I disagree absolutely and completely with the Author's (risible rubbish) take in the article. Little wonder church attendances are falling and continue to do so, with less than 15% of Australians claiming to be Christian.
Alan B.

The man resigned of his own choice because he felt
he could not serve two masters - his club and his church
at the same time. He acted according to his own conscience
and everyone should respect the choice he made and not
make it political. If he felt his views conflicted with
those of the club he was to preside over - then he
did the right thing. In any case it was his choice to make.

I am not shocked at all. The Left is tolerant of everything and anyone except conservatism and Christians. Australia is in a very bad way because of the Left - and because of most conservatives who refuse to fight back. To win a fight, you have to turn up, unlike the current leader of the Opposition who didn’t attend the CPAC conference.

A few Christians still resist, but how much longer they will be able to do so - safely - is unknown.

The business of the ALF is sport, NOT woke politics.

"Australia has a long and proud tradition of respecting a diversity of points of view…".

NO! That was an Australia that no longer exists since the Left poisoned it

Here we go again, with this nonsense of "persecuted" Christians. They have the box seat in school funding, unlimited tax waivers, a huge slice of the outsourced welfare funding, and generous provisions to discriminate against women and minority groups, in their workplaces and their schools. Our head of state himself is the leader of the Anglicans.

When it's a religious workplace, they want one set of rules. When it's secular, another. If god schools can fire gay or trans teachers and kids, footy clubs should be able to fire vindictive Christian bigots.

1) The club did the wrong thing in rejecting Andrew.
2) The law should never forcibly prevent people from employing or not-employing someone, regardless whether their reasons (if any) are good or bad, reasonable or stupid. Employment ought to be a private matter between the sides involved alone.
3) The public should consider this club's poor choice when deciding whether or not to continue supporting it.
4) The above assumes that the club in question is indeed wholly private and receives no state support. If it does, then that changes the whole picture.

The man resigned. He was not fired.
He made the decision to leave.
Apparently he felt he could not support
a club that did not match his religious
convictions. Fair enough. His choice.

The most egregious thing about this (we all know what the woke mob is like) is that the bloke resigned. Judas!

The right-of-centre is riddled by people like Judas. If Thorburn had any beliefs at all, he would have fought for them; made the woke thugs of Essendon do the work, not just give in and slink away, further emboldening the loony left bigots (their word) to indulge in ever ever increasing foulness and hatred.

As far as I'm concerned Mr. Thorburn and his ilk can go cry me a river. Until the various sects of the christian religion get serious about changing their hypocritical ways and making amends for the millions of people they have damaged around the world, we desperately need a Freedom From Religion Bill. Why the guy even applied for the job is beyond me. How come he wasn't aware of the club's inclusive policy? It's not like it's a big secret. Please, Mr. Thorburn, go bleed somewhere else

Remember the dictum about how the fish rots from the head down!
Thorburn was once-upon-a-time the head (CEO) of the National Australia Bank.

Where was Thorburn's Christian morality while he was the CEO of the National Bank which was during his tenure engaged in systematic acts of criminality against thousands of its (suckered) customers. He was forced to resign as a result of the Royal Commission investigations into the criminal malfeasance of the "finance" industry.

How come he was not charged with and (quite rightly) jailed for such proven criminal happenings - the criminal buck-passing should have been stopped by him.

Dear Daffy,

«How come he was not charged with and (quite rightly) jailed for such proven criminal happenings»

Does this idea of jailing people (criminal or otherwise) represent the teachings of Adi Da Samraj, or is it just your own?

Hi Foxy

Yes, he resigned, but it’s pretty clear he had no choice. Without the support of the board, his position was untenable.

There are several things about this case that disturb me.

The arguments against him were derived from sermons delivered before his involvement in the church.

Although the views expressed in them were conservative, they were hardly extreme – the Pope has said pretty much the same things about homosexuality and abortion. Many Christians (me included) disagree with these views, but a many do not.

It appears that Thorburn does not agree with the positions propounded in either sermon (as a regular churchgoer I have often heard sermons I disagree with).

The subject matter has no direct bearing on his role as Chair.

It reflects a growing trend for corporate entities to use their money and power to close down freedom of speech and religion.

I support both abortion rights and the rights of LGBTQ+ people, but I also support freedom of speech and of religion.

Hi Rhian,

I'm a bit wary of the man. Why did he take the job
in the first place and after such a short time
decide to resign. Surely he would have known the
clubs stance on issues. To me the reasons he gives
don't quite add up. Also he left the National Australia
Bank in a bit of a fog as well - after a report was done
on him by the Royal Commission.

I'm all for freedom of religion and expression. However
when you're offered a position as head of a club whose
views are inclusive - and your religious views are not
you'd think twice before accepting the job as its CEO.
At least most competent CEOs would.

Hi Foxy

I don’t think there is evidence that Thorburn’s views are not inclusive – quite the reverse. His resignation statement said “I have always promoted and lived an inclusive, diverse, respectful and supportive workplace - where people are welcomed regardless of their culture, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation. I believe my record over a long period of time testifies to this.”

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2022/10/04/people-should-be-able-to-hold-different-views-outgoing-bombers-ceo-releases/

So far as I can make out there is no suggestion that Thorburn disagrees with Essendon’s inclusiveness policy or would refuse to comply with it or promote it.

He is, however, associated with a church where, several years ago and before his involvement, a sermon (which he never heard) was preached that claimed that homosexual sex is a sin. That does not seem to me sufficient reason to say he is unsuitable for the CEO job.

You are right that he left NAB under a cloud, and for that reason perhaps Essendon should have thought twice about hiring him. But it is not in fact the reason he was forced to resign.

Hi Rhian,

We don't know what his personal views are and it is
a shame that this has become politicized. It's also
a shame that he resigned so quickly and did not
wait and see if the Bombers were able to judge him
solely on his leadership and not his faith. Now
we'll never know. He left too soon.

NO! That was an Australia that no longer exists since the Left poisoned it
ttbn,
hear hear !

Sounds to me like his hiring & resignation are part of a sinister plot !

I support the very reasonable views of Foxy and Steve S. And not the conspiracy theories of the nut jobs commenting here.

The man resigned of his own accord and for reasons not disclosed to joe public.

Also, his record as a CEO did not comply, I believe, with bona fide Christian values?

