Dear David F.,

Well obviously democracy is a farce - no people in the world are allowed by states to control their own fate.

Even the idea of democracy is silly - it is said to be majority-rule, but majority of what?
They bundle you up with an arbitrary cohort, then claim that a majority of that cohort can make the rules which bitterly affect your life, but what have you to do with that particular cohort of people you don't even know, let alone ever chose to associate yourself with? They have been added without your permission in order to dilute your vote and render it insignificant. Why just people, and why just over 18 years of age? They could have done anything, they could just as well add all cats and dogs to that count if it advances their interests, then maybe appoint a human of their clan as their "guardian" to represent their interests... mice too, and kangaroos of course, cockroaches, mosquitoes, ants, even animals that appear only in their dreams - why are their interests not equally represented, why won't they have the same voice/vote as yours?

So this whole talk of "democracy" is very relative, but even according to the rules of that particular game, Israel, with all its faults, is (or was till now) relatively more democratic than Australia.

Why? because in Israel, all those who vote (i.e. Israeli citizens, at least them) have an equal vote each, whereas in Australia the power of any citizen's vote depends on where they happen to reside - given two neighbours opposite the same street, one can have a significant vote because their side of the street happens to be in a marginal electorate, while their neighbour lives in a different electorate and knows in advance that their vote can make absolutely no difference. Also in Australia, prisoners cannot vote, as to challenge the laws that placed them in prison to begin with - in Israel they can!

[continued...]

[...continued]

«I don't think any country can be a democracy if it represents only part of its population.»

So in Australia, even according to the rules of that game, only the citizens who live in marginal electorates can be realistically represented.

«Israel cannot be both a Jewish state and be a democracy.»

Correct, but there are no democracies anyway.

«I don't believe that Australia is a democracy while there are Christian chaplains in the state schools.»

And even if there weren't chaplains there, it still wouldn't be a democracy... but how did you logically arrive at this conclusion? One could similarly claim: "a state that allows its school-children to have strawberry ice-cream at breaks cannot be a democracy".

«A democracy must keep hands off religion»

All states must keep hands off religion, be they democratic or not.

«and in a democracy religion must keep hands off government.»

Ditto. Religion must keep away from all regimes like from fire, democratic or otherwise.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "And even if there weren't chaplains there, it still wouldn't be a democracy... but how did you logically arrive at this conclusion? One could similarly claim: "a state that allows its school-children to have strawberry ice-cream at breaks cannot be a democracy".

You have just exposed how shallow and senseless your arguments are.

Dear David F.,

Care to explain?

One could claim, "if a state does not provide me with ice-cream then it is not democratic".
Another could claim, "if a state allows people to have ice-cream then it is not democratic".
One could claim, "if a state provides a fire-service then it is not democratic".
Another could claim, "if a state fails to provide a fire-service then it is not democratic".

One could claim, "if a state fails to provide religious services in its schools then it is not democratic".
While you claimed, "I don't believe that Australia is a democracy while there are Christian chaplains in the state schools."

The common point in all these cases is that people sometimes claim at whim, irrationally, "if a state doesn't behave as I like then it is not democratic".

I happen to agree with you that there should be no Christian chaplains in state schools (and off-topic, I believe there should be no state-schools anyway), nevertheless, for the life of me I cannot see how this is possibly connected to democracy or its absence.

Yes, I happen to believe that there should be no state-schools, but that does not translate into believing that states that do have them are democratic or undemocratic.

You know, in your country of origin, many people claim: "If the state does not allow me to have guns then it is not democratic"...

Dear Yuyutsu,

It is a legitimate function of religion to rouse human conscience, to appeal to a sense of right and wrong even though religions do not agree with each other on what is right and wrong.

When religion gets benefits from the state or serves the state in other ways it is no longer free to criticise the state when the state is doing wrong. Religion cannot serve the state and also be free to criticise it.

Dear David F.,

«When religion gets benefits from the state»

Can one jump naked into the ocean, yet remain dry?
Can one enter an active volcano, yet remain alive?
Can one enter a black hole, yet remain visible?
Can one (including even Santa) climb down a sooty chimney, yet remain clean?
Can a religion accept benefits from the state, yet remain a religion?

«or serves the state in other ways it is no longer free to criticise the state»

Religion serves people. If the state is also accidentally served in the course of serving the people, that is too bad but has no resemblance to the case of accepting state benefits.

In any case, religion can offer positive criticism to correct devotees who are in error and seek its guidance, but it is none of its roles to criticize other people or institutions who have no interest in God.

Maharishi Patanjali summed up the attitude of the religious towards others (thus the roles of religion) in the following aphorism:

"In relationships, the mind becomes purified by cultivating feelings of:
1) friendliness towards those who are happy,
2) compassion for those who are suffering,
3) goodwill towards those who are virtuous, and
4) indifference or neutrality towards those we perceive as wicked or evil."

[Patanjali Yoga Sutras, 1:33]
http://www.swamij.com/yoga-sutras-13339.htm#1.33