Peter Lang may have been taken in by the deceitful behavior of George W Bush and the USA fossil fuel industry.

Law Professor Mary Wood's excellent book Nature's Trust (Chapter 2) provides documentary support for her claims that the fossil fuel industry's own scientists stated to the industry "leaders" in 1995 that carbon dioxide was causing the earth's surface temperature to rise and was therefore a risk to human well-being.

Public trust law from the times of the Institutes of Justinian holds that key resources as "res communes" are owned by all. The Institutes state that, "By the law of nature these things are common to mankind - the air, running water, the seas and consequently the shores of the sea."

I wonder if the silly belief that Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy allows Australian citizens to be deprived of the benefits of public trust laws that can be used to the advantage of this and future generations in countries such as the USA, India, Philippines, South Africa and other democracies where the sovereignty which allows elected representatives to govern is recognized as being a grant from the voters, that is the citizens.

This article seems like a thinly veiled plea for the tolerance of religious views in particular.

The problem with religious views is that they are unique insofar as those who adhere to them place themselves outside of the society. All other topics that are discussed are discussed according to logic and reason. Facts are obtained arguments are put forward on the basis of those facts and a logical conclusion should be the result. People do not always agree on the facts and do not always argue logically and it can take a lot of discussion to come to some agreeable action but that is how we co-exist as a society. Even religious people accept this in most areas of their life.

Religious people do not however act according to reason and logic in many areas. Not only do they not act reasonably they openly declare that they do not have to because they act according to what God, the Bible, the Koran or the Holy Spirit tells them. They do not agree that reason and logic are necessarily the way forward and when their views are challenged as illogical they declare that their views are a matter of faith and the only reason you do not agree with them is because you lack faith in God, the Bible etc.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot place yourself outside of the ways of everyone else in society and then complain when others do not accept your views. This is the price you pay for your faith. You have decided to exempt yourself from society you have not been alienated – it is your own choice.

It is no surprise that some suggest religious views should be ignored since they are not intended to engage but to dictate. We should not respond to them as if they are meant to be a contribution to a better society. A better society is inclusive and not exclusive. However, religious people should have the right to express those views but that does not mean we have to listen to them.

The first comment referred to those on the left as being against free speech. Free speech is not a right or left issue. Unfortunately, often those with different views are characterised as all alike.

Those who have some views that may be called rightist may be either for or against free speech. Those who have some views that may be called leftist may be either for or against free speech.

Demonising those who say what we don't want to hear is an offense against free speech.

Tribalism when we lived in separate tribes had a virtue. It united a tribe against a common enemy. In current society we have to live with those of different tribes. Morality generally pertains to what we think of as good or bad for our tribe. That's ok as long as we are willing to accept that other tribes have a different morality and allow them to express their views.

We identify with many different tribes. One tribe is our nation. Our nation is against capital punishment. The Indonesian tribe accepts capital punishment so we get our knickers in a twist if the Indonesians execute two Australian thugs.

Orthodox Jews don't eat pig meat. That's their business. However, it would be wrong if they would demand that no one else eat pig meat. That's what we did to Indonesia.

We want or say we want free speech. If we really want it we have to allow others to say what we find offensive including their distaste for free speech.

Clearly the irony of Peter Lang's post is lost on him.

It's unfortunate the most people now have strong opinions on most things, even when they are almost completely ignorant of the facts.

I think the Irony of Peter Lang's post is lost on him.

I find it a strange that people can hold strong views on something and are largely ignorant of. People for some reason these days need to have an opinion about everything. Saying you don't fully understand, or this is want i understand/ believe is not enough for some. They need to have an opinion and will stick to it despite the facts.

Modern tech gives these fundamentalist a stronger voice then they might of had in the past. Be they religious, political or environmental.

phanto (not that this is on topic): "They do not agree that reason and logic are necessarily the way forward and when their views are challenged as illogical they declare that their views are a matter of faith and the only reason you do not agree with them is because you lack faith in God, the Bible etc.
".
This is wrong. Many scholars of the Jewish/Moslem/Christian religions (and probably other religions- I don't know much about others) spend countless hours applying logic and reason to justify their beliefs. In fact historically, many advancements in relational thinking have come from religious scholars.

For the record, in case you're wondering. Many would say that I'm an atheist in that I don't know if a god exists and I have never directly seen evidence for one. But actually, I'm more than that: for me, at the lowest level, the universe is beyond computation meaning that nothing in it has meaning or can be understood. But for everyday (not at a low level philosophical level) I follow the faith* based religion of science. I'm actually a scientist by training (science/engineering).

*PS: Oh, by-the-way, Yes! Science is a *faith* based belief system. You take some things in science on faith. Ie, you believe without any real evidence in its fundamental concepts: such as a belief in space and time (actually personally I'm very sceptical about the fundamental existence of time), and the belief that the laws of science apply consistently and constantly through the universe. Actually, even mathematics is faith based. If you have ever studied maths that you would know that it is quite arbitrary which axioms of maths you believe in or not. And further, below maths, it is even arbitrary which logical system you use to derive your theorems in (ie: you choose to use one logic/deductive system over the others that are available because you believe it's the "truth").