The cage rattling nut jobs, can self-identify with their usual, blame everything on the left, regardless of the lack of any verifiable supporting evidence whatsoever! No ifs, buts or maybes!
Alan B.

If he wishes to do so, Thorburn can take Essendon to court on the grounds that he was pressured to resign for his religious beliefs.

I will happily admit to being uncomfortable about the manner in which the Thorburn matter was handled.

But I do find it a little disingenuous that those who wish to via their faith discriminate against someone who is homosexual then bemoans the fact that they themselves get discriminated against because they are discriminatory.

Personal freedom from discrimination shouldn't be freedom to discriminate against others.

This also is another case of democracy via the wallet which is an interesting phenomena in itself.

Hi Foxy

I agree it may have been better to wait and allow him to be judged on his leadership not his faith. However, as I understand it, this was not open to him – he was given an ultimatum to resign either from his church position or his Essendon position. I don’t think that was fair or reasonable.

Hi Rhian,

Thorburn was appointed to the role on Monday but he resigned
on Tuesday afternoon after sermons by the City on a Hill
church of which he is chairman were made public.

The AFL Club on Tuesday said Thorburn, despite not holding
the same personal views as his church, felt he could NOT
serve in both roles and he offered his resignation.

He made that choice.

The rest is an attention grabbing storm in a tea-cup.
The decision was made by Thorburn not the AFL Club for
Thorburn to resign. He made the decision. He needs to wear it.

Hi Foxy

Yes, he made that choice, but it was in response to an ultimatum from the Essendon board and president David Barham.

"The board made clear that, despite these not being views that Andrew Thorburn has expressed personally and that were also made prior to him taking up his role as chairman, he couldn't continue to serve in his dual roles at the Essendon Football Club and as chairman of City on the Hill," Mr Barham said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-04/essendon-ceo-andrew-thorburn-church-homophobic-resigns/101499074

It was not Thorburn who felt the two roles were incompatible, but the Essendon board

Very many Christian churches have an official position that homosexual acts are sinful, though many members of those churches disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

For example, Australia’s largest denomination, the Roman Catholic church, holds that homosexual activity is a mortal sin against chastity. Does that mean that a person who holds a lay office in the Catholic church is unsuitable to hold a position such as Essendon CEO?

Hi Rhian,

Why did they offer the job to him in the first place
if that was the case as you say? And why did he accept
and then resign?

To me it just does not add up.

To me it just does not add up.
Foxy,
same here. I get the feeling that this is simply a new tactic for either bleating discrimination or undermining something for an agenda down the track. Whatever it is we can be certain it will involve compensation claims ! And, as per usual it'll be those who can least spare a Dollar who'll be forking out for it !

Hi Foxy

The two sermons in question were delivered before Thorburn became involved in the church’s leadership. Neither he nor the Essendon board knew anything about them until Monday morning, when someone drew them to the attention of the media. At this point Essendon issued the ultimatum that Thorburn must either resign from his church position or resign from his CEO position

I can just imagine how a Football Club CEO with normal sexuality would fit into the rainbow orientated organisation !

Hi Rhian,

Thank you for your patience and civility and your
attempts to explain the situation to me. I apologise
for not getting it. I've now read more on the matter
and it does appear that you were right and I was wrong.
The club did put an ultimatum on the CEO to chose either
or. So it was not as I claimed - simply up to him.

The entire matter is an unfortunate one for all concerned.
Of course it is the club's decision as to who they want
as their CEO - but it does speak badly that the man was
not given a chance to prove himself as to the kind of
CEO he would have made. But, I guess in large organizations
the Board's decision stands.

In my view - the man should have been
allowed to stay and prove himself. And only
when his views clashed with theirs could
he have been sacked. He was not given that option it seems.

Hi indyvidual,

Sorry that I misunderstood the entire matter.

This is guilt by association.

There is not one instance of Thorburn posting anything objectionable on any website. He was effectively fired based on his association with an external society.

I see a huge lawsuit coming from this.

I also see Brittany Higgins is being ripped apart by the defence counsel who is uncovering all her lies.

Hi Foxy

Thank you for that. No need to apologise – the media coverage has been a bit confused (I still can’t work out who exactly told the press about the sermons) and both sides of the culture wars have framed their arguments and picked their facts to suit their prejudices. So you can get very different pictures of the events depending on which media sources you go to.

I agree he should have been given the chance to prove his merits, but Essendon had no choice but to respond to the media outrage.
I think a better response would have been to ask him to publicly affirm that he would conform with, and actively promote and implement, the club’s inclusiveness policy; then watch very closely to ensure he did just that. That would be a reasonable thing to expect of a CEO, and if his religious beliefs prevented him from doing that he should indeed resign.

But I think the board went way too far in demanding he resign on the basis of one or two sermons given at his church that he never even heard, much less endorsed. And it troubles me that ideas on abortion and sexual activity which are the official positions of many mainstream churches should render their adherents unemployable, even though I personally disagree with those positions.

Hi Rhian,

I totally agree with you.

In Exodus 35:2, as Israel was about to embark on the work of building the tabernacle, Moses gathered all the people together and said, “For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.”

Since the sabbath in Exodus was on Saturday this would make all people who work on Saturday deserving of the death penalty. In my opinion this is most unreasonable.

Of course his name, Thorburn, says it all. Thor was not a Bible basher but a pagan god. As such he should burn in the biblical hell.

Alan,
According to the ABS 43.9 % of Australians claimed Christianity in the 2021 Census.

Dear David F.,

«Since the sabbath in Exodus was on Saturday this would make all people who work on Saturday deserving of the death penalty.»

Not all people, according to Jewish law (Halacha), only:
1) Jews.
1a) Who know without any shade of doubt that they are Jews.
2) 13+ years of age.
3) of sound mind.
4) Who know of God's commandment not to work on the Sabbath.
4a) They must believe without doubt that this is in fact God's commandment (thus believe in God and in the Torah).
5) Who deliberately worked on the Sabbath.
5a) Their work was in one of 39 proscribed occupations: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/102032/jewish/The-39-Melachot.htm
5b) They knew that it was the Sabbath at the time.
5c) It was not at dusk (when it's unclear whether it's Sabbath).
6) Their work did not involve the saving of life or even limb, nor were they even in doubt that their work could perhaps save life or limb.
7) They were judged and found guilty by the full bench of the Sanhedrin court (which does not exist today).
7a) To be found guilty there must be 2 witnesses who saw them working. The witnesses must be male, adult, sane, not deaf and non-gamblers. Also there were no witnesses to the contrary. There must not be even the slightest contradiction between the details of their testimonies, even after the court deliberately bombards them with confusing questions.

