Hi Meg,

Surely, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was first agreed to, the signatories didn't envisage that there may be basic contradictions in what they were agreeing to: that the very 'freedom' of religious practice would logically mean the infringement of rights for many people.

For example, the rights of women: those religious precepts which dictated

* that men were to have more right than women,

* that women could be beaten (as long as the injuries were not visible),

* that young women could be married off at ages which - perhaps ? - conflicted with other UN declarations,

* that inheritance rules etc., favoured men over women,

* that a divorced woman had to give up her children, including her baby once she had stopped breast-feeding it,

* differential treatment for men and women accused of adultery,

* the sanctioning of honour killings, etc., etc.

And surely that Declaration did not sanction the right of religious schools to teach principles which directly conflicted with the political notions of the society which hosted those schools ? Against the freedom of speech, for example ? Against the equality of women ? Against observing the rule of law, in the name of a god ?

So I must strongly endorse your conclusion, that:

"The view that religious freedom is pre-eminent over freedom of other beliefs cannot be sustained if we are to promote freedom of, and consequently freedom from, belief."

And surely that was not the intention of those who signed that Declaration ?

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Agreed, Meg.

The state and its blind functionaries could not tell a religion even if it was placed squarely in front of their eyes (and often also mistakes other things to be "religion"), so only a freedom of everything for everyone can assure freedom of religion!

Agree.

"Every nation in the world has signed up to the Universal Declaration."
Unfortunately this is not true. And Article 18 is the reason that Saudi Arabia didn't.

Hi Yuyutsu,

That was my point - that 'freedom of religion', if taken to its logical extent, could mean the crippling of the freedoms of entire groups of people.

I forgot to mention female genital mutilation. And the burning of witches. And ritual rape for pretty young women as a penalty for the offences of a male relative. Or, ultimately, the murder of non-believers.

Surely all 'freedoms' within a society must dovetail with the basic political or human freedoms of everybody ? Basic political rights must surely come first, and any other rights, such as the right to practise one's religion, must fit in with those, and give way to them ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

The most basic and inclusive freedom is the freedom from association, to not belong or have anything to do with other people and groups which one doesn't wish to associate with. This includes the groups that call themselves "states" and we currently do not have that freedom. Freedom of religion is already implied, so we need not discuss it separately (which is what this article is all about)!

Obviously other people should have their own freedom to not associate with you.

"Political freedoms" are not basic because they only make sense within a group. Once an individual has agreed to be associated with a group, then we can begin to discuss political freedoms within that group, but there is nothing basic about it. Had participation in society been voluntary as should, then the prioritisation that you write about would make sense.

"It is conceded that religion inspires individuals and institutions to do good for others, and charitable works in themselves, no matter by whom they are carried out, merit government assistance and financial benefits".

Does Islam inspire individuals to "do good for others"? I think not; just the opposite in fact.

Charitable works: Prior to government interference in everything, the Church carried out all charitable works without assistance and made a good job of it, with its own resources. Perhaps now, when charity is much more expensive - even the 'needy' demand better services - their should be some taxpayer assistance. But that should be it. None of the tax breaks etc received by religious charities operating shops for profit.

And, as the author mentions, the mere practising of any religion deserves no reward.

But, taxpayer money for Islamic charities? No! Their 'charities' are not clearly defined. It has been suggested that their 'charities' could be linked to terrorism, and given the close-to-the-chest attitude of Islam, we cannot be sure that the suggestions are not true. We do know that a lot money has gone from Australian Islam into mosques, both here and overseas. Handing money over to a combined religious/political organisation, clearly anti-West, is absurd to the point of criminality by Australia government.

Australia already has the nonsense of protecting the idiots with their imaginary friends in the sky. As far as I am concerned I have spent my entire life (60 years) listening and agreeing with arguments for free speech.
Now our left leaning mates, to cosy up to the islamists, say that has to go? I think, not only are they wrong but we have to hound them every step of their murky and corrupt way.
The ABC must have shown the insulting "Stop it or you will go blind" Max Gillies skit. Now those disgusting oxygen thieves are doing all they can for one of the most horrible mobs on the planet. They should be ashamed of themselves and we must call them out every time!
Do not start me on the Green Nazi's

Conclusion

"We all need freedom of religion whether we have a religion or not. But we need freedom of all thought, opinions and convictions and the freedom to articulate these in our personal activities through expression, association and assembly, without unreasonable interference by the state."

It is therefore important that those who speak from a religious position need to not only have the freedom to speak into the 'Public Square" - but be encouraged to do so and to have their position respected.

<<It is therefore important that those who speak from a religious position need to not only have the freedom to speak into the 'Public Square" - but be encouraged to do so and to have their position respected.>>

I see no need to respect a religious position more than any other position. Any argument should be subject to criticism on the basis of its relevance, logic and its factual support. It is important that we critically examine any argument on those grounds whether religious or not. Many religious arguments are based on belief for which there is no evidence. That type of argument should be given no more respect than a non-religious argument not accompanied by supporting evidence.

LesP - respect as in if I insult their prophet they will behead me?
Alternatively they can espouse their idiotic and hateful dogma with you allowing us to do what exactly?
I am calling you out as someone who will just work for these horrors against our country.
Despicable and cowardly matey!

Dear JBowyer,

There is no more reason to respect a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu argument than there is to respect a Muslim argument.

LesP,

Everybody should have the right to express her or his opinion provided it does not humiliate, or incite hatred or violence against, some other person or group.

BUT as to your statement that '.... those who speak from a religious position [should] have their position respected....'

No. Not every opinion is worth respecting - the right to make a fool of yourself is, however, still freely available, including to 'those who speak from a religious position'. The Life of Brian catered for that absurdity pretty well.

In your case, long may it prosper.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

I broadly agree with the article’s conclusion that freedom of religion should not be elevated above the broader rights of individuals to freedom of belief and expression. I do have some concerns with Meg’s arguments, though.

First, the argument that Article 18 is (mis)used to privilege religion over other belief systems, and to privilege some religions over others, seem to me a bit thin. Yes, religions can be privileged, but generally for other reasons, such as the charitable activities of religions, or a belief they are good for society. Of course these reasons can be challenged, and often are. But I don’t recall Article 18 ever featuring in the debate.

Second, religion is commonly a basis for discrimination in many cultures. Specifying that this particular form of discrimination is unacceptable makes sense in the same way that specifying that racial or gender discrimination are unacceptable, rather than subsuming them under a generic category of “discrimination”.

Third, religion is not merely a set of beliefs; most religions make demands on how their followers behave. Freedom to worship, for example, is an integral part of freedom of religion that would not apply to secular beliefs and values. Recognising freedom of religion can also mean tolerating behaviour on the part of certain groups that are not accepted for others – for example, in some states Sikhs are exempt from laws requiring cyclists to wear helmets, because their religion requires them to wear turbans.

Find myself mostly in agreement with Joe.

And can only add, if you take a position based entirely on just a particular belief, then you must hold open in your mind that the opposite can also be true?

Even so, I believe we can't simply dismiss eyewitness accounts on the basis of similar non belief.

A here I draw your attention to a book titled life after life, which is a series of eyewitness accounts of near death experiences, which in one instance caused a drug dealer and hardened criminal to completely reform; given he said he'd seen hell and wanted none of it! And who can say we absolute certainty that was just a sick or damaged brain hallucinating? And repeated time after time in similar first person accounts?

My mother also recounts a near death out of body experience where she watched a surgical team battle for her life, which by the way included opening up her chest cavity with a small power saw and hand massaging her heart.

She was able to recount in precise detail every action and the conversion of all the players as witnessed from just above the scene!

I also draw your attention to a young man never ever exposed to the chinese or thee most complex language on earth. Waking from a long comma and reportedly able to speak flawless Mandarin!

I know the brain is capable of many unusual tricks, But draw the line at self taught flawless Mandarin while in a comma.

In any event, I believe it is high time we had a bill of irrefutable rights, which ought to include freedom of worship and assembly, but not exclusively so given I believe we can best know what to believe if those beliefs are regularly tested; sometimes by something as simple as mindful meditation; which by the way is apparently accompanied by all sorts of health benefits!?
Rhrosty.

Dear LesP,

Despite being religious, I find myself agreeing with our atheist friends here:

What is so important about speaking in the 'Public Square'?

At the moment we could be compelled to speak in the 'Public Square' in order to safeguard our freedom of worship and following our religion, which is constantly in danger, but given an ideal situation where the state leaves us alone, when "freedom of all thought, opinions and convictions and the freedom to articulate these in our personal activities through expression, association and assembly, without unreasonable interference by the state" already prevails, then what's left to be said in the 'Public Square'?

david t "There is no more reason to respect a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu argument than there is to respect a Muslim argument."

That is obvious but surely you do not think I have anymore regard for any of that rubbish? Well I do not.

What galls me is the obsequious crawling to these 13th century nutters. You should be ashamed, what next Hitler deserves all our respect?

My post was made within the context of the outworking of belief – secular or “religious” forming the philosophy a person holds. That philosophy determines actions in society.

For example; at conception all the genetic material that the individual needs for growth and development is present in a single cell. Because I hold to the sanctity of life and that “Personhood” commences at conception, I hold to the position that termination of a pregnancy is unacceptable except to save the life of the mother, or other foetus(es). I recognise that there are those who hold that “Personhood” does not commence at conception or even at birth, but I claim that my position is a valid position and needs to be considered.

