What's disappearing is belief in organised religion, its alleged moral authority the size of the Sunday plate offering!

Moreover our charity dollar seems to be going more and more to administration costs than the intended recipients?

Christianity was marked by the golden rule applicable to most religions and cultures, as such had tolerance at its very core.

That tolerance eroded by folks with an obsessive fundamental or fanatical view of God, limited ability to understand.

We all of us, just part of the unified field of energy that's absolutely everything. That everything is energy. Energy that can neither be created nor destroyed, just transformed.

Tolerance, original teachings of it have been massively revised, reviewed, reworked, rejected and edited, until the original teachings, what the master actually said; in plain, common, simple language! Has been turned on its head, thoroughly homogenised with pagan belief/ritual! With some of it set in stone!

Thus we arrive at a time and place where proponents, who by and large serve mannon or evil? See themselves only as individuals/that individualism/aspiration/greed's good.

Even though the Christian message says the very opposite, that one cannot serve both mannon and God! Ditto Buddhism.

Taken literally says, be satisfied with enough of everything, take only what you need, leaving some for others. Ingrained in earliest cultures, as standard practice/conservation!

That those with much, have much responsibility, those with the most, have the most responsibility.

Was those days of progressive conservatism, when the only insurance you needed, was the literal knowledge, when push came to shove?

Neighbours would man up and pitch in, as occurs in many small rural communities today!

A good neighbour is worth more than money in the bank! Quote unquote

Nowadays, it's where can we divide and rule, the city against the bush etc; and six degrees of difference.

Rather than what is it that we have in common that unites us in common cause, against the rest of the world/animal savagery!
Alan B.

Oh, pish! Get a hobby. From a country that kept religion out of most discussions - because we thought it was private - we are now regularly battered with God/No God tirades by people who don't know anymore about the existence (or otherwise) of God than we do. This has occurred since mass immigration and multiculturalism, which should never have happened and, if it hadn't, we would not have to put up with the self-doubt being blubbered on about.

Thanks to mass immigration and multiculturalism, we are stuffed whether or not we believe in God.

I note that the Uniting Church gets a mention here. If you are caught up in the Uniting Church, you are the next best thing to an atheist because your organisation has become just the same as the rest of society.

Paul was a scholar who had his conversion, he claims, on the road to Damascus?

And he brought with his alleged new convictions, all the standard cultural norms of his day and era! And he spoke with his own voice not God's! Thus women continued to be subjected to, goods and chattels basis or mere bagatelle? And that homosexuality be stoned/driven underground or into the priesthood? To be controlled by celibacy?

This then is the reason there is an alleged war most Aussies don't want a bar of!

Given nothing can or will be gained by it, just self destruction. As we saw in Ireland during the troubles or in the centuries long blood soaked divide between Sunnis and Shiites, over the asserted alleged musings, of a Child raping paedophile? [As was virtually every man of that barbaric era!?]

Even so, most of what the latter is credited with? Reflected in earlier subjectively selected, Judaeo/Christian teachings, he seems to have agreed with?

And flavoured by the Christian crusades, barbarism and cultural norms of the day?

Even as a personally entirely illiterate man, who could neither read or write? Along with around 99% of the goat and camel herding population? Needed scribes to "accurately write/record, what he's alleged to have taught?

We don't need a war! Just fundamentalists and fanatics understanding, that they do not know the mind of God! Nor speak for him nor allege what is written ever actually came from him, be it the alleged ten commandments? Allegedly carved in stone and given to a man called Moses on an alleged exodus, from Egypt and slavery?

That as we are now finding out? May never have occurred? All while emerging evidence/factual record, is simply avoided by burying the head in alleged, Paul said, Justin said, Holy Mary, Mother of God said, the gospel according to Mary Magdalene, scripture!?

I'm almost certain God created Holy Mary, via her genetic lineage, not visa versa!

Thus sayth the Lord.
Alan B.

Cool article, sir.
I suppose what everyone can agree on is that there needs to be amazing secular nations, but that English-speaking Christian nations also have a right to exist.

Certainly priests, monks and other church-mens' unusually high level* of paedophilia has led to a religious and wider breakdown in society.

Religion backed paedophilia so frequent, so protected and covered up that the secular Federal Government had to launch a Royal Commission, to clean up these animals of Churches and some notorious High Church Bosses.

* see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_Institutional_Responses_to_Child_Sexual_Abuse#Submissions

"The Commission detailed the number of abuse claims against 10 religious orders from 1950 to 2010; four orders had allegations of abuse against more than 20% of their members.[2]

Percentage of church figures behind alleged abuse, 1950-2010

Religious institution......Percentage

St John of God Brothers... 40.4
Christian Brothers........ 22
Salesians of Don Bosco.... 21.9
Marist Brothers........... 20.4

What we really need is freedom from religion not more of it

Never mind that contrary to all of the christian religious hype the benighted world-view promoted by the Australian and the Murdoch media altogether is completely and utterly god less. Or put i

Isnt that completely obvious!