In other words, I doubt anyone was ever executed for working on the Sabbath: death-sentence is only in theory, not in practice - the court would exhaust every excuse and avenue to avoid it, as the saying goes: "A Sanhedrin that executed more than one person in 70 years is called a “murderous” court" - http://advocacy.ou.org/judaism-and-the-death-penalty-of-two-minds-but-one-heart/

---

Dear ShadowMinister,

«This is guilt by association.»

How, when no one was guilty?!
And why should any guilt even be required?
If X does not want to employ Y, then X should not have to employ Y. No reason(s) need be given!
In this case, X was extremely stupid, yet stupidity should not be illegal.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You have pointed the lack of meaning of some biblical law. A law that is never enforced should be cleared from the books as sometimes happens with secular law. however, outside of ignoring religious law there is usually no mechanism for its repeal. Many of the 613 laws that Jews are supposed to observe deal with slavery. Although slavery is illegal the 613 laws remain. Religion often preserves concepts that are not applicable to the current world. Some Jews preserve the clothing that was fashionable in 17th century Poland. They are living fossils. In general Mormons no longer practice polygamy, but there are some sects that do.

Dear David,

«Religion often preserves concepts that are not applicable to the current world.»

Why should you attribute this to religion?

The Bible is the national book of the Jews.
While it also contains some religious wisdom, it is also made of mythology, history (true or forged), civil law, culture, customs, land-title registry, gossip, etc.

People like to preserve their culture for various reasons, not only because God told them so.

And even if the law is not applicable today, some like to keep it in the books because they believe that it could apply again in some future, possibly 1000's of years from now.

Also, Judaism has a system of layered learning from Biblical inferences, so even if a law is not applicable today, it can indirectly teach about other matters.

Here is an example to clarify:

Just like [on paper] there is no slavery today, there is also no temple in Jerusalem hence no sacrifices. Yet the Bible explicitly prescribes particular temple-sacrifices for the Sabbath, from which we can learn that sacrifices, though requiring the lighting of fire, override the Sabbath. Now elsewhere it is said that a temple-priest should even stop their sacrificing halfway in order to save a life. So by combining these two, that sacrifices precede the Sabbath and that life-saving precedes sacrifices, it can be inferred that life-saving precedes the Sabbath!

Had the laws regarding temple-sacrifices been removed, how could we possibly learn that one should, in fact must, perform work on the Sabbath in order to save life?

«Although slavery is illegal the 613 laws remain.»

Yes, slavery is now illegal, but has it in fact disappeared?

«A law that is never enforced should be cleared from the books as sometimes happens with secular law.»

Certainly, but aren't laws normally cleared by the same authority that instituted them in the first place?...

Foxy,

Thorburn was told he could either resign or be dismissed if he didn't give up his position in the church. That is constructive dismissal and in the courts would be considered exactly the same as him being dismissed.

While not an IR lawyer I have worked in business to know that the footy club has wandered into a legal minefield.

shadowminister,

I've just come across the following link.
I'd like your opinion of it:

http://news.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-ceo-andrew-thorburn-isnt-a-victim-he-made-a-choice/news-story/176f9668bb88cf9c161add85a673e5f2

Dear Foxy,

Regarding your link:

I wouldn't like to work for an employer who meddles with what I do outside working hours, in other words, who tries to "own" me outright - would you?

It is strange how Thorburn can have time for both jobs simultaneously, but other than the time problem, there should be no conflict if he worked in both, wearing a different hat when he does each.

While his new employer seems to be foolish in losing both Thorburn and their reputation, ultimately, metaphysically, there are no victims and all we encounter in life is always a result of our previous choices!

Foxy,

Regarding your link to the opinion piece, Thorburn chose to resign. What the article omits is that:

1 - There is no statement, post or article from Thorburn that is even vaguely homophobic, transphobic etc.

2 - Thorburn never hid his connection to the church from the Essendon board.

3 - His "choice" was to resign from the Church or from Essendon based on statements made by someone else in the church long before Thorburn had anything to do with the church.

Effectively Thorburn's association with the church was a dismissable offence.

This was effectively a constructive dismissal. Considering that Essendon knew of his connections prior to hiring him if Thorburn took this to court Essendon would be on very shaky legal ground.

Hi Yuyutsu and shadowminister,

It would be interesting to see how this case would play out
in a court of law. If the shoe was on the other foot.
If Thorburn's views were different from that of the Church,
would the Church still retain him as their Chair - and
what would Thorburn's legal standing be in that case?

Dear Foxy,

«It would be interesting to see how this case would play out in a court of law.»

It should never get there - the bottom line is that X did not want to employ Y, then why should X have to employ Y and why would Y want to work for someone who does not want them, whatever be their reasons (if any)?

Foxy,

There is nothing that Thorburn has said or written that links his views to the views of some of the other members of the church especially since the more controversial views were expressed long before he was a member nor are those views necessarily accepted as the views of the church itself.

Y,

According to you, there should be no restrictions on any employer firing any employee for any reason.

RA tried to cancel Folau's contract based on religious grounds and ended up having to pay him out in full and paying a legal bill of about $1m.

shadowminister,

I am not disagreeing with you.

I am simply trying to see both sides of the argument.

shadowminister,

Do Churches have the legal right to exclude gays from
their membership?
Can private religious schools fire gay teachers?
et cetera. Would Thorburn still be a chair in his Church
if his views were different to theirs?

Dear ShadowMinister,

«According to you, there should be no restrictions on any employer firing any employee for any reason.»

Correct, even for no reason at all. This is called "freedom of association", one should never be forced to associate with others they do not want to be associated with.

RA tried to cancel Folau's contract based on religious grounds and ended up having to pay him out in full and paying a legal bill of about $1m.

Outrageous (not that I know what "RA" or "Folau" mean). If there is a contract then one should keep it, that is a matter of honour and righteousness, not a matter for courts.

Foxy,

Your "other side" scenario is at best a strawman argument as firstly the chairman position is not paid and thus does not qualify as an IR issue.

