Pogi: 'So mark my words, runner, you shriveled twerp, call down the rage of the heavens upon my refusal to relinquish intellectual independence'

runner: "your so called intellectual independence is about as intellectual and independent as a primary school student. You are one brainwashed cookie."

I yield to runner's scintillating eloquence and unerring relevance. Note good Reader how he strikes at the very heart of the matter and in righteous dudgeon names the culprits........primary school students!! May I observe that we are in the company of great courage, a standard-bearer deserving the tribute of a supple knee from those of us fortunate enough to bask in the light of the Presence!

After careful reflection, I divine that this noblest of characters is not too keen on cookies [biscuits] either.

DreamOn, I thank you for your kind words. T.B.Reed is not one that leaps to mind when one calls up names of U.S. political heroes. I recommend that interested readers research him via Google. In a milieu renowned for a poverty of advancement and development in government, Reed is a true hero.

"The greatest threat to human intellectual independence comes not from the evangelising zealot or the smug self-assurance of a bishop but from the indifference of the lazy cynic. This individual is the true intellectal coward. He doesn't trust himself to make the right decision"..........Pogi

Doubt this a minor addition or amendment to Section 116.

IF passed is likely to redefine Australia as a secular nation with serious consequences.

High Court will soon enough be making judgments to uphold secular values over religious values.

Activities in many areas mostly depend upon religious organisations and associations, these once largely privately funded due tax deductions soon enough will be stripped of taxation benefits.

Then other legal exemptions, eventually restricting activities with even religious cosmetic covers.

Is Australia really secular, or ethical, enough to replace what will be rejected for being religious - without civil disturbance ?

.

Polpak writes: "Is Australia really secular, or ethical, enough to replace what will be rejected for being religious - without civil disturbance ?"

If we examine the historical aspects raised by this question we become aware of the dreadful conflicts that arose over the burgeoning christian heretical sects that vied with each other for pre-eminence until, after a millennium of blood-letting and the most brutal of oppression, roman catholicism finally raised its standard on the mountains of stinking corpses, triumphant and casting its gaze about for victims upon which it might exact divine revenge.

So, polpak, are you in fear of another millennium of the same if public expressions of religious attachment give way to expressions of a secularist, gnostic or atheistic allegiance?

Perhaps you might answer one question for us: When have you witnessed entire cities and nations being aroused to paroxysms of hate and brutality by appeals to secularist, gnostic or atheistic ideals? It's true that christianity even boasts about it and lauds the bloodiest genocidal expressions of faith from earliest times in its holy book, the bible.

I can assure you that should your prospective "civil disturbance" eventuate then its source can be confidently predicted. It will spring from the defence of entrenched privilege and political power.

it would not be the first time that the christian church used total war as a means of reasserting power.