Even Stalin loosened the strings on religion when the Nazi Germans invaded as he was desperately happy to enlist the Orthodox Church and Russian nationalism into the war effort, but once the war was over he tightened the strings again.

Towards the end of the article, the author is flattering Christianity because he finds himself in a similar position: let us not be deluded by his expressions of "love" and reconciliation, and let us pray that we continue to have a Muslim minority in Australia (remaining a minority of course), for all other religions are in the author's second firing line.

I think it's time to have a good hard look at religions.
- Since we support the right to 'Freedom of Religion' we should look at them in depth.

We should start with an overview of all religions outlining each belief system.
Their beliefs AND aspirations.

For each religion what aspects are benevolent and which aspects are malevolent?
We can use secular ethics to figure it out.

Which promote acts of a criminal nature against established national laws?

What do religions agree on and what do they disagree on?
Will there be a likely clash of religions?

Compile all the info up in a small book 'Religions for Dummies' and then get back to me.

To Armchair Critic.

What are "secular ethics?"

I agree that an indepth approach to religion should be done. Each religion considered it's own investigation, and to investigate one, should mean to investigate it it well. Instead I see religion in the same line as politics. The topic that is brought up rarely, and usually only to those who already agree with your beliefs. Outside of that and the topic gets heated. Not a good topic among strangers or on the job site.

One thought on investigating a religion. If you have two groups pooling their insights and observations you might have a better snapshot of an "in-depth investigation." The first group would be from those within the religion. These would be the experts of their own subject. They don't have to actually be experts but their insight from inside the religion is worth it for any accurate investigation. The second group would be those outside of the religion. This group is the one to see if there is any truth from the first group, or if what they hear matches what they see from that group.

It's worth noting that many comparative religion books are written about other beliefs from someone who does not belong to them. These books don't get it right on their short discription of each religion. How could they? They aren't part of the religion and usually try to fit a discription into a small paragraph. Possibly two paragraph description.

On that note though I should ask again. What are secular ethics? If secular ethics is a thing then secular thinking and philosophies should be just as investigated. I know that many of those are not worth considering, but they are common without much thought going into them. Becomes the "it's just the way the world works" excuse instead of acknowledging that the lack of ethics in real life that are the common in the UN-investigated secular world of business, politics, entertainment and about everything else.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Bring on an investigation of religion. I encourage you to not wait for some one else to do it for you either. But also while doing this have a thought on secular positions and ethics. (Not just your views, but secular views and secular ethics as a whole as well). A much needed investigation on secular beliefs, aspirations and dangers should be done. Regardless if freedom of religion is the topic or not.

'Compile all the info up in a small book 'Religions for Dummies' and then get back to me.'

and then there are the secular deniers who are anti science, anti commonsense and amoral simply because they are dishonest enough to deny their Creator. No wonder they produced, Mao, Stalin and now murder countless babies. What are sick deluded ideology secularism is. Certainly cousins to Isis.

Hey Not_Now.Soon,

What are "secular ethics?"

Well you kind of got me there;
I didn't watch the whole 5 and a half hour video.
- But let me assure you it most certainly is a thing.

Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics
http://youtu.be/vZvTXFxPwb0

Maybe it's best I explain what it means to me.

In my mind, I suppose I sum it up by saying:

Religion holds no moral authority over 'ethics in it's own right'

To me it's this kind of idea that you already have a conscience and know the difference between right and wrong and understand to treat others the way you'd like to be treated and that there's a right and wrong way to go about doing things;
And that you don't need religion to teach you this.

That actions have consequences
That ends don't justify the means
That there's 3 truths yours, mine and the real truth...
To have wisdom and see the bigger picture

I don't know exactly.
But I could use his knowledge to pick apart the religions and decide which beliefs hold merit and are morally correct and which ones aren't.

It's a kind of idea that you can know the difference between right and wrong withing needing to be religiously oriented.