Secondly, as Thornburn has not made any inflammatory posts or statements and is presumably doing a good job, the Church would not be so moronic as to replace him.

Has the Victorian Premier made an appointment with the governor to resign ?
Surely it is a more important case where the State's leader is a
member of a church that strongly disapproves of abortion and homosexuality.
The bible is very clear on homosexuality that it is a major sin.

Or is this all just another demonstration of hypocrisy ?

Hi Bazz

Is Andrews a practicing Roman Catholic? If so, I agree with you, his comments seem spectacularly hypocritical. The RC church’s positions on homosexuality and abortion are virtually identical to those expressed in the two sermons at City on the Hill, with the notable difference being that the positions are not merely the opinion of a single preacher expressed several years ago, but the official doctrine of the worldwide RC church. And its views on contraception are arguably an even greater affront to women’s reproductive autonomy than its view on abortion.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes “homosexual acts” as “intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law,” and “homosexual tendencies” as “objectively disordered.” In a letter to bishops on the pastoral care of homosexual people, Pope John Paul II wrote that although “homosexual orientation” is not necessarily sinful, “it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

How can it be ok for Andrews to be associated with a church that holds these official positions, but not for Thorburn to be associated with a church where a very similar view was once preached?

Dear Rhian,

Aren't we all sinners?

Can't a Christian, a sinner themselves, hold the view that something is a sin without persecuting that category of sinners?
Can't a Christian, a sinner themselves, leave the resolution of sins to occur between the sinner and God?

Hi Yuyutsu

I think the answer to all three of your questions is "yes".

We are all sinners. We are all non-sinners. It depends which way you look at it. The lugubrious moan, "We are all sinners." is stock-in-trade for the guilt fostered by religion. "We are all sinners." means none of us is perfect. So what! Why should we be expected to be perfect? Reasonably, one can be expected to do or be the best one is capable of. Is that reasonable? It is more reasonable to try to do the best one is capable of. Sometimes we fail at that. Don't wallow in guilt. Pick yourself up and try to do better. My father thought of himself as a failure. He set himself a standard which he was incapable of reaching, and the result was that he was miserable. He suffered from religion. Do the best you can. Ask questions. If you must worship something worship the sanctity of doubt.

Dear Rhian,

«I think the answer to all three of your questions is "yes".»

That being the case, Christianity could not have been the real reason for kicking Thorburn out. It could have been just a pretext and we might even never find the true motive.

---

Dear David F.,

Thank you for your wise words:
1) «We are all sinners. We are all non-sinners. It depends which way you look at it.»
2) «Don't wallow in guilt. Pick yourself up and try to do better.»

Similar words were said by the great sages of all religions.

Regarding your poor father:
«My father thought of himself as a failure. He set himself a standard which he was incapable of reaching, and the result was that he was miserable.»

This is very sad, but your father suffered from depression or some other psychological problem, not from religion.

- Are there not many believers who do not consider themselves a failure?
- Are there not many atheists who make themselves miserable by setting for themselves impossible goals?

Here are some quotes from the Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Jewish Hasidism:

"The ability to be joyous, by discerning the good and joyous within every experience, is considered by chassidim as a biblical command!"

"Better to serve God with joy and without self-abnegation, because such behavior causes depression."

"A person must always be happy."

"Depression, even if due to regret over a sin, is a repugnant character-trait and an immense obstacle to the service of the Creator,"

- http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1211258/jewish/Perpetual-Joy.htm

Dear Yuyutsu,

I knew my father. You didn't. He suffered from religion. He was filled with religious crap about God and sin. It made him miserable. Religion makes not only my father suffer. It makes lot of other people miserable. You make judgments from a distance. You make judgments about people you don't know. He suffered from religion. Unfortunately you lack the ability to see evil where it exists. One place where it exists is in religious belief.

The controversy that's engulfed Essendon is perhaps
a sign of the changing times. A decade or two ago
corporations and their stockholders could have
tolerated Thorburn's association with strong views
on homosexuality and abortion. But not today.

Today, Essendon is a valuable and highly recognizable
brand and it can't afford to be tarnished by any views
that are deemed offensive by a big chunk of its fan
base and the broader community.

Thorburn was given the choice by Essendon of staying with
his church or starting a new career at Essendon - but
not both. Thorburn made the choice of staying with his
church. And it is a choice that should be respected.

Whether Thorburn holds those extreme views is irrelevant.
Thorburn made his choice of which chair he wanted to sit on.

Dear David F.,

With all respect, I did not know your father and all I can relate to are your descriptions of him.

"My father thought of himself as a failure. He set himself a standard which he was incapable of reaching, and the result was that he was miserable."

This is the observation of facts, but:

"He suffered from religion"

is an interpretation of the facts.

«He was filled with religious crap about God and sin»

Since you say so, I can agree that he was filled with crap ABOUT God and sin, but was this crap religious? Why have you concluded so? Only because the people who instilled that crap in your father's mind claimed to be religious? Only because they mentioned the word 'God'?

For some reason or another you are unable to see that those people who spoke IN THE NAME OF RELIGION abused not only your father, but also religion itself, that they did so either out of ignorance and misunderstanding or deliberately desecrated God's name.

When religious people aspire for perfection, does it mean that they must jump up 6.10m high, that if they jump only 6.09m then they are in sin?
Does it mean that they must have a perfect smooth skin with no blemishes, or else they are in sin?
Does it mean that they must have a perfect memory, so if they forgot how many buttons were on the shirt of the shop-attendant which served them 253 days ago then they are in sin?
Does it mean that they produced every possible logical inference from all the facts that came to their attention, else they are in sin?

If any perfection can be spoken of in the context of religion, then that is of perfect love - for God and all others.

Wallowing in guilt is selfish and incompatible with loving others.

The suffering of my father from religion is a fact not an interpretation of a fact. I was headed down the same road. When I went into the army during WW2 I suffered from the same sense of sin as my father. I tried to keep kosher by avoiding eating meat since it had not been slaughtered in a ritually correct manner. One time I was out on the desert with my unit, and we were given time to eat. We had been issued C rations (canned beef stew). The smell as other soldiers were heating their C ration was delicious. I heated mine, and it was one of the tastiest meals I have ever had. As time went by I gave up other trappings of religion such as a belief in God. The more I gave up of religion the more liberated I felt. it was something I did not need.