But we don’t have an ideal situation where the state leaves us alone, when "freedom of all thought, opinions and convictions and the freedom to articulate these in our personal activities through expression, association and assembly, without unreasonable interference by the state"

I have enclosed links to details of a UK Pastor facing prison for entering the “Public Square” and the negative response to the Christian commentator Peter Hitchens when he debated with a panel of people dedicated to the Sexual Revolution.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6065/belfast-christian-pastor-islam

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/religious-belief-a-pathology-that-must-be-eliminated-the-new-tolerance

Dear LesP,

The pastor is quoted as saying:

""The God who we worship and serve this evening is not Allah. The Muslim God, Allah, is a heathen deity. Allah is a cruel deity. Allah is a demon deity. A deity that this foolish government of ours ... pays homage to, and subscribes financial inducements to curry their favor to keep them happy...."

He, like many other Christians, chooses to ignore or is ignorant of the bloody history of his own religion. He talks of the cruelty of Allah. Jesus had a saying of looking at the mote in your brother's eye and ignoring the beam in your own.

The Christian heritage includes persecution of pagans, massacres of Jews and heretics, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Wars of the Reformation, forced conversions and an opposition to science which challenged the mumbojumbo.

In my opinion the combination of assent to unprovable propositions and a command to spread belief in those unprovable propositions flawed Christianity from its beginnings, and the atrocities mentioned above were a logical consequence. God, Satan, the Trinity, the virgin birth, heaven, God in human or other material shape, original sin, hell and the afterlife all seem to me a farrago of nonsense. If someone came up to me and said “I am the way, the truth, the life” I would say he was suffering from delusions of grandeur even if his name was Jesus.

The secular state has tamed the evil of Christianity. Unfortunately it has not reached the Muslim world so the Muslim are behaving like Christians did several centuries ago.

In my opinion Christians have no right to feel superior to Islam. Both forms of mumbojumbo have the power to rot minds.

Dear LesP,

Indeed, we don’t have an ideal situation where the state leaves us alone. The tragedy is that partly to blame are religious organisations which rather than cooperate with each other towards this ideal, which would guarantee freedom of religion to all, have a history of rubbing shoulders with the state, asking it to "help" them against other religions and the unbelievers. Themselves they wanted the state to leave alone - but not the others!

Instead, religions should encourage and speak favourably of each other - all religions lead to the same God!

The topic begins: "Why 'religion'?" and that: " I (Meg Wallace) argue that Article 18 applies to the adoption and manifestation of any life-stance philosophy, religious or otherwise."

I won't spend too much time arguing with that, because the difference with a religion, is that the public can have some idea of finding out or knowing what a religion may be about.

This means (religions) in principle, can be (very easily) subject to a lot more targeted actions and abuse - and this inevitably flows onto a person or persons.

Fresh air, water or soil does not decide to join or become part of a particular religion for example.

Viewpoints of individuals, who are not religious are a lot harder to find out about, as they are generally in most cases, kept within an individual and as a result have to be released by a person.

Julia Gillard has published her own book, and I could quote from that, if I wanted to, but she was under no pressure to publish anything of such nature.

I've never read or bought her book anyway, but if someone does have a copy, please quote from it on this page, as there are a lot of "Julia Gillard" religious/cult supporters out there.

To paraphrase speculative fiction writer Jack McDevitt: Faith is conviction without evidence, and sometimes even in the face of contrary evidence. In some quarters, this quality is considered a virtue - just not among people who can reason, question, and challenge.

Better we focus on "freedom of conscience," and leave it at that.

Q 1, what is a religion? A, if it looks like a cult? swims like a cult? waddles like a cult? & quacks like a cult then it's a cult? A, "light on the hill"? "the true believers"? "you cannot argue against the settled science"? the ritual chanting of slogans, the observance of festivals, vigils, the emotional, rigid behaviour & chastisement of blasphemers. Left wing religion ticks every box in the symptom list of a radical, extreme, negative religious cult.

Q 2, is it even possible to have a positive civilized society without a positive national religion to harmonize or unite the people, teach positive morals, ethics & principles? A, History clearly proves the NO case which is why Australia's founding fathers wrote God & Christianity into our constitution. Ever since 1972 & Multi Culti we have been falling apart at the seams, getting progressively worse. Islam is not the only racial, religious or ethnic group that is not assimilating & is contributing to disharmony.

Q 3, Do we even have freedom of religion? A, no, our constitution was written by Christians for Christians. It guarantees freedom of church choice.

Q, 4, why do we observe "separation of church & state" if the church was not intended to be half of our civilised society? A, the church & state were intended by our founding fathers to have the same relationship as the Administrative, Legislative & Judicial arms of our state. Separation, co-operation, checks & balances between the first 3 arms = the state. The same separation, co-operation, checks, balances between church & state = happier, healthier, wealthier, harmonious civilized society.

Q 5, Does this also mean the state should stay out of church business? A, yes, GLBT marriage for example is UN-constitutional.

http://www.originalintent.us/

Hi Imanidiot,

I've been an atheist all my life and never, as far as I can recall, have I ever suffered any discrimination because of it. I've had the freedom not to believe all my life, and so have you.

Stop trying to manufacture a grievance where none exist. Leave that false self-pity to the Muslim clerics.

Joe

Q6. Does this also mean the church should stay out of state business? A. My oath it does, but good luck convincing some Christians of that. They think we should be living in a theocracy with a 'national religion to harmonize or unite the people'. Thankfully they're a tiny minority and most Aussies - who are a pretty irreligious mob - think they're barking mad, so our religious right are never going to have the influence they do in the U.S. which is why they carry on so loudly. I do wish they'd pipe down: they're wasting their time as well as everybody else's because they are never to going convince the voting public that strictures laid down by non-existent sky fairies for their followers should apply to people who don't follow that particular fairy.

For those of you who still really want to live in a theocracy, I hear Saudi Arabia is lovely this time of year...

Dear Nathan,

The general public has no idea what religion is and is not equipped with the tools to identify religion when they see it among all sorts of other ideas and behaviours. You don't need to go far - just look at the responses in this thread and see for yourself how divergent and confused they are and how commonly social and cultural issues are being passed as "religion".

You mentioned that "Viewpoints of individuals, who are not religious are a lot harder to find out about, as they are generally in most cases, kept within an individual", but in the case of religion, many do not even realise within themselves how religious they are, let alone tell others.

This is why the special mention of 'religion' in a constitution is not only futile, but dangerous: all the state needs in order to curb your religious freedom and forbid your religious practices is to slam the door in your face claiming "This is not religion".

Such a "religious" clause tends to serve large organisations that claim to be religious, even if it's been centuries since they were, while discriminating against small, unorganised and individual religions: it has no place in a constitution.

The answer is "PRAY TO THE VIRGIN-PRAY TO THE VIRGIN",-- OK youes barsteads, where is my medication.

Loudmouth, you have always had the right to be an agnostic, cultural christian, but have never had the right to be an atheist-communist.
you are just fortunate to not have been prosecuted yet. BTW, as an agnostic cultural Christian you could always be in the DLP or AF instead of Socialist Alliance.

Toni Lavis, Q, 6, absolutely correct, the church should not be building roads, bridges, ports, the NBN or buying their own aircraft carriers. That is state business, "Holy Matrimony" is church business & the state should stay out of it. As MT our PM said the other day we have freedom of movement "if you don't love it, leave". If you are a communist atheist then China & North Korea are open for business.

Yuyutsu, there are about a dozen major Protestant Christian churches & a grand total of about 30,000 minor Protestant Churches there is plenty of cultural differences between them after some of the Bible basics have been dealt with. Freedom of choice in the market place of ideas & Christian denominations. BTW, you are not defined by your chosen label but your actions. if you say i am north, but do south, then you are south & not north.

lockhartlofty, nobody is holding a gun to your head & forcing you to be Catholic, there are 30,000 Protestant churches to choose from.

//That is state business, "Holy Matrimony" is church business & the state should stay out of it.//

Bugger off, I'll get married if I want to and the god-botherers can keep their unwelcome noses out of my private life. Rude bastards. Who died and left them king? Last I heard it was the meek who were supposed to inherit the earth; not the pushy, nosy, loud, bible-bashing self-abusers from the religious right.

IACM,

You suggest that '... as an agnostic cultural Christian you could always be in the DLP or AF instead of Socialist Alliance.'

No, I think I'll exercise my right not to join any of those. It's one of the rights consequent on the separation of Church and State, on the one hand, and State and ratbags, on the other.

Rights are not compulsions: the right to do something contains within it the right not to do it.

Toni,

I'd presume that 'Holy Matrimony' perhaps refers to Church-sanctioned marriage. 'Matrimony' can refer to either civil marriage or Church-based marriage. Marriage is a right. It might be necessary but it's not compulsory.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

No one has still been able to tell me anything about the Julia Gillard book and her religious/cult following - and trust me, she has a lot of believers...followers.....

I'm still waiting..... some sort of response may give some credibility to this discussion topic - and I'm being serious about that.

Commercial authors, with huge followings (and many who are also atheist) get away with too much (in terms of very little or no assessment) - and yet they get the benefit of that, plus the taking in of money.

