tell the truth and be more explicit about their position on what Peter Sellick terms the Neo-Platonic doctrine of “afterlife”.

I should be interested to have your views on that – as well as Peter Sellick’s, if he cares to make a comment.

.

Banjo,
I'm not sure if Peter believes in an afterlife. It's not terribly clear which of the usual Christian doctrines he accepts.

.
 
Squeers wrote :

« This is how I think of liberal rationalism: blindly rationalising "free thought" and "free choice" (as if they existed) as universal virtues … »
.

AJ Philips observed :

«  … the way we think, feel and behave is very much the result of a complex interplay between our biology and our environment … What is debated now is precisely how these two factors interact to create the behaviours that they do. There is the very real possibility that free will is merely an illusion. »
.

And Yuyutsu enquired :

« … how is Christianity related to Libertarianism? And how do both relate to liberal rationalism? Then too, what makes you claim that we have no free choice? »
.

The cross-fertilisation of democracy and Christianity no doubt received a decisive boost from the Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries which, according to Bertrand Russell, was, itself, born out of the Protestant reaction against the Catholic counter-reformation. He argues that many of the philosophical views, such as affinity for democracy against monarchy originated among Protestants in the early 16th century to justify their desire to break away from the Pope and the Catholic Church. Though many of these philosophical ideals were picked up by Catholics, Russell argues, by the 18th century the Enlightenment was the principal manifestation of the schism that began with Martin Luther (1483-1546).

Democracy and the separation of church and state aspire to justice, freedom and tolerance. Those are ambitious objectives, extremely elusive, almost impossible to achieve. But hope and opportunity are part of the package. So it’s imperfect? It’s not a given. It’s to be earned. It’s up to us. That’s the motor.

What about free will? The way I see it, the more programmes we download to our brains the better. Beneficial mutations and experiences continue to accumulate over time, multiplying and diversifying choice patterns to an ever greater degree of complexity until we are no longer held to obey any particular predetermined course of behaviour, gaining in the autonomy we call free will. It's evolutive.
 
.