Humans create imaginary entities such as gods for which there is no proof as a means of explaining a world which puzzles them. I just accept that there are things I cannot understand and feel scientific explanations of physical processes are the best we can do to explain the world. I try to be kind and caring as it makes me feel good and makes others feel good about me. I am fascinated by the history of religion and feel that it has caused more harm than good. I doubt that humans will ever discard superstition as it seems to fill a need. Religion is organized superstition. Like other forms of human organization it exists because it fills a need, but the need can be filled in other ways. The more we depend on religious entities to operate schools, hospitals, employment agencies etc. the more we are enslaved by religion.

Some humans have probably been aware of the enslaving aspect of religion since humans invented religion. Seneca, a Roman said, “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” May the common people become wise.

Dear David,

«I tried to keep kosher by avoiding eating meat since it had not been slaughtered in a ritually correct manner.»

And you must have had some hidden assumption that this was part of your religion, in other words that this practice should bring you closer to God.

It's not for me to judge whether indeed that was the case, but have you considered the possibility that eating kosher was not necessarily a part of your religion, at least not at the time?

Yes, I understand that someone told you so and I'm not even suggesting that they deliberately tried to mislead you, but could they perhaps be mistaken?

The main (but not the only) rationale for kosher slaughter is to avoid eating the corpses of animals that died by themselves, possibly of nasty diseases. Without the fixed ritual slaughter one can envision a slippery-slope ending in eating a cow that died of foot-and-mouth-disease or bitten by a rabid fox. Should one eat such a cow, they would either die or be very ill, thus unable to think of God.

This could have been a necessary part of religion in a different region some 3000 years ago, but was it still a part of your religion in the 20th century, out in a war where kosher slaughter was unavailable?

«Humans create imaginary entities such as gods for which there is no proof as a means of explaining a world which puzzles them.»

The correct purpose of gods is not to explain the world. If some people did so, then their motive was foolish and not a religious one.

«I try to be kind and caring as it makes me feel good»

And possibly even more religious than others who happen to believe in God/gods - wonderful!

«I am fascinated by the history of religion and feel that it has caused more harm than good»

Because you consider that history to be of religion, but is it always so, just because people say it is?

«Religion is organized superstition. Like other forms of human organization...»

Religion need not be organised!

The entire point of the Thorburn controversy is that
Thorburn sought simultaneously to be the public
spokesperson for 2 sets of values that are directly
opposed and can't be reconciled.

Thorburn was simply wrong. Nobody said that he couldn't
hold a leadership position in society. It's been pointed
out that he would not for example, be out of place in
the leadership ranks of the Liberal Party. He could be PM
of Governor General on recent precedents.

He just could not be CEO of a football club that thinks
being LGBTQI is something to be celebrated, not survived.
No goal. No foul.

Dear Foxy,

I disagree: one can wear one hat on the one job and another hat on the second.

A spokesperson speaks on behalf of an organisation, not about his/her personal views.

Never mind - that employer didn't want him, not as he is anyway, so that's the end of the story and I don't care why. BTW, it's their loss alone.

Dear Yuyutsu,

"Being closer to God" does not have meaning to me. How can one be closer to an entity that does not exist?

Dear David F.,

Please let me attempt my most simplistic brief reply, because a full response to your question would be long and can be pretty exhausting:

Physical distance can only be measured because there is matter in space, so one can ask, "what stands between these given two particles?".

But with God there are not two, there is nothing else to compete with God, nothing else to compare God with, nothing else from which a distance can be measured to God.

We too are God, but we don't know it, we think that we are just trifling mortal humans, we mistakenly typically imagine God as huge and almighty and ourselves as practically dust.

In Reality there is no distance between us and God, In Reality we are one and the same, but in our erroneous imagination there is a distance. In other words, that imaginary distance between us and God is made up of ignorance (though it seems to our ignorant mind to be very real)!

Now the amount of this ignorance can increase or decrease, so our perceived distance from God can change. Once we eliminate that ignorance completely, we realise our true identity as God.

The term "selfishness" does not refer to our true self (i.e. God), but to that false petty "self" (sometimes referred to as 'ego') which is made of our ignorance-caused identification with human bodies and minds - so selfishness and ignorance go hand-in-hand: eliminate the one and you have eliminated the other too.

Religion attempts to close the seeming gap between us and God by tackling both - selfishness and ignorance.

Typically, religion, or the process of closing this gap, is long and takes many years if not lifetimes, but so long as progress is made, this process can be referred to as religion.

That which is ineffective in fighting these two enemies that stand between us and God, cannot rightly be called religion, even when it superficially looks like one with all the corresponding bells and whistles.

Dear Yuyutsu,

A lot of gobbledygook, but you still did not explain how one can become closer to a non-existent entity.

Hi Yuyutsu,

The point is not that Thorburn personally believes
he can run a football club that openly welcomes people
which his church, the church he leads treats as an
abomination because he would never impose his own
views on anyone else.

The point is that he sought simultaneously to be the
public spokesperson for 2 sets of values that are
directly opposed and can't be reconciled.

He could be in a leadership position anywhere else
but he just couldn't be CEO of a football club that
thinks being LGBTQI is something to be celebrated, not
survived.

The controversy that has engulfed Essendon is a clear
sign of the changing times in which we live.

A decade or two ago, corporations and their stakeholders
may have tolerated Thorburn's association with strong
views on homosexuality and abortion. But not today.

What personal view Thorburn holds is irrelevant.

Essendon today is a valuable and highly recognizable
brand and it can't afford to be tarnished by any views
that are deemed offensive by a big chunk of its fan
base and the broader community. The club gave Thorburn
the choice of staying with his church or starting a new
career at Essendon. He made his choice and it is a
choice that should be respected.

Dear David F.,

«but you still did not explain how one can become closer to a non-existent entity»

I don't know. I have no idea.

Had we been discussing entities then I would be at a loss, but God is not an entity.
(for our Judeo-Christian readers, I have never read in the Bible any such claim that "God is an entity")

To come closer to God, one should remove the mental obstacles that stand between [what they consider to be] themselves and [what they actually are which is] God, these obstacles which obscure their true identity.

These obstacles are ignorance, its resulting selfishness and their derivatives: desire, anger, delusion, greed, arrogance and envy.

So as to the "how" question, religion generally prescribes a mix of study, contemplation, meditation, selfless service, proper actions and restraints, devotional chanting, prayers, rituals, pilgrimage, etc. The exact best mix, however, varies from one individual to another.