"...which is why Australia's founding fathers wrote God & Christianity into our constitution... Q 3, Do we even have freedom of religion? A, no, our constitution was written by Christians for Christians. It guarantees freedom of church choice."

I find God mentioned twice: once in the preamble

"WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:"

and once in the schedule,
"OATH - I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!
AFFIRMATION - I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law."

Christianity is not mentioned at all and section 116 makes no mention of 'church choice':

"Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion.
116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

"Q 5, Does this also mean the state should stay out of church business? A, yes, GLBT marriage for example is UN-constitutional."

No, it is not.

"51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-
(xxi) Marriage:
(xxii) Divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants:"

Next you'll be claiming that recusancy in Elizabethan England was to do with Islamic Iberia, or maybe that slavery is not mentioned in the Constitution because 'by Christians for Christians' means that the Biblical endorsements for it are self evident.

Toni Lavis, sorry darling but you have it the wrong way around. Marriage is for heterosexuals to provide the best environment for raising happier, healthier, wealthier children in every racial, religious or ethnic group since we were monkeys. If you are GLBT then love whoever you like & stay out of our business. There is mountains of hard scientific data showing that children raised in non traditional families are damaged by them. The meek conservative Christians have been tolerating GLBT lifestyle for 2,000 years now & it is time for you to leave us alone.

Loudmouth, rights & freedom don't extend to allowing people to commit treason, sedition & sabotage of our civilized society. Or neglect & abuse of children with antisocial behaviour. EG in a christian nation you are allowed to be an agnostic, cultural christian who believes in christian morals, ethics & principles but not engage in antisocial, destructive behaviour, because that comes with consequences.

NathanJ, Gillard's "true believers" are 10% of the population at best, she is already known as the worst PM or leader in our short history. Even Governor Bligh was better than her. Her day may come, when conservative lawyers do class actions based on economic damage done by dead beat policies.

WmTrevor, you are missing the point because you are working from an incomplete document. Try using an annotated constitution & an Oxford dictionary circa 1870.
1, it is impossible to believe in God unless you are Christian or Jewish.
2, when the constitution was written by 100% christians, the word religion = different churches.
3, again a judeo/christian nation shall have marriage laws that are based on christian cannon law.
4, christians ended slavery because christianity never endorsed it. Your atheist communist revision of history is impressing nobody.

HI IAACM,

As you say, '.... rights & freedom don't extend to allowing people to commit treason, sedition & sabotage of our civilized society. Or neglect & abuse of children with antisocial behaviour. EG in a christian nation you are allowed to be an agnostic, cultural christian who believes in christian morals, ethics & principles but not engage in antisocial, destructive behaviour, because that comes with consequences.'

Yes, indeed, I couldn't put it better myself, not on a Saturday morning :) But thanks for all the straw men ::))

But WmTrevor is also spot-on: there is nothing in the constitution - separation of State and Church, after all - which compels anybody to be religious.

Now we're getting somewhere !

Cheers,

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Dear Loudmouth,

I wish we had separation of church and state in Australia, but the fact is that we do not have such separation. If one compares S. 116 in the Australian Constitution to the relevant portions in the US Constitution you will see they are almost identical. The US Constitution does not mention God whereas the Australian Constitution does. Thus, the Australian Constitution gives recognition to religious belief, and the US Constitution doesn't.

However, the interpretation of the two documents are very different in the two countries. In the US chaplains in public schools and government aid to religious schools are illegal. in Australian they are allowed. In my opinion they should not be allowed here.

Complete separation would not allow chaplains in the armed forces or in prison. I am against that degree of separation, but I am for a much greater degree than exists in Australia. Atheist chaplains should be added for the comfort of those who do not share the other's superstitions.

The current threat in the US to the separation by the radical religious right will I hope be successfully countered. In Australia the Australian Christian Lobby which Gillard and other pols have kowtowed to has an unhealthy influence. The word, God, should be eliminated from the Australian Constitution so it will be a document which includes all Australians.

David,

The Constitution probably, for all I know, mentions The Crown as well, but that doesn't mean we all have to be royalists.

For God's sake, I wish we could all get above these childish, pissy arguments over yesterday's petty squabbles, and those of the day before that, and before that, and get onto genuine discussion.

For instance, looking at Huntington's suggestion that the West has generated ideologies - yes indeed, from religious roots long, long ago, and from which we have liberated ourselves - while the non-West is, comparatively, still enmeshed in unquestioned religion. Was it just an accident that much of that difference has to do with the weaknesses of Christianity from its outset, riven with heresies, and with its imperfect hold European countries, aggravated by their geographical and political differences, the very multiplicity of European states and fiefdoms and empires and stares, not to mention languages?

In other words, how and why have we been so lucky (comparatively) to escape the morasses and quagmires of unquestioned and putrifying religious dogma - has it something to do with the deadening effects of monolithic Eastern empires, and the crushing of any development of social philosophies under those single, all-powerful rulers ?

Joe

//Marriage is for heterosexuals...If you are GLBT then love whoever you like & stay out of our business.//

I'm straight. When you assume, you make complete dick of yourself.

//That is state business, "Holy Matrimony" is church business & the state should stay out of it.//

Being heterosexual is not the same as being a God-botherer, and I don't want those jerks sticking their nose into my business. If I want to get married then as an Australian male over the age of 18 who isn't already married to somebody else I am entitled to marry to marry a female who meets the same criteria and isn't too closely related to me. This is none of the church's business and you haven't given a good reason as to why it should be; just asserted that it should be so and when challenged on that assertion your attempt at a rebuttal was an irrelevant diatribe against gay marriage. And you wonder why people make fun of Christians...

If I want to get married it'll be between me, my girlfriend and the state. Why should the churches get any say in the matter when I don't belong to any of them?

//The meek conservative Christians have been tolerating GLBT lifestyle for 2,000 years now & it is time for you to leave us alone.//

I'm not G, L, B or T and I'll leave you entirely un-meek religious righties alone when you stop trying to force your beliefs upon me. Don't you get it? I don't place any stock in your book of nonsensical fairy-tales written thousands of years ago by a bunch of desert-dwelling stone age tribes whose existence bears no resemblance to my own. It would be just as reasonable to base my life on the fairy-tales first spoken thousands of years ago by a bunch of desert-dwelling stone age tribes known as the Dreamtime myths. Or to start worshipping Ra. If somebody suggested that Dreamtime myths play a role in determining public policy you would ridicule them, but apparently you are too blind to see the double standard inherent in your own position that ancient Middle-Eastern myths should play a role in determining public policy.

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Q, can any of you even read english?

Loudmouth, I clearly pointed out to WmTrevor, where he is wrong about the constitution & where to find the correct information. The separation of powers is how you achieve a civilized society. The state builds roads, the church builds social capital.

Now we're getting somewhere !

david f, if you want to live in an atheist nation, leave.

Loudmouth, misinterpreting again, 500 to 200 years ago western conservative christians studied their judeo/christian & greco/roman history & re-invented modern era democracy to be better than failed greco/roman democracy because of christian cannon law.

"conservative christian democracy is not perfect, but is the best that anyone has come up with yet" Churchill

For God's sake, I wish we could all get above these childish, pissy arguments over yesterday's petty squabbles, and those of the day before that, and before that, and get onto genuine discussion. Perfectly put, but the work was all done for you, 300 years ago during the Protestant Christian Conservative enlightenment & they came up with the perfect system we had in the land of OZ before WW1.

Toni Lavis, i repeat, if you are an atheist? why are you living in a christian nation? just leave, move to an atheist nation like North Korea. i supplied scientific proof about our constitution BTW.

Not happy to rewrite history, secularist are to blind to see that they are largely responsible for the billions wasted on the gw religion, the millions of murdered babies and the foolhardy ideology that has led to Islam reeking such havic in Europe. Secularism is also largely responsible for the breakdown of the family after encouraging generations of kids not to know a thing about faithfulness. You would think they would shut up, Instead you have them peddling more lies. Oh well with no moral base except pseudo science why should anyone be surprised. And to think they really believe they are rational.Lovely to remain so blindly ignorant.

"Q, can any of you even read english (sic)?"

Yes and comprehend it. So, I'll supply the following from p.1030 of Sir Robert Garran's 1901 Commentaries on the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and you can supply the Oxford Dictionary definitions that show how 'religion of which we have no conception' and 'religion in every shape and form' is scientific proof that "the word religion = different churches":

"If, then, such [US] Federal legislation could be founded on a Constitution which contained no reference whatever to the Almighty, how much more likely was it that the Federal Parliament might, owing to the recital in the preamble, be held to possess power with respect to religion of which we have no conception. Consequently, argued Mr. Higgins, the power to deal with religion in every shape and form should be clearly denied to the Federal Parliament. These arguments were allowed to prevail, and the provisions of sec. 116 became part of the Constitution."

The commentaries at ¶ 4. “Humbly Relying on the Blessing of Almighty God” do not support you claim "1, it is impossible to believe in God unless you are Christian or Jewish."

I'd also argue that sec. 51 demonstrates that the Constitutional Convention delegates weren't prepared to entrust social capital to 'the church' unencumbered. Which point is supported by the earlier reference to Reynolds v. United States: "The free exercise of religion secured by the Constitution to the individual against the power of the government is, therefore, confined to the realm of purely spiritual worship; i.e., to relations between the individual and an extra-mundane being. So soon as religion seeks to regulate relations between two or more individuals, it becomes subject to the powers of the government and to the supremacy of the law."