As such the Australian actively promotes the "culture" of death that now patterns the entire humanly created world-mummery.

Has anyone ever noticed that many/most of the christian scribblers that are featured in the Australian have either direct of indirect links to both the deeply misogynist outfit opus dei and to right-wing christians in the USA. The same stridently self-righteous christians who enthusiastically endorsed the totally un-christian Donald Trump for President.

These 3 references sum up the applied politics that the Australian actually promotes, both in the past and now in the 21st century.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel21.html
http://www.logosjournal.com/hammer_kellner.htm

Plantagenet, the one-eyed King from the land of the blind!

Keese: The most recent was undertaken this year. Instead of asking what is the person's religion' the question became 'What religion do you currently practise or identify with?' The Mccrindle survey also adds an option for 'spiritual but not religious'.

They really should have added a, “Couldn’t give a stuff really.” Option.

Keese: On the other hand, people with no religious belief can have a clear sense of right and wrong and join with Christians as strong campaigners for the rights of refugees and the less privileged.

& join with strong campaigners against what they recognize as a clear & present danger in allowing mahommedeans in to Australia to force us to change our Culture because it offends them.

Keese: What 'God' means differs for Sunni or Shia; for Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox Christians; for Orthodox or Liberal Jews. Religions and countries have gone to war over opposing claims to know what God wants.

The God is the same for people of all Religions. It’s just the Dogma & the insistence of, “OurDogma is better than yours.” That is the problem.

Keese: There are many both inside and outside churches today trying to put into practice what it means to 'love your neighbour as yourself'.

That is correct, but the Religious do go out of their way to condemn the non-religious.

Keese: Yes, there is some militant intolerance on the left, but this is also clearly demonstrated in the writings of these conservative critics.

Some, is an understatement. Most people on the Right are reasonable & demonstrably moderate with a few violent DH’s thrown in. On the other hand most Lefties who show up at Demonstrations are very vocal & violent. They blame the Right for their acts of violence. There are a few moderate Lefties who stand back in the shadows loading the guns for the violent ones.

Of course, as usual, we'll never hear from Keese.

On Dyson Heydon.
Nobody seems to have noticed the irony of the company that he keeps and the propaganda outfit where he gave his speech re how the "elites" have supposedly undermined christian belief and institutions in Australia.

He IS a member of the elite.
You cant get much more elite than a High Court judge!

The outfit where he gave his speech was created by and actively supported by members of the elites both in NSW and Australia altogether.

Probably without exception all of those who attended his speech are members of the various Australian elites. Members of the media (especially from team Murdoch), legal business and commerce, various university professors and academics, establishment "religious" figures both protestant and "catholic", and probably heads of elitist "independent" schools.

1. The survey did have a question ‘I do not identify with any religion or spiritual belief’ and got a 32% response.
2. Those identifying as Muslims make up 2% of the population and the ones I know came to Australia to avoid religious fundamentalism and because they belief in democracy. There is no way in a democracy where 2% can force any change.
3. I find ‘God” a very complex term and, like the word “Love” only has meaning within a particular context, in this case within the practice and belief of a particular religion.
4. Some religious condemn non-religious but the reverse happens just as often – read some of the other posts!
5. We always need to define how we are using “Right” and “Left”. I consider myself centre-left and believe the violent left are as much fascists as the violent right. (But of course ‘fascists’ is itself a loaded word.
6. So you have heard from me.

Ian

Fascism almost always was applied to extreme right wing, Bible bashing, fundamentalism. Never extreme left wing fundamentalism, which manifests as fanatical Godless communism. Ultra simplistic labelling one as the other!? Just doesn't change that!

And neither group able look at and reflect on any credible evidence that proves them wrong!

But like a drowning man clutching a straw, whenever it agrees with a particular, carved in stone, brainwashed from birth, confirmation bias.

We don't need to look elsewhere for cogent examples? Plenty of mouth frothing (Pavlov dog conditioning) here at home!

As for just 2% affecting others. The loudest don't have to be numerous. Just completely recalcitrant, intransigent and diametrically opposed to the belief and culture of the host nation! As thy seek to out breed them and assisted by a simple migration strategy?

Go somewhere else, create ghettos/enclaves! Pretend to blend in while always finding fault, with the host culture/religious belief/conviction and political establishments? And easy enough?

If we have enough self serving, pious crooks in business, our churches and parliaments?

And given that's so? Makes 2% plenty and the host culture easily replaced or supplanted, as has happened in many parts of Asia. Where the domino effect worked just as well for Islam, as was proposed for communism?

The difference? We noticed the commies and their armies, before they got too strong a foothold?
Alan B.

IK: 6. So you have heard from me

Well Ian, You're a first. Thank you for your reply.

IK: 1. I do not identify with any religion or spiritual belief’ and got a 32% response.

"I couldn't give a stuff either way," is a little more aggressive I suppose.