Note that killing homosexuals, burning witches and instilling fear in children, are not on that list.

This is why I wrote you time and again that there is nothing to stop you, an atheist, from being more religious than the Pope and his bishops, Rabbis, Sheikhs and so many other believers.

---

Dear Foxy,

«A decade or two ago, corporations and their stakeholders
may have tolerated Thorburn's association with strong
views on homosexuality and abortion. But not today...
Essendon today is a valuable and highly recognizable
brand and it can't afford to be tarnished by any views
that are deemed offensive by a big chunk of its fan
base and the broader community.»

To rephrase your words, assuming the information you brought is correct, that club is prejudiced, intolerant and has no spine.

In my view this is not a matter for the law, but is a good reason for the club's supporters and spectators to forsake that club in droves.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I don't understand your logic.

Dear Foxy,

«I don't understand your logic.»

Which part exactly?

That the organisation is prejudiced (against certain Christians who believe otherwise)?
That the organisation is intolerant (they don't accept employees from certain churches which have different values, even when they can perform their job perfectly)?
That the organisation has no spine (bowing down to popular pressure instead of standing by their own principles)?
That this should not be a matter for the state and its laws?
That customers ought to avoid such organisations?

Or was it the logic in my reply to David F. which you did not understand?

«The point is that he sought simultaneously to be the
public spokesperson for 2 sets of values that are
directly opposed and can't be reconciled.»

So what? Nothing stops the spokesman from making very different, even opposing, statements depending on which organisation he is speaking for at the time. That is "diplomacy" and some professionals, such as ambassadors, do similar things all the time and I assume that upon accepting this job, Thorburn willingly agreed to act diplomatically despite all the discomfort it might have caused him.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Thorburn felt that he could not continue to serve in
his dual roles as Chair of the Essendon Football Club
and as Chairman of the City on the Hill. The Board
respects Thorburn's decision.

The Essendon Club President, Dave Barham said on behalf
of the football club:

"This is not about vilifying anyone for their personal religious
beliefs but about a clear conflict of interest with an organisation
whose views do not align with our values as a safe, inclusive,
diverse, and welcoming club for our staff, our players, our
members, our fans, our partners, and the wider community."

I have nothing more to say on the subject.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I stated that I don't understand your logic because
you stated that:

"The club is prejudiced, intolerant, and has no spine."
"And this is a good reason for the club's supporters
and spectators to forsake that club in droves."

To me that makes no sense when the club is welcoming and
inclusive and does not link abortion rates to the
Holocaust or consider LGBTQI people an abomination.

Dear Foxy,

My logic was in the most general sense, that a club which is prejudiced, intolerant, and spineless - to such an extent that they are willing to kick out (or whatever you like to call it) a good employee which did nothing wrong, is not worthy of being supported.

I think that for 99.99% of Australian people, welcoming and inclusiveness are taken for granted, abortion is not on their mind except when they actually need it and homosexuality and gender-change are just a no-big-deal facts of life. I can't see why a sports-club should, instead of concentrating on sports, make any fuss of these or even give them a mention - to me this behaviour seems inauthentic and looks more like using the above as an excuse for political stirring.

Hi Yuyutsu,

The club did not kick Thorburn out.
It was his choice to resign. He was looking
to revive his public profile. He was given
the choice of staying with his church or
starting a new career at Essendon and it a choice
that should be respected.

Dear Foxy,

So the club added a new condition of employment, just one day after employing Thorburn, an unexpected and very difficult condition which a reasonable person is very unlikely to accept.

As I said, call it whatever you want, why should I care? I am not looking at legal technicalities anyway because I believe that the state and its laws should not be a party to the private affairs between employers and employees.

«and it a choice that should be respected.»

I believe that we have a full consensus here that Thorburn should be respected.
The question being, should the club also be respected?

If it were me I'd be taking the club and the AFL to the cleaners.
I'd even be taking the protesters to court for religious discrimination.

It seems to me it's not the religious people who are intolerant of gay football players.
- The coach isn't saying that gays aren't welcome to play footy.
Moreso, it's the woke gay brigade saying that Christians are not welcome to coach football.

Either they accept the law of the land that accepts freedom of religion or they don't and get sued - every last one of them.
- It's really black and white.

It seems perfectly fine to discriminate on the basis of religion, but it's not ok to discriminate on a basis of sexuality.

- You can't have your cake and eat it too.

All people enjoy a right to protest, but they DON'T have any right to discriminate on the basis of religion, that's the law.
- All these protesters should be arrested and charged, the club and the AFL should be sued, and Christians should be banding together to pay for legal defense and class action.

Surely the churchies have some lawyers in their ranks.

...and I'm not even religious.

The Christian church has a terrible track record
toward LGBTIQ people. Hate speech and abusive
conversion "therapies" have been used against the
LGBTIQ community.

Even churches that consider themselves moderate
can't underestimate the effects on someone's
mental health of being told there's something
"wrong" with them for their sexuality.

And while some Christians have been at the forefront
of fighting for equality - even more have seen them
as an abomination. We forget that many Christians
are LGBTIQ themselves and some are calling for an
apology from the church.

As a whole the Christian community is responsible for a
huge amount of damage done in the name of religious belief.

While claims are being made that churches fear job loss
over their opinions and beliefs - the weight of current
evidence is that the people who have actually lost their
jobs are those who have been LGBTIQ and their supporters.

In this current controversy - the Essendon football club
gave their newly appointed CEO a choice. He made his choice.
The CEO had his set of values. The club had theirs.
Both deserve to be respected. Screaming persecution or
lawsuits is nonsense and mischief-making.

We have to decide what kind of community Australia wants to
be in terms of religious tolerance, freedom, and genuine
diversity.

Dear Critic,

«Surely the churchies have some lawyers in their ranks.»

You know, one day the demons in charge of hell negligently allowed their fires of torture to exceed their allowed temperature and as a result the wall separating between heaven and hell collapsed.

The heavenly angels told them, "you fell the wall, so you must fix it", which the demons disputed, thus the case came to be heard before the court of the Highest, asking "who should be responsible to fix the wall?".

The verdict? ...It is the heavenly angels who must fix the wall!

Why so? Because all lawyers go to hell...