Maybe your point about the Constitution is, 'What it clearly says is not what it means because what it doesn't say is clearly what it means.'

Which coincidentally, is one of the criticisms of biblical apologetics.

//Toni Lavis, i repeat, if you are an atheist? why are you living in a christian nation?//

I'm not an atheist. What did I just say about making assumptions? You seem to enjoy making a dick of yourself.

Australia is not a theocracy. As far as I know, there are no Christian theocracies in the world. You can try as hard as you like to make it a theocracy, but I confidently predict that your labours will be less productive than those of Sisyphus.

//i supplied scientific proof about our constitution BTW//

ROFLMAO

Dear Toni Lavis,

"As far as I know, there are no Christian theocracies in the world."

There are Christian theocracies. The Vatican is a Christian theocracy with a religious figure as head of government and operating under canon law.

In my opinion any religion should be no business of the government. As long as people abide by law they should have the right to believe any damn fool thing they want to believe in. They can believe that human virgins give birth and other nonsense. Religious freedom includes the right to believe in nonsense.

Hi David,

The Vatican ? That's it ? No other Christian theocracies, in the sense that Iran, Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim countries are theocracies ?

I'm sure there are many nominally-'Christian' countries which, in their founding documents, proclaim that they take their guidance from 'God', meaning a Christian god, and then move on, with not a single law or clause or section or ordinance or whatever which, in any way, bans (or even hinders, let alone penalises) any other religious observances, OR requires anybody to follow any particular religious observances to the exclusion of others. Cf. Saudi Arabia.

In fact, I wouldn't even be surprised if someone who knows better can inform us that the Vatican is, even with the Pope as its Head, actually run on very secular lines, that it has relations with the governments of Rome and Italy along secular lines and that it in no way bans any non-Christians from living or working within the boundaries of the Vatican. But perhaps it draws the line at a mosque within the Vatican's walls.

Joe

The following assertion was made:

"As far as I know, there are no Christian theocracies in the world."

The following statement showed that the second part of the assertion was not valid. Taking it in its entirety it may have been valid since the propounder of the assertion may not have known of the Vatican.

<<There are Christian theocracies. The Vatican is a Christian theocracy with a religious figure as head of government and operating under canon law.>>

Then Loudmouth made the following statement:

<<The Vatican ? That's it ? No other Christian theocracies, in the sense that Iran, Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim countries are theocracies ?>>

Since one example is all that is necessary to show an assertion is invalid and there was no claim that the Vatican was the only Christian theocracy I don't know what Loudmouth is getting excited about

David, one swallow does not make a summer, and if you have to rely on the Vatican, which is hardly a 'state', given that it is so dependent for its water, electricity, etc., etc., on the secular governments of Rome and Italy surrounding it, a 'state' which (as far as I know) doesn't even have UN representation, your sparrow is looking pretty crook.

Meanwhile, more than a dozen Muslim-dominated states proclaim themselves as Islamic Republic/Kingdom/Emirate etc. of Wherever, and enact that proclamation by banning Christian churches, schools, etc., and occasionally whipping or crucifying the odd Christian to gee up the troops. And look where that's got them, in terms of the development of social rights and ideology.

Isn't that so ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

That is so, but it is irrelevant.

I was responding to a statement mentioning Christian theocracies. The presence of Muslim theocracies is irrelevant to that comment.

David,

Who the f cares ?

Joe

In a submission I made recently to the Australian Human Rights Commission in relation to draft guidelines for its forthcoming roundtable on religious freedom, my concerns reflected very closely those articulated clearly in Meg Wallace’s excellent article: that the broader, more substantial and foundational concept of ‘freedom of thought, conscience and religion’ should be the primary focus, subsuming freedom of religion. Rightly, in my view, Meg extends this more comprehensive understanding further to include the freedoms of expression and association.

Although there will inevitably always be cases where different freedoms may be in conflict, calling for arbitration, the most general principle in view is surely that freedom is indivisible. Sure, this is an ideal, and the relationship among freedoms must remain negotiable, but there is no obvious case in a secular liberal democracy for ‘freedom of religion’ to have some kind of de facto privileged status.

Incidentally, providing a measure of empirical support for the ideal of ‘indivisibility’, some experimental neuroscience identifies much the same neuronal and dopaminergic processes taking place whether subjects are registering assertions of belief of a religious or non-religious nature. Our basic unconscious cognitive processes may have a lesson in non-discrimination for our conscious deliberations

//The Vatican is a Christian theocracy with a religious figure as head of government and operating under canon law.//

Oh yeah. I forgot about those guys. I feel rather stupid right now. Do you know if there are any protestant christian theocracies?

Of course, pretty much everybody who claims Vatican citizenship is overtly Catholic.

//Meanwhile, more than a dozen Muslim-dominated states proclaim themselves as Islamic Republic/Kingdom/Emirate etc. of Wherever, and enact that proclamation by banning Christian churches, schools, etc., and occasionally whipping or crucifying the odd Christian to gee up the troops. And look where that's got them, in terms of the development of social rights and ideology.

Isn't that so ?//

//That is so, but it is irrelevant.//

I don't think it's irrelevant; I think it is a damn good point, and well made. In a properly run theocracy, freedom of belief, speech and association are anathema. Democracy is anathema. Justice is anathema. Reason, and scientific reason in particular, are anathema. And this is the sort of government that imabraindeadfarrightfuckwitwhohasbeendisqualifiedfrombeingthevillageidiotbecauseimoverqualified thinks would be terrific in Australia. Sorry, but why are you otherwise erudite gentlemen splitting hairs instead of presenting a unified front against such offensive and outdated ideas?

//Who the f cares ?//

Well, David, obviously. No need to be rude. I don't mind having my factual errors corrected, indeed I welcome it. I wish there were more posters around here who were as willing to correct other people's factual errors. I bollocksed up, David set me straight. No need to take him to task for it.

Dear Toni Lavis,

There have been Protestant theocracies in the past. There was one in Basle.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10725 which I wrote deals with the execution of Servetus in 1553 in Calvin’s theocracy. in Basle. The reaction to that execution was a step toward the separation of church and state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2014 points one to the bill calling for life imprisonment for homosexuals (modified from the death penalty). The impetus for this bill came from American missionaries who would like to get such a law in the states but can’t. However, Uganda is currently something of a Protestant theocracy so they can get such a law there.

There are Muslim theocracies, but I am more concerned with the Christian ones as I think the tendency in our society toward that is largely ignored while we worry about Muslim theocracies in other countries. I consider Australian chaplains in the public schools provided by the fundamentalist Protestant Scripture Union in Queensland and the fundamentalist Protestant Access Ministries in Victoria expressions of theocracy. I consider that theocracy more of a menace in Australia than Muslim theocracies. However, Australian government support for religious schools can advance Christian, Muslim and Jewish theocracies. I don’t know how many children in Muslim schools have been encouraged to become jihadis in Muslim schools and how many Jewish children have been encouraged to become fanatic Israeli settlers in Jewish schools. I would not ban those schools, but I would end any taxpayer support for non-public schools.

Politicians such as the atheist Gillard kowtow to the Australian Christian Lobby, a fundie group which does not represent the mainstream churches in Australia. Catholic Tony Abbott has tried to interfere with birth control such as the morning-after pill. Protestant Rudd started the chaplaincy program in Queensland. This program was made nationwide by Protestant Howard.

I favour separation of religion and state. Religions should not use government to further their power, and governments should not use religion to further their power.

Dear Creationettes,

[Imaginary-Conceptual-Abstract-Noun] God speaking... OMM (Oh My Me)!

Just a reminder that being omnipotent and omniscient means the universe is already a theocracy.

Gotcha.

You remain, sirs, my humble and obedient servants.
Eternally yours, oops, I mean eternally mine,
G**

Hi WmTrevor,

Actually, Islamic belief holds that yes, the universe is a theocracy, and that the earth belongs to Allah.

I'm just working my way through a book on land tenure systems, and it appears that the Koran lays down that Allah owns all land, that it is held from Allah, sort of on loan; that neither are there states since Allah has sovereignty over all the earth, and that one day, sooner or later, all of the earth will once more be under the total control of true believers, forming one united theocracy.

Now THAT's theocracy. Existing Muslim theocracies are just the start. Nothing's changed in 1400 years, nor can it change, the Word was written and cannot ever be altered.

I wonder if there are many of the 1.5 billion Muslims who believe that ? 90 % ? 95 % ?

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Yuyutsu,

"The general public has no idea what religion is and is not equipped with the tools to identify religion when they see it among all sorts of other ideas and behaviours. You don't need to go far - just look at the responses in this thread and see for yourself how divergent and confused they are and how commonly social and cultural issues are being passed as religion."

Whilst this may be true, it is not the viewpoint of many, including atheists and certainly not Meg Wallace (in my view). These people (in most, if not all cases, simply don't want any reference to religion - in any document, of any nature, simply because they don't believe in religion in principle.

That being, these people will (often) use simplistic, rude, insensitive or derogatory statements, rather than show basic respect of individual values, views or attitudes in relation to religion.

What these people don't realise is by "denying" or talking down religion, being part of any formal document (of any nature), or society in general is "denying" its existence, when religion does exist in society, worldwide.

This is a very naive view to take, because religion does exist, whether these people like that or not - so in that context, any reference to religion is not futile.

