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.