When injustice is carried out against Christians, they should follow Jesus' teachings.
Jesus recommended to his disciples that if hit on the one cheek they should turn the other: I agree that for true Christians this would be the best course of action. The alternative of engaging lawyers and the state and its prisons would only land them in deeper trouble and spiritual corruption.

«...and I'm not even religious.»

Indeed, which is why you trust in lawyers and courts instead of in the Almighty.

---

Dear Foxy,

«And while some Christians have been at the forefront
of fighting for equality - even more have seen them
as an abomination.»

Yourself just posted numbers to the contrary: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9941#339196

«As a whole the Christian community is responsible for a
huge amount of damage done in the name of religious belief.»

Why should anyone be responsible for the bad actions of others, more so majoritoes for the bad actions of minorities?

«the people who have actually lost their
jobs are those who have been LGBTIQ and their supporters.»

Lost their jobs for what? For poor performance? For intoxication? For picking fights? For absentism? For illness? For business-failure/downturn? that's why most people lose their jobs, so are you suggesting that most of whom are "LGBTIQ and their supporters"?

«The CEO had his set of values.»

Don't we all?
Does anyone even know what his values are? and that they are in conflict with the club's [=making money, no matter what]?

Hey Yuyutsu,
Well if they choose to do nothing when attacked, then being eventually lead to slaughter is what they'll get, and you don't need a prophecy for that.

I have a different take on things.
Lets say someone I cared about was being attacked and seriously harmed.
Should I turn the other cheek and let them be harmed (or assuming I was religious) or should I fight to protect and defend 'one of God's children')

Should I just sit down a pray for God to miraculously intervene?
My argument would be that I have a duty to protect them, even if doing so put's me in harms way.

Now I'm not religious, and I don't know exactly what Jesus meant when he said that, if he did exist, which I don't know because I wasn't there at the time.

"Jesus recommended to his disciples that if hit on the one cheek they should turn the other"

Did he mean don't retaliate, or don't bother protecting others from harm?

I believe that if someone is attacking you, then you have every right to defend yourself.
- After all, you're one of Gods children too, and you have a duty to protect yourself (Gods creation) from harm.

- Now not to disrespect Jesus or religion, but as I stated earlier;
I don't think any of the religions have gotten things all figured out.
I think they're are flawed.

I have family that are mostly all Christians.
- Maybe one day I'll share the reasons why I'm so tough on it.

Dear Critic,

You should always perform your duty.

The question being, what is your duty and what isn't.

There is a certain class of people whose duty is to protect others.
You could well belong to that class, as far as I can tell you even seem to be.

Jesus's disciples were not of that class, they were renunciates, they had no family responsibilities, they aimed higher, thus the instructions given to them were different to what Jesus would have instructed you in similar situations.

People tend to forget that spiritual instructions (including the Biblical ones) have a context - it is not "one size fits all"!

We are a secular nation with a Constitution that
upholds the separation of church and state.

This doesn't mean that you can't join any radical
cult that you fancy and still be a footy club CEO
or a member of parliament. But it does mean that
where your views are out of step with the views of the
club, organisation, or society you inhabit, that club/
organisation/ state/ can choose to either dispense with your
services or give you a choice to select where you belong.

Dear Foxy,

«We are a secular nation with...»

Please speak for yourself - I am not a nation, be it secular or otherwise. I live in this continent in the same way as the people of your presumed "nation" do.

«where your views are out of step with the views of the
club, organisation, or society you inhabit, that club/
organisation/ state/ can choose to either dispense with your
services»

They should have this choice available anyway, at their pleasure regardless whether or not my views are in step with theirs.

«or give you a choice to select where you belong.»

Nobody is to "give me" a choice to select because it is my birthright to select myself whether to belong to anything or not.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Thank you for your thoughts.
I'll keep them in mind.

Hi Foxy,

«where your views are out of step with the views of the
club, organisation, or society you inhabit, that club/
organisation/ state/ can choose to either dispense with your
services»

- I'm really not sure that's how it works.

We have the right to speak our minds, which means you should be able to criticise aspects of a religion if you choose,
- but you can't discriminate against people for their religious beliefs.

So you can say "We don't like or support your religious beliefs in relation to ..."
- But you can't discriminate against people because of their religious beliefs.

Now look at it the other way, the way you usually argue these topics.

That religious organisations can't discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't say that Churches have no right to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation;
- But then say it's perfectly fine to discriminate against someone because of their religion.

Christians can't place an ad or make an offer for employment and say 'Gays need not apply';
Likewise non-Christians can't place an ad or make an offer of employment and say 'Christians need not apply'.

- Both situations are discrimination, whether discrimination because of sexual orientation, or discrimination because of religious beliefs

- And FYI, I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative for the sake of it, (in case you're wondering) it's just the way I see it.

Dear AC,

You can discriminate against people on the basis of their religious belief. Where the religious belief causes people to violate the law of the state, the law of the state overrides religious belief. Where there is a conflict the law of the state wins.

When church and state were united there was no conflict. Certain capitalist aspects violated the precepts of the church. I am reading "Religion and the Rise of Capitalism" by Tawney. One interesting passage is:

'He who has enough to satisfy his wants’, wrote a Schoolman of the fourteenth century, ‘and nevertheless ceaselessly labours to acquire riches, either in order to obtain a higher social position, or that subsequently he may live without labour, or that his sons may become men of wealth and importance – all such are incited by a damnable avarice, sensuality or pride. Two and a half centuries later, in the midst of a revolution in the economic and spiritual environment, Luther in even more unmeasured tones was to say the same. The essence of the argument was that payment may properly be demanded by the craftsmen who make the goods, or by the merchants who transport them, for both labour in their vocation and serve the common need. The unpardonable sin is that of the speculator or middleman, who snatches private gain from exploitation of public necessities. The true descendant of the doctrines of Aquinas is the labour theory of value. The last of the Schoolmen was Karl Marx.”

Neither Karl Marx nor the Schoolmen understood that the speculator or middleman is necessary to make the economy work

Hi david f,

"Where the religious belief causes people to violate the law of the state, the law of the state overrides religious belief. Where there is a conflict the law of the state wins."

I cant argue with that, you're right.

Your book sounds like interesting reading.
But I never really looked in Karl Marx's work too deeply.