Finally some people's religious beliefs, do stand out from the crowd by what they wear - and these people don't have to say anything.

Dear Nathan,

Religion exists everywhere, within society and without society - no one can stop it. Every flower and every rock strives to re-unite with God.

I think that many atheists were hurt in their past by what-they-take-to-be-religion, so I cannot blame them for not wanting to hear about religion. The irony is that they could even be religious themselves without knowing it. It is unfortunate that some people in robes who claimed to be religious have given God such a bad reputation.

How could it help religion if people were talking about religion while not understanding what it is that they refer to? Suppose they actually came across religion, what if they failed to recognise it and therefore banned it on some other grounds?

It is better that people show basic respect to all individual values, views and attitudes, then religion will be automatically included without extra efforts.

Let us use your last example: "some people's religious beliefs, do stand out from the crowd by what they wear":

- If we truly had the freedom what to wear, or not to wear, then automatically there would also be no religious oppression around clothing. Take the example of the Hindu Nagas: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=hindu+nagas+kumbh+mela&tbm=isch&biw=1014&bih=646

In Australia, unfortunately, this religion would be repressed on the ridiculous assumption that it's "not a religion but a sexual cult" - how furthest from the truth, but that's what it would seem to most Australians who never learned about the Nagas' religious background.

Yuyutsu posted:

'I think that many atheists were hurt in their past by what-they-take-to-be-religion, so I cannot blame them for not wanting to hear about religion. The irony is that they could even be religious themselves without knowing it.'

This rhetorical manoeuvre could be seen from one point of view as 'conversion by definition', but even if it should be the case that all humans, including atheists,do have a genetically inherited cognitive predisposition for religious and magical thinking, there is no single incontestable conclusion one could draw from this about the truth or falsity of any belief or the desirability of any its associated practices.

A veritable mountain of literature exploring religion through anthropology, experimental and evolutionary psychology, philosophy, theology, neuroscience, cognitive science and other avenues of enquiry has not yielded a fully consensual definition. Hence the wisdom of Meg's argument as I understand it: pin 'freedom of religion', however imperfectly understood and without any privileged status, to the panoply of other freedoms in which it plays a part, and evaluate their interrelationship according to extrinsic social benefit criteria through public discourse.

Hi lasxpirate,

Karl Popper says that we all have faith, or belief, in something, even if it is just luck, or reason, or the goodness of humanity - that we all have a streak of irrationality, and that it probably couldn't be otherwise. But we also have a fair dose of rationality, an expectation for example, that the sun will (appear to) come up each morning. Most of us, anyway.

And we can hold those two streams of belief - one rational, one irrational - in our heads at the same time. Popper says that they are incommensurate, that it is pointless to try to debunk one from the viewpoint of the other - one is based on empirical principles, more or less, and the other on metaphysics - each is built on different foundations. We might give priority of one over the other, but they don't really combat each other on the same ground.

So, I'm still wondering, why did the West throw up a plethora of more secular bodies of thought and reason, while the monolithic Eastern States derive and elaborate on unquestioned bodies of religious dogma ? Is the relatively chaotic variety of European geography and climate, that there has never been (and seems likely never to be) a single, monolithic State of Europe, a major reason for the hiving off of all manner of crack-pot theories, (even, earlier in the process, of religious schools and heresies), something that may have been impossible (or at the most, very stunted) in the monolithic empires of China or India or the Muslim World ?

Why a variety of secular ideologies in one part of the world, that we take for granted - and lives dominated by religious observance in most of the other ? Ah, you may say, Taoism and Confucianism are not religions, they don't have gods - no, but they developed in conditions of absolutism, and their writings and precepts are treated dogmatically as if they were books of religious instruction.

Still wondering :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Dear Pirate,

You seem to have added on what both myself and the author wrote: I mentioned neither magical thinking nor a genetic disposition for religion while the author mentioned neither social-benefit criteria nor public discourse.

The truth or falsity of religious beliefs is a separate topic that has nothing to do with the freedom to use those beliefs. As for the desirability of religious practices, whether or not they are of value to society, they are obviously of great value for the religious individual. It seems that you care not for the individual but rather wish to condition both those freedoms on social-benefit criteria and public discourse, but this is not the author's view.

At the bottom line, both myself and the author agree, albeit perhaps for different reasons, on universal freedoms without a special case for religion.

WmTrevor, 1, supplying the selectively quoted opinion of just one founding father out of context from the rest of the speech or the speeches of any others at the Constitutional conventions does not prove your point or disprove mine. The first quote sounds like a discussion about the UN-knowable nature of God which is consistent with Judeo/Christian theology on God.
2, i repeat section 116 was designed by Christians to stop the government from favouring one church over another.
3, name one other religion that supports the Judeo/Christian God?
4, i see nothing from you denying the separation of powers.

Toni Lavis, I said i support the separation of church & state, how does that = supporting theocracy?. What did I just say about making assumptions? You seem to enjoy making a dick of yourself.

Australia is not a theocracy. As far as I know, the Vatican is a theocracy. You can try as hard as you like to lie about me, but I confidently predict that your labours will be less productive than those of Sisyphus.

//i supplied scientific proof about our constitution BTW// correct.

ROFLMAO it is called an annotated constitution, fool.

BTW, if you are not atheist then what religion do you subscribe to?

Loudmouth, are you seriously suggesting that NON-catholics work or live in Vatican City?

david f, if you don't want to live in a Christian nation, leave.

//Toni Lavis, I said i support the separation of church & state//

But you clearly don't, because you keep banging on about how Australia is a Christian nation and that public policies should be based on Christian theology. Saying you support the separation of church and state and actually supporting the separation of church and state are not the same thing. I could say that I have three heads, but it won't be the case unless I actually grow two more.

//ROFLMAO it is called an annotated constitution//

I'm not sure what you find so amusing. I've studied a lot of philosophy of science, and I have yet to come across any school of thought which holds the view that scribbling some random political conjecture in the margins of a nation's constitution constitutes a scientific proof.

Popper would argue that scientific proofs are a logical impossibility anyway, and he does make quite a good case. I tend to agree that only mathematics and logic can produce watertight proofs; the closest science can hope for is to make predictions that accord with empirical data.

Have you studied much science? Have you studied much philosophy of science? What do you think the distinction between science and other systems of thought is? Do you agree with Popper's falsificationist methodology, or do you think that science can conclusively prove things? Do you think the Constitution is a scientific paper? If it is a political and legal document rather than a scientific document, what does scribbling in its margins have to do with science?

//if you are not atheist then what religion do you subscribe to//

I'm a pastafarian. I have been touched by the noodly appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He boiled for your sins.

Nah, just yanking your chain. I'm a pantheist.

Toni Lavis, hmmm, i will try to explain again slowly in plain simple English that you might have some hope of understanding. i do now realise that a university "anti-humanities" education is what your problem is.
1, "separation of church & state" was invented by enlightened, conservative, protesting Christians for enlightened, conservative, protesting Christians. They did not want the Catholic church colluding with government or bringing back the divine right of kings like you do.
2, as a matter of fact i have studied "scientific common sense realism"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Common_Sense_Realism
3, so you don't believe in the administrative, legislative, judicial or any system of government at all.
4, actually i am a deist, pantheist Christian too, just like you said you are.

Thanks for your comments, Yuyutsu. I must have misunderstood. I was of course prompted by what I took to be your rhetorical question envisaging the atheist failing to recognise that she was religious (the homo religiosus thesis), and I was observing that even if that cognitive state reflected an evolutionarily inherited predisposition it would tell us nothing about the truth or falsity of particular beliefs. I took the the true/false binary to be implicit in your image, since a considerable proportion of religious believers are theists, and that theists and atheists seem unlikely both to be right. Yes, of course, I acknowledge adding to what you wrote, but without, I hope, misquoting you.

I am all the same dubious about the view that ‘the truth or falsity of religious beliefs is a separate topic that has nothing to do with the freedom to use those beliefs’. The 'use’ of beliefs includes their instantiation in public acts, and such acts may occasion good or harm. In the latter case there may be well-placed public concern about the criteria for truth of a belief that motivates a harmful act (however the adherents of that belief may wish to debate such criteria), and the state may well need to exercise coercion to restrict the freedom to perform it. Am I wrong, do you think, to suggest that 'social benefit criteria' have a role to play here?

I have to say I found it difficult to see why ‘conditioning freedoms on public discourse’ should be seen as objectionable. Surely public discourse is at least to a substantial degree the process through which the concept of freedoms arose in the first place and continues to be debated. It stands in contrast to command theories invoking divine authority.

Hi Joe

You wrote: 'Karl Popper says that we all have faith, or belief, in something, even if it is just luck, or reason, or the goodness of humanity ... And we can hold those two streams of belief - one rational, one irrational - in our heads at the same time. Popper says that they are incommensurate, that it is pointless to try to debunk one from the viewpoint of the other - one is based on empirical principles, more or less, and the other on metaphysics - each is built on different foundations’.

Thanks for that interesting reference. Stephen Jay Gould’s well known thesis of ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ runs along similar lines. I’m quite open to the idea that there is a metaphysical substrate to atheist and humanist worldviews as there is to religious ones, if only because it’s not possible for us to access and elucidate other than imperfectly the unconscious motivators of our thinking. It’s certainly difficult, I agree, to eliminate the a priori.