IK: 2. the ones I know came to Australia to avoid religious fundamentalism and because they belief in democracy. There is no way in a democracy where 2% can force any change.

The 2% factor is a debatable point. Look what happened in the fires in Victoria. The Greens forced the Local Councils to stop people clearing around their homes & lots of people were killed. Maybe a bit too far to say murdered. I asked them about that & they said that it wasn't their fault as it was the Council that made the ruling. Little things like Xmas, Easter, Segregated Public Swimming Pools & the like are being slowly changed to accommodate the New Comers because they might or are offended by our Culture for the sake of Multiculturism. & if we don't accommodate their demands, a bomb, knifing or shooting just might cause some (Lefties mostly) to say we should accommodate them. Just incase they ramp up their lone wolf attacks. As in one Lone Wolf breaking away from the Pack every now & again.

IK: 3. I find ‘God” a very complex term in this case within the practice and belief of a particular religion.

Actually I find it quite simple. It's the Dogma of any particular Religion that defines the Religion. Not eating meat, Not eating a particular meat, Archaic Beliefs not relevant in todays world. Flat Earth, Earth Centric System, built in gender inferiority, exclusion from the family & group & Doctrine differences beliefs (which aren't)
Cont

cont
IK: 4. Some religious condemn non-religious but the reverse happens just as often – read some of the other posts!

Yes I know & I have answered some myself, but these replies are usually in reponce to the accusation that non-religious are morally inferior.

IK: 5. We always need to define how we are using “Right” and “Left”. I consider myself centre-left.

On a scale of 1 to 10. One being Left & 10 being Right, is Centre Left a 3 or a 5. I would define myself as a 7. A little right of centre, although I can drift Left & Right according to the Subject, & with-in the Subject.

Religion is fallacy let me get that out there . leaders of religious institutions have take the brunt of the blame for a breakdown in there movements,not moving with the times, because of there conservative principles,letting pedophiles move from one institution to institution,people see them as naive, unworldly,and unsophisticated and untrustworthy,people don't see these institutions as the ethic and moral pillars of society.The Murdoch media Foxtel and the internet are big drivers for a breakdown in society,although l'm an atheist there has got to be a way to police some of the absolute junk that's being feed to especially children.You don't need a God to be a good person

.

Dear Ian (the author),

.

I don’t think the decline in the belief in God has anything to do with the so-called “elites”, as you say. I’m afraid “The Australian” is waging war against windmills if that’s what it thinks. The phenomenon is a little more complex than that. Authority at all levels in modern society is being undermined by a number of factors.

The growth and expansion of higher education among the general public is probably the main factor, combined with improved, instantaneous information from numerous, diversified sources, including the social media, is another. This has had the effect of desacralizing the political and church leaders and their opinions, whatever they may happen to be and whatever the subject.

Scientific explanations carry more weight these days than religious dogma and they’re usually more reliable. At the end of the day, people find that knowledge and understanding are more reassuring than faith in some intangible, hypothetical god.

In addition to all this, the Church has shot itself in the foot more than once by the revelations of its hypocritical attitude, worldwide, to the morals it preaches to its followers, as, for example, in respect of sexual abuse of children - as well, of course, as the various religious fundamentalist and terrorist movements that massacre innocent people in the name of their god. The Church and religion in general has lost a lot of its credibility.

All these factors and many more are contributing to the major undercurrent that is growing in momentum and will eventually engulf our modern societies, sweeping away everything in its path.

It has nothing to do with a few “elites” who, like the rest of us, will have to surf on the wave if they wish to survive.

The only thing that can help the Church weather the storm and survive, is to abandon its traditional, obsolete dogma and make an extraordinary effort of intelligence. Peter Sellick seems to have understood that. He is trying very hard but still has a long way to go and I’m not sure he’s going to make it.

.

To Banjo Patterson,
Thank you for your response. I agree with you about Peter Sellick’s intelligent approach, but he is still working within the Christian framework e.g in one of his posts trying to justify the Trinitarian Doctrine.
I grew up in, and my belief system was moulded by, the Methodist Church and I appreciate this. What I am now trying to explore, is my feeling that we live in a Post-Christian and Post-Religion age and to discover what this means. I do not want to deny the traditions of the major religions but to try to move beyond them. This involves a recognition that despite their claims about “Divine Origins” they are all human constructs. But it also recognises tat there are questions that Science cannot answer.
Ian

.

Dear Ian,

.

The evolution of religion depends entirely on demographic factors such as the fertility rate and the percentage of the population of the age to procreate.

Religion is inherited … or it is not ! As a general rule, those who inherit it, are religious. Those who do not inherit it, are not religious.

It is dying out in the Western world and expanding in developing countries. Islam is predicted to replace Christianity as the world’s principal religion by 2050.

You mention that “there are questions that Science cannot answer”.

That’s true, but the list has to be constantly updated as answers are found and new questions arise.

Who knows what the future will bring ? Perhaps we shall discover (invent?) other sources of knowledge.

.