"Neither Karl Marx nor the Schoolmen understood that the speculator or middleman is necessary to make the economy work"

Is the answer 'Successful middlemen reduce the costs that consumers pay at retail'?
(I had to dig a bit to find an answer, as you got me curious enough to do so)

Hi AC,

You certainly can't have it both ways.

Foxy,
I'm neither gay nor religious, I have no dog in the fight I told you this already.
So ultimately it really makes no difference to my life in any way whatsoever if they were to ban both religions and gay people.

Considering that I have reasons pertaining to my upbringing that I've never shared with anyone here of why I criticise Christianity, it would actually suit me just fine.

So when you say: "You certainly can't have it both ways."
- You've got it all wrong, I don't care about it, EITHER way.

Hi AC,

Thank you for clarifying your position.
I'm just curious though if you don't care either
way - then why comment at all?

I care very much.

I was raised as a Catholic. But after hearing hatred
preached from the pulit. And having seen the damage
the church has done - I am no longer a practicing
Catholic. I cannot support a church that does
not practice what Jesus taught.

Hi Foxy,
Well I was never raised to be religious, but later I had religion forced upon me because of my fathers remarriage.
- And there's too much there to go into, and I'm not sure I even want to.

Instead of embracing religion, I saw through it and the people trying to impose it, and after a dysfunction adolesence I eventually became more of an ethical-oriented person rather than a religious-oriented person. (which I never really was)

If people have the right to be either gay or religious,
Then both sides just need to learn to respectfully co-exist.
- If not, ban the whole lot of them for all I care.

They don't have to like each other, and the world doesn't need to find a 'one size fits all' policy.

Bulldoze all the places of worship and religious schools with their sometimes unreasonable and hypocritical cultish-like beliefs and the questionable gay facilities with their suckatoriums, glory holes and douching rooms and be done with it.

Hi AC,

Live and let live - as long as it doesn't hurt anybody.

But to demonise anybody? No thanks.

Any way - I take people as I find them.

Again - thank you for sharing.

You may like this quote:

I'm a multi-tasker.

I can listen, ignore, and forget
All at the same time.

Dear Foxy,

We have the New Testament to tell us what Jesus taught. From that source I think some of his words and actions are questionable.

Mark11:12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.

Cursing a tree because it did not bear fruit out of season seems nutty to me.

Matthew 12:30 "Whoever is not with Me is against Me…”

I don’t want to be a follower of Jesus. However, I don’t want to be an enemy of him or his followers. However, his words make those who are not followers of Jesus an enemy. Those words are a statement of intolerance and I think have an impetus for aggressive missionizing and imposing Christianity on non-Christians where Christian rule has been applied to a non-Christian population.

Matthew 10 contains the following: [34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. [35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. [36] And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. [37] He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Why should there be a conflict between a religious leader and a love of family? Why can’t they both be loved without questioning who comes first?

I have read Christian apologies for the above explaining how they really mean something else. They have to be read as allegories or with hidden meanings. The words sound wrong and ugly to me.

Dear David f.,

In all honesty I am not all that familiar with
the Bible. And I prefer to think of only the good
bits that I was taught as a child. However as I
said - I don't go to church regularly and I tend
to live in my own little bubble - where everyone
loves each other. It works for me.

Dear Critic,

«Christians can't place an ad or make an offer for employment and say 'Gays need not apply';»

Well why not?

Being gay is a political orientation, not a sexual one - most homosexuals are not gay but rather live their lives peacefully and enjoy their sexual activities without disturbing anyone, whereas most gays are not homosexual and would never in fact even contemplate having sexual relations with their own gender in person.

So what is wrong about an employer telling prospective employees that their radical political ideas and expressions are not welcome in this workplace?

To make this both legal and clear for everyone, an employer could add: "(homosexuals are welcome to apply so long as they are not gays)".

«Likewise non-Christians can't place an ad or make an offer of employment and say 'Christians need not apply'.»

Pity the uninformed Christians: why should anyone want to take up a job in a workplace where they know in advance that they would not be wanted, where their employer would be picking on them for excuses to fire them the following day?

ANYONE should be able tell openly and honestly exactly what they are truly looking for, then honest negotiations can take place and agreement may be reached - or not and then no time and anguish is wasted!

«"Where the religious belief causes people to violate the law of the state, the law of the state overrides religious belief. Where there is a conflict the law of the state wins."

I cant argue with that, you're right.»

But I can:

The law of the state only wins in the eyes of the state and the secular human courts it established.
But what are they anyway? just a bunch of bullies!
Did the state design the laws of the universe? Did they set the planets in motion?
Yes, at present these bullies can destroy your body, but their gains will only be temporary, eventually they will be destroyed, eventually they shall lose and the righteous shall eventually win every time, even if that needs to be past the grave.

Dear David F.,

«We have the New Testament to tell us what Jesus taught.»

No, we have the New Testament to tell us at best, some of what Jesus' disciples understood and remembered of Jesus' teachings and actions, but possibly just what others which the disciples spoke with understood and remembered from what the disciples told them that Jesus taught.

---

Dear Foxy,

«I don't go to church regularly and I tend
to live in my own little bubble - where everyone
loves each other. It works for me.»

Good on you!

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” [John 13:34-35]

May God bless you, Foxy.

Dear Foxy,

Enjoy your little bubble.

I live in a different one. I have become more horrified by religion as I grow older. I regard it as a relic of a pre-scientific age. I look upon Marxism as a variant of Christianity with its belief in a classless millennium and its three stages of human development - Humans living peacefully in primitive communism analogous to Eden - humans living in class struggle analogous to religious struggles where humans don't en masse accept the "true religion" and finally humans reaching the millennium of the classless society in advanced communism analogous to the religious millennium. The idea that we will reach some sort of millennium is a denial of reality.

Humanity will not be free from horrors even if religion and Marxism are discarded. However, I think it best to be realistic. Look not at just the good bits, but try to get a comprehensive view. None of us will get out of this world alive, but we can try to be kind.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "No, we have the New Testament to tell us at best, some of what Jesus' disciples understood and remembered of Jesus' teachings and actions, but possibly just what others which the disciples spoke with understood and remembered from what the disciples told them that Jesus taught."

Possibly, there was no Jesus at all. Possibly, he was a composite figure embodying legends that were around in his time. Possibly, I have no business citing an unreliable document. Please forgive me.

Thank you Yuyutsu and David F., for your comments.

They are appreciated.