This is no doubt why atheists are sometimes said, as the religious are, to have faith. Fortunately, though, ambiguity about ‘faith’ doesn’t preclude exploration of its evolutionary origins. Many of the cognitive biases which were successful adaptations for our ancestors of the Pleistocene might not serve us quite so well now, but plausible explanations of their evolutionary function can help to identify their role in the psychology of 21st century humans and may help to compensate for them to an extent. I’m an optimist!

"supplying the selectively quoted opinion of just one founding father out of context from the rest of the speech or the speeches of any others at the Constitutional conventions does not prove your point or disprove mine."

'Out of context'... no. There are three pages of relevant Commentaries on the Constitution under ¶ 462. “Any Religion or . . . any Religious Observance.” Supplying the annotation quote of the arguments of Convention Delegate Mr. H.B. Higgins whose amended wording of the equivalent section from the Draft Bill of 1891 prevailed and were adopted as the provisions in sec. 116 does prove my point and disprove yours.

Unless you can demonstrate how the phrases "religion of which we have no conception" and "religion in every shape and form" are limited to Christianity.

Now, as much as I'm expecting you to yet again fail to substantiate your claim - what with dodging the burden of proof whilst shifting the goalposts - you'll find it impossible because as you can see on p. 1028 the Delegates were capable of referring to the Christian religion when that is specifically what they were addressing. The absence of such a reference in sec. 116 shows that 'religion' is not limited to Christianity or to Christian Churches.

I think you will find [2.] the "UN-knowable nature of God" is consistent with all theistic religions and most deistic beliefs.

Is, "3, name one other religion that supports the Judeo/Christian God?" meant to be the same question as "1, it is impossible to believe in God unless you are Christian or Jewish." or are you hoping no-one would notice the sleight-of-mouth after you removed your foot?

Weird claim: "4, i see nothing from you denying the separation of powers." Why should you?

Whilst I have the utmost admiration of Toni's noodly appendages, I know he was not being literal with - "scribbling some random political conjecture in the margins of a nation's constitution constitutes a scientific proof" - since he knows, as do I, we do not have an annotated Constitution and that the Commentaries on the Constitution form no part of it and have zero legal import.

ima,etc. you must be heartened that Neil El-Kadomi, the chairman of the Parramatta mosque, expresses similar beliefs to you: "If you don't like Australia, leave".

Toni: "I'm a pantheist." That is such a limited point of view! Panentheism is better because it is all-inclusive.

Dear Pirate,

There is much confusion around regarding freedom, which is often confused with "rights".

Freedom is inherent - we are born with it, one could say that it comes from God or from nature, but in any case it is not man-made. Rights are man-made.

This is why I oppose a bill-of-rights: First, its scope would be finite, limited to the printed words but even more importantly, the one who gives can also take back what they gave.

By "religion" I do not refer to this or that belief nor to any group-of-reference, but to the actual progress towards God (or call it towards Truth, Love or Ultimate Reality, etc. as you prefer), be it conscious or otherwise. As such, religion is more important than breathing, certainly more important than socialising, so how can one subject it to some arbitrary public discourse or to social benefits?

This is not in conflict with the fact that other people also have their freedom to defend themselves and one method of doing so is by forming states. It is OK to defend oneself against harm, but it is not OK to rob others of their freedoms in order to obtain benefits, including "social benefits".

Whether or not the beliefs on which another's actions are based are true, can make an interesting topic by itself, but it's irrelevant to this discussion: all that matters here is whether those actions harm us - and if they do, then we are justified in defending ourselves.

Now various beliefs are incorporated as religious methods or techniques, so what's important about beliefs is not their truth or falsity, but rather their usefulness, whether they work, and that of course varies from one person to the next. If someone's belief that "God is an old man sitting on a cloud" or "God does not exist" or "God should be killed" or "God is a three-headed monkey" helps them to come closer to God, then I'm all for it.

Yuyutsu,

I agree some atheists were hurt in the past by either what they took as religion, or by religion directly - so these people can be upset. If these people do have any (direct) issues, these should taken up with a relevant authority, within any religion as much as possible.

Any hurt of the past really should not be used simplistically to blame or downgrade others (of a particular religion or those with religious principles), particularly if these people had no involvement in any hurtful activity.

Some would argue (like myself) (religious people or groups) are a dying species, like rare native plants or animals, and need some type of basic protection (or reference) in conjunction with others, and not just be put into general line of very basic, simplistic or populist values that will continue to exist in 2015 and beyond.

Many atheists don't like their opinions being questioned or being given preference over others - but even some people (including those who are religious) will take a similar attitude, not show basic respect to values, views and beliefs of others - so a balanced element, re any document (in terms of text) is needed to include references to basic principles, and see some level of equality.

So this issue, is more than a piece of paper, because if people of any nature don't respect others, nothing will improve and people will find others environments to "push their argument".

Dear Nathan,

Religion is not a dying species, it is strong as ever and keeps renewing its methods, so we don't need to be taken pity of like rare native plants or animals.

Some methods of religion are outdated and already served their purpose, perhaps the Abrahamic traditions are such and if so, then they will be replaced by other methods that better suit our current times and environment. But notice that even the Abrahamic traditions keep producing fresh shoots such as the Baha'i religion.

Obviously people need to respect others, but you seem to suggest that a piece of paper can do it. How?

Even under the unlikely assumption that this piece of paper is going to be respected and followed by all and that it will say something along the lines of "slap the wrist of s/he who disrespects religious people", how are we to know who is religious and who isn't?

Who has such skills to look into other people's heart-of-hearts and know for certain, on the one hand who is sincere and who fakes their religion and on the other hand, who simply and innocently doesn't recognise themselves to be religious, but is? I believe that it takes the skills of a prophet or a seer to know that - and there aren't too many of those around.

So I agree with the author of this article, that it's far better not to mention the word "religion" on formal documents, but instead simply state: "Respect everyone!" - this will necessarily include all religious people, thus the purpose is achieved.

Yuyutsu, "Respect everyone"? Really. Paedophiles, murderers, Mormons?
Really? I just cannot let you get away with that. I do not want to harm these people but I certainly want to contain them so they do not harm me or mine.
All very nice being respectful but then along comes islam they demand respect until they are the majority and then all bets are off and its on for anyone but them.
I cannot respect any religion to be honest and think we should write our constitution accordingly. Then if you come here you take your chances. Under age sex charged as such. FGM jailing of the parents and removal of the children. Immams letting mosques be used for radicalisation will get the mosque torn down and the Immam charged with incitement. Same for any religion and all services have to be public no behind closed doors rubbish.

Dear JBowyer,

I really like and agree with your statement: "I do not want to harm these people but I certainly want to contain them so they do not harm me or mine."

(though I cannot see how it applies to Mormons)

This is why I cannot and will not ask you to respect any religion - but only to respect all people.

To begin with, you cannot tell whether the people you disagree with or who seem to cause you troubles are in fact religious. They may say that they are, but why should you even believe them? If you think that the Muslims you describe are religious, then they managed to score against you, 1:0 for them!

While you should even respect those who threaten you, it should not preclude you from pulling the trigger on them as a matter of necessity for your own protection, but keep respecting them while you pull it.

As for what others do among themselves, within their own families, so long as it does not affect or threaten yourself, your family and your own community, it is none of your business so you should ignore it. Once threatened, however, go ahead and do what you need to do... but keep respecting your enemies as well.

I agree with Yuyutsu. Everyone including paedophiles, murderers and religious fanatics should be treated with respect. Respect does not mean agreeing with them or accepting their acts. It means being civil to them, treating them with kindness if they are in custody and giving them the courtesy one should give to all human beings. The fact that they might not respect me does not allow me not to respect them.

I disagree with Yuyutsu's definition of religion. However, it is unnecessary to agree on that point to respect all people.

It is difficult to be kind and respect someone who does bad things, is in your opinion speaking rubbish and does not treat you kindly, but in my opinion one should still be kind and respect such a person.

In my opinion all religion is rubbish. However, I think I must respect a religious person and a non-religious person equally.

'In my opinion all religion is rubbish. However, I think I must respect a religious person and a non-religious person equally.'

Yep David f even you were made in God's image though you behave far from it.

Dear runner,

I am not made in the image of an imaginary entity. What aspect of my behaviour would you criticise?

' What aspect of my behaviour would you criticise?'

David f

The denial of your Creator is very unscientific as well as rude. The clay jar should never deny the Potter. Thankfully however God has given you that choice.

Dear runner,

You have said nothing about my behaviour. Apparently you are bothered because I don't share your superstition.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10065 points to an article I wrote "God is a Human Invention." People have believed in many gods - Thor, Apollo, Mithra, Allah etc. There is no evidence that the god you believe is more real than the other gods that people have invented. Like most people the particular god you 'believe' is probably the one your parents 'believe' in.

Your behaviour is what you do - not what superstition you accept. I do the best I can to accept what seems to me to be the truth. I try to behave with consideration for all others. However, I see no need to accept what I think is nonsense because other people accept it.

WmTrevor, 1, you are forgetting that these are the same engineers of the "White Australia Policy" which was designed to keep all races, religions & ethic groups other than white Christian Europeans out.

2, "religion of which we have no conception" refers to the "UN-knowable nature of God" which comes from traditional Judeo/Christian theology on the nature of God but not from almost ALL other religions that DO have clear conceptions of their Gods.

3, Deism is a sect of Christianity that claims to KNOW the nature of God.

4, so you are incapable of naming another religion that supports the Judeo/Christian God.

5, the church is the fourth power making up our civilized society you lying idiot, but of course you already knew that didn't you.

6, lying again "original intent" is the most important principle in law as you well knew before you lied about it.

7, "atheists" are also in the habit of using satanic imagery, luciferian language tricks & perpetrating acts of pure evil like accusing others of lying while lying themselves as well as abusing children, stealing from the poor.

The view of Hinduism is that while God cannot be conceived due to the limitations of the mind, one can know God directly once the mind is removed out of the way.

Meanwhile, until one is able to relinquish their dependence on their mind and experience God directly, which could take years if not life-times of dedication, it is a good idea to temporarily use some concept and/or image of God for one's worship, as a constant focus and reminder of one's aspiration to experience God directly. For some it could be the Judeo/Christian concept, for others it could be Thor, Apollo, Mithra or Allah and of course there are also a variety of Hindu gods and goddesses available to choose from according to one's personal taste - the seeker of God should choose whichever most appeals and inspires them on their spiritual journey.

Yuyutsu, all that is fine but Australia has a 100% Christian constitution.

ima,etc. 1. Are you redirecting the topic away from the Commentaries and the wording of sec.116?

2. I understand that is your repeated assertion. But I reject it as unsupported by the definitions and usage, then and now, of the words. Plus it logically leads to the conclusion that you must have no conception of Christianity and religion. Which point has not been in question.

3. It is not and even if you meant Christian Deism that position rejects the divinity of Jesus.

4. I am capable of not wasting effort in participating in your special pleading and circular argumentation.

5. "...lying idiot, but of course you already knew that didn't you" I knew the Fourth Estate to be the free press, or depending upon location and time-period Commoners or the rural proletariat. I still think it a weird question that you raised.

6. "lying again "original intent" is the most important principle in law as you well knew before you lied about it." Setting aside my feelings that you are projecting again, the most important principle in law - after the principle of legality (so as to avoid misconstruing any tautology) - is the principle of procedural fairness.

"7, "atheists" are also in the habit of using satanic imagery, luciferian language tricks & perpetrating acts of pure evil like accusing others of lying while lying themselves as well as abusing children, stealing from the poor."

I found your numbering system unclear so if 7 refers to:

"ima,etc. you must be heartened that Neil El-Kadomi, the chairman of the Parramatta mosque, expresses similar beliefs to you: "If you don't like Australia, leave".

Toni: "I'm a pantheist." That is such a limited point of view! Panentheism is better because it is all-inclusive."

I am happy to redress my speculative statement...

ima,etc. you must be disheartened that Neil El-Kadomi, the chairman of the Parramatta mosque, expresses similar beliefs to you: "If you don't like Australia, leave"

Neither pantheism nor panentheism are atheist claims and that bon mot was to Toni Lavis, not you. I am sorry for your misunderstanding.

//1, "separation of church & state" was invented by enlightened, conservative, protesting Christians for enlightened, conservative, protesting Christians.//

Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't; nevertheless a good idea is a good idea regardless of who invents it and it has been around for long enough to be public domain. If the pastafarians, pantheists, panentheists, atheists, deists, Jews, micks, Jedis, Yuyutsuists et. al. think it's a good idea and want to adopt it where's the harm? Or do proddies not like to share their toys? That's not very Christian.

//as a matter of fact i have studied "scientific common sense realism"//

That's nice.

//3, so you don't believe in the administrative, legislative, judicial or any system of government at all.//

Umm, no. Because they exist, you see. Not believing in the Christian God when there is no evidence of his existence is reasonable; not believing in governments when there is ample evidence of their existence - e.g. taxes - is delusional.

//4, actually i am a deist, pantheist Christian too, just like you said you are.//

I didn't say I was a deist or a Christian, just a pantheist.

I don't know much about deism. But you're not a pantheist if you're a Christian and vice-versa: the positions are mutually exclusive. One of the central tenets of Christianity is that God became incarnate as the man Jesus; a belief which is incompatible with pantheist theology. Pantheism assumes no existence of an afterlife, which you won't find in Christianity, and we don't believe in miracles: stuff just happens. If (and it's a big if) virgins fall pregnant and men get up and walk around again after being nailed to a cross to three days, to the pantheist these events are entirely un-miraculous: they're just one of those things that happen.

//Panentheism is better because it is all-inclusive.//

If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

//4, so you are incapable of naming another religion that supports the Judeo/Christian God.//

Baha'I, Rastafari, Samaritanism, Catharism (heretical), Arianism, is that enough?

Hi Yuyutsu

You wrote: 'By "religion" I do not refer to this or that belief nor to any group-of-reference, but to the actual progress towards God (or call it towards Truth, Love or Ultimate Reality, etc. as you prefer), be it conscious or otherwise. As such, religion is more important than breathing, certainly more important than socialising, so how can one subject it to some arbitrary public discourse or to social benefits?'

Without too much difficulty, apparently, as religion has been a subject of public discourse for millennia. If religion can't be subjected to 'arbitrary' public discourse, what would be the nature of a putative non-arbitrary discourse to which it can be subjected?

It would be hard to find a characterisation of religion that did not place it implicitly or explicitly it in a social context, regardless of how it is modelled by individual minds (http://web.pdx.edu/~tothm/religion/Definitions.htm). The many manifestations of religion are typically integral with a social and cultural worldview and are perceived by their adherents endogenously as beneficial vehicles of socialisation. Social benefit criteria may also be determined externally in exempting religions from tax liability

Dear Pirate,

You are right on the point that I am trying to make all along:

Since most people have no understanding of religion itself, what seems to have been "a subject of public discourse for millennia" is not religion, but only its perceived reflection, or the shadow it casts over the social arena.

Since my utmost concern is not about social matters, but about religion itself and the freedom to practice it, I do not even attempt to ask for or expect any public discourse about religion. Instead, I am asking for tolerance towards everything, which would automatically include the tolerance of religion even while most people need not understand what it really is.

The Oxford Companion to American History defines Deism thus:

Deism is the term applied to the 18th century concept which held that God created the world, which he rules by rational laws, and that men are rational creatures, capable of guiding their lives by the light of reason. Deists rejected the claims of supernatural revelation and took no share in formal religious practices.

...Deism was later absorbed into 19th century skeptical thought by such 'Free Enquirers' as the universalist clergyman Abner Kneeland, and into the liberal rationalism of such religious doctrines as Unitarianism.

The above definition of deism is incompatible with Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism. It denies miracles as miracles require a suspension of rational law.

Yuyutsu,

Respect is a very strong term in the English language and should not be used lightly. I think it often gets confused with 'expect'.

The existence of intolerance should stay, but 'tolerate' does not simply mean "live in peace". People should be allowed to have their own views and put these forward.

Listening, reading or hearing something a person doesn't want to, is a often a challenge and a person or groups of people, should not be denied basic rights to address any element, verbally.

We should let elements of intolerance exist but make it harder for intolerance to continue by addressing any matter with reason. I would hope that violence is not part of that reasoning.

Secondly, there is a fundamental difference between respect and tolerance. We may respect the actions that contribute to life and to the planet earth. These actions can express natural values. Others can be based around what people in a community may do and what these people contribute to society.

So in reality, people cannot expect respect for all actions, want or demand them. It is and can be a very selfish attitude. An example can be actions that are destructive. If we accept that, we can simply end up with an ongoing cycle of destruction that goes nowhere.

Dear Nathan,

If respecting others is beyond your capacity, then do what you can - at least tolerate them, at least try, try to "live and let live". You cannot of course do anything about the intolerance of others, but you can work on eliminating yours.

Reason has its limits. Getting to agree with everyone is not required. Sometimes it is not possible and trying to achieve it is a waste of time. It's OK to disagree, but it's even better to agree to disagree.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I disagree that 'agree to disagree' is better than 'disagree'. I see nothing wrong in disagreeing. If one does not have the same opinion as another person one disagrees with the other person. There is nothing wrong with that at all. Disagreement can be courteous and caring. I love my wife deeply. Sometimes we disagree. That's natural since we are two different people who do not always see things in the same. Sometimes our disagreements have been a prelude to argument. The more we live together the less frequently disagreement ends up in argument.

The locution 'agree to disagree' means to me that we must work up a pretense of agreement to mask the fact that we disagree. If any relationship is so fragile that an open disagreement will shatter it, that relationship should be ended.

Dear David,

My understanding of "agree to disagree" is: "we acknowledge that we disagree about such-and-such and agree to neither continue discussing it (between us) nor fight over it".

Dear Yuyutsu,

If one shares a loving relationship with another person one can continue discussing a matter even though there is a disagreement. My wife was married before. One of the downers from her past husband was, "I don't want to talk about it." One can examine disagreement, go into the motives for disagreement and leave the matter when both sides agree there is nothing more to be said on the matter.

My understanding of 'agree to disagree' is that it's a cliché that people use without generally thinking about it.

IMHO agreement is neither better nor worse than disagreement.

Yuyutsu,

"If respecting others is beyond your capacity, then do what you can - at least tolerate them, at least try, try to "live and let live". You cannot of course do anything about the intolerance of others, but you can work on eliminating yours."

In a local community group I'm a member of, I have been placed in a lot of difficult situations, by a previous and former chairman, for over one and half years. I, in no way, have wanted to be rude or offensive during this period. A general principle I take in life, is to tolerate a person (in what I may even see as bad behaviour), simply because I (personally) don't move to lower level in terms of similar behaviour.

That being, if I can't (tolerate a person and their views), they will potentially not tolerate mine). I can't really claim my views are of any higher value than others.

Being denied the opportunity to address intolerance (in the above case verbally) and through reason, before September this year, I contacted a mediation service. Some group members are currently going through this process and this been very challenging. For example, I had a very strong letter, written about myself in a local newspaper (by the former chairman), and have had a lot of responses from others as a result.

I did not reply to the letter, to simply respect that the person does have a basic human right to write a letter, even though I may have disagreed with its content. By letting elements of intolerance exist (and respecting that) puts people in a situation of reconsidering basic elements of life and possibly working together through reason. A denial principle, is not always good re improvement. After all a group or an individual still exists, like in the situation I mentioned above.

Tolerance towards everything does not address the complexities of society.

Dear David,

I appreciate the way you handle disagreements with your wife.

In any case, the situation discussed in this context is not of a close loving relationship, but of general strangers who probably have no interest in each other but happen to be neighbours and must somehow share this earth, hopefully peacefully.

---

Dear Nathan,

<<Tolerance towards everything does not address the complexities of society>>

Tolerance does not imply that you refrain from defending yourself when it comes to being attacked by sticks and stones.

The topic here is the Australian constitution. It's about the relations between people who are forced to live together despite possibly not wanting to have anything with each other - rather than about people who voluntarily participate in a shared activity and want to share a "society".

Hi Yuyutsu

You wrote:

'Since most people have no understanding of religion itself, what seems to have been "a subject of public discourse for millennia" is not religion, but only its perceived reflection, or the shadow it casts over the social arena.

Since my utmost concern is not about social matters, but about religion itself and the freedom to practice it, I do not even attempt to ask for or expect any public discourse about religion. Insteaor d, I am asking for tolerance towards everything, which would automatically include the tolerance of religion even while most people need not understand what it really is.'

With due respect for your private thoughts, it seems odd to be offering a definition of religion ['the actual progress towards God (or call it towards Truth, Love or Ultimate Reality, etc. as you prefer), be it conscious or otherwise] to a public discussion forum while at the same time not wanting or expecting it to be discussed, and in addition to be asking for tolerance of something which is undiscussable whether or not one understands what it really is.

Perhaps I'm just unreasonable for expecting the inneffable to be effed?

Dear Pirate,

Well I could discuss religion with anyone who is interested - but I found that most people are not and I have no reason to blame them. True, many are interested in the social aspects surrounding religious groups and organisations (including such that are only "religious" by name) - some in favour, some against, but rare are they who actually want to discuss religion itself, away from a social context.

Being in a minority, I am not hoping to convince a disinterested majority about the importance of religion, certainly not after several churches and similar organisations (to which I don't belong) gave religion a bad reputation and made the public revolt against them.

Unlike such churches that desire power and specific social consequences, I have no political aspirations: let others do what they like - all I wish is to be left alone by the state, ensuring that religious people are not persecuted and religious practices and observances are never banned or obstructed by the regime of the land.

The biggest danger I see to religious freedom is that, so long as clause(s) of special religious privileges exist in the Australian constitution, the state could ban religious practices and observances on the pretext that "this is not religion". While the big churches are able to fend for themselves, advocate and convince the state that their practices are "religious", those like myself who do not belong to such organisations with strong lobbies, cannot.

In this article, I find myself in "coalition" with the author and others who, perhaps for other reasons, including them belonging to different minorities, advocate general freedom to all in all matters - which would necessarily include the freedom of minorities like mine to practice our religion.

As David F. beautifully put it:

"I disagree with Yuyutsu's definition of religion. However, it is unnecessary to agree on that point to respect all people."

Hi Yuyutsu

I'm pleased to know that you 'could discuss religion with anyone who is interested'. I must have misunderstood your limitations on its discussion. Religion is certainly a protean phenomenon. Even in my limited readings I have found it explored from the perspectives of history, politics, economics, law and human rights, philosophy, experimental psychology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, epistemology, cognitive science, theology, moral philosophy and neuroscience. You would not have to convince me that it's significant. I think you might agree with me that a definition (in the common sense of what we consult dictionaries for), if it is to serve a useful purpose, must be descriptive rather than normative: it must capture the variety of a term's actual contemporary meanings rather than reflect someone's idiosyncratric idea of what it should mean, and, of course, simply to declare arbitrarily by fiat what some term 'really' means is intolerance on stilts. From the point of view of freedom, I'm biased towards function, in that I'm less interested in what religion is than in what it does.

Dear Pirate,

<<From the point of view of freedom, I'm biased towards function, in that I'm less interested in what religion is than in what it does.>>

Did you mean what it does for its practitioner or to other people?

I consider religion to be a bit perhaps like playing golf - something private that is extremely important for the practitioner with only minimal effect on others.

To illustrate an example of religious freedom, take the case of an orthodox Jew who is ordered to appear as witness in court on a Saturday, the Sabbath. The Jew of course would never contemplate breaking the Sabbath and so either he would be physically dragged to court, kicking and screaming or hide for the day and later be caught and imprisoned for contempt of court.

Now if that Jew was part of a larger Jewish community, then the state would likely be aware that this is his religion and schedule the hearing for another date, based on the "freedom of religion" clause in the constitution, but suppose he was the only remaining Jew with no community support...

Well, the same goes for the golf-enthusiast who vowed to play golf all day on Tuesdays. Playing golf is quite complex and you probably need to read a book to really understand it, but it's not necessary to understand the rules of the game in order to respect this enthusiast.

So while I don't play golf, I find myself in coalition with the minority that does as well as with many other minorities who would be devastated if the state were to break what is dearest to them.

I realise, as well as try to convince other religious people, that the only way for us to secure our religious freedom, is to allow freedom of everything to all.

Others (like the author) may want this freedom for other purposes, perhaps in order to carry an abortion or to conduct euthanasia and that's fine - the larger the coalition for freedom, the more secure our religious freedom becomes.

Hi Yuyutsu

'I consider religion to be a bit perhaps like playing golf - something private that is extremely important for the practitioner with only minimal effect on others.'

That's an apt analogy for drawing attention to positive and negative freedoms (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/). One's action having 'only minimal effect' (or indeed no effect at all) on others means that the golfer places no 'obstacles, barriers or constraints' (see reference) on their 'negative liberty', while the golfer (all other things being equal) has autonomous control of her own actions. This is her 'positive liberty'.

'Did you mean what it [religion] does for its practitioner or to other people?'

My view is that what a belief (I use 'belief' here as a general placeholder for religious and similar cognitive states) does for someone who holds it is not a freedom issue if there is no related action involved that can be observed or judged. The holder of the belief is the only one who can decide what it does for her.

As far as its effect on others is concerned, to talk of the 'function' of a belief implies some correlation between a psychological state and an action which is regular enough to be predictive. If sociological, psychological or other investigation reveals such a regularity, the point of interest is whether the correlated actions are beneficial or harmful to others. Harm is the key. A psychopath may never harm others even though a personality profile shows him to be one.

Discussing freedom of religion as a public issue is not necessarily hindered by the absence of agreement about what religion is as long as one is prepared to consolidate it in the broadest possible formulation - that of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (http://www.refworld.org/docid/453883fb22.html) - as a point of reference. There will no doubt always be difficulties for authorities and administrations in operationalising this concept (dealing with conscientious objections, for example), but that's a small price to pay.

'...the larger the coalition for freedom, the more secure our religious freedom becomes.'

Amen to that as a guiding principle!

Dear Pirate,

Thank you for those most interesting resources!

My position on freedom is derived from the spiritual principle of non-violence (Ahimsa), or in its Western version, the Golden Rule: "What you hate being done unto yourself, do not do unto others".

The Bhagavad-Gita (2.47) teaches that we have control over our actions, but not over their results. In relation to other people's freedom, this means that we should strive to never take them away, yet whether others in fact end up with or without freedom is not up to us, so it's not something we should be concerned about.

Thus what counts is not whether or not you have freedom, but the fact that I haven't taken it away. I think this brings us close to "negative freedom", except that unlike its pure model, one is also responsible for their unintentional actions (i.e. negligence).

Nothing, obviously, stops me from also being generous and help you to overcome your other obstacles. In fact, positive freedom is more than welcome - but only within a voluntary society where I have the others' permission to help them. The national state as we currently have, isn't a voluntary society.

The issue of 'belief' is already uncontentious: nobody in modern society is persecuted for believing that they must play golf on Tuesdays. Still, if one acts on their belief and does play golf on a Tuesday when summoned to court to witness, then they will be punished despite having hurt no one - and that's absolutely wrong and unforgivable, unless of course we lived in a voluntary society, which is not the case.

Ordinary people as well as secular government-administrators have no tools to determine categorically whether a particular person's principle of playing golf each Tuesday is religious or otherwise. Only a prophet or a sage could perhaps make that distinction and as we don't have too many of them around, the only way ahead is to have freedom of everything for everyone.

Ideally we would have voluntary societies rather than territorially-based ones, then we could also make different agreements if we wanted to.