Secular does not mean anything goes. Australia like most free countries in the western world has its constitution based on Christian principles. Therefore observance of prayer in parliament, Christian holidays, judicial system, etc..., are all affected at least morally by Christianity.

Having said that I sympathise with Syed and his difficulty in explaining and accepting the fact that the minorities have to ‘suffer’ when not in a majority surround.

One suggestion is to allow discretional “holy days” to be taken by individual religions and sects. The chaotic outcome may be balanced by increased productivity (happier workers) and a better sense of community.

But until then majority rules.

Syed: A 'sneaky?' way to get pagan islam into the schools it seems to me.
What's to stop you taking your children out of schools for your special days?
I bet if the school explained Christmas/Easter or whatever about the Christian faith to ALL students there would be an outcry from you people.
Yet it appears that you want this day perhaps taught to ALL children. Not to convert or confuse of course? but just using your freedom of choice, freedom of religion and promoting religious togetherness - Oh yes Syed.
You people forget that most of us can see daily the brutality, filth, corruption and dictatorships of 99% of islamic nations. We do not want this totally evil, depraved system here in this country.
We value democracy, freedom and the right to choose our religion which very few islamic nations grant.
Just imagine if islam RULED in this nation. A special tax on non-islamics. Women denegrated to third class citizens all wearing burkas. Their word in the courts less than males, it's two females to one male isn't it Syed. No non-islamic religions allowed to proselyte. No keep islam right out of our schools it's so un-Australian, so brutal so pagan. numbat

Syed, I would guess you are from Pakistan or at least have Indian/Pakistani racial heritage, but.. by your name Syed, it also signifies you are a blood descendant of Mohammed !
Putting those two things together, one is reminded of a lot of very bloody soaked history which took Islam to India and produced your own genetic make up.

Enough about that. An important point. The 'secular' aspect of most western society and the consitutional tones of 'Congress/Parliament will not enact any law which establishes a particular religon" in my reading of it, was more about the divide between Catholicism and Protestantism, than 'Religions and Secularism'.

One needs to understand the historical and cultural mood of the time those documents were raised. The underlying assumption was that we are 'Christian' in heritage, but it would be most dangerous to establish one 'brand' of Christianity as that of the State.

But be under no illusion that the frame work and cultural background is very real even today, of Judao/Christianity as our national foundation.

CULTURAL CLASH
Another important point you raise (thankyou) is the different understanding that children TODAY have when they are told our state is 'secular'. Most likely those of non European/English background will react as you described the child asking "Why can we not celebrate Eid" as a holiday etc..

Now this point touches on the most CRUCIAL aspect of the whole multicultural/immigration debate. It ignores the points I made above, and assumes that we have no cultural/religous framework that underpins pretty much all else in our society.

NEED FOR HISTORY
The very FACT that children can ask this question, is something which places the full force of our focus on the need to revisit Australian HISTORY and its teaching to all levels in schools. INCLUDING private religious schools.

PRE-EMINENCE OF JUDAO/CHRISTIAN CULTURE in Australia
Minorities are welcome to celebrate their specials occasions, just not as separate public holidays. We don't supress your culture, we simply protect the pre-eminence of ours as you would in Pakistan or wherever.

"Here", you are 'dhimmis' :) be thankful for what you have.

Hey guys, I'm back from holidays.

I just googled "Australia's Christian heritage". One particular site by Col Stringer was quite enlightening, a good read for those who wonder how a secular state can have such strong Christian affiliations.

At the end of the day, we are a federation "humbly relying on the blessings of Almighty God" (according to our constitution), but everyone has the right to practice their own religion.

Numbat, I think what you just wrote is entirely uncalled for. Sorry mate, I don't think that's what Syed was trying to bring across.

Anyway, whenever anybody wants to influence for their point of view in a democractic/majority-rule society, the rest of the society must judge that view based on its merits and on its underlying philosophical assumptions.

I recommend "The battle for truth" by David A. Noebel. It examines 6 major worldviews: Secular humanism, cosmic humanism (which includes the New Age), Islam, Marxism/Communism, post modernism and Biblical Judaism/Christianity. The study goes into their philosophical/theological points of view, and then into how that effects their views on: ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics and history. Similar studies can be found online and are important to understand in maintaining a cohesive but diverse Australian society.

Syed, your central argument is probably correct however the tone of the article does not seem to give a lot of credit to the western nations for the effort that they have put in to get as far as we have done. Not perfect but we are giving it a pretty good go against some stiff opposition.

Likewise I believe that we are still in a period of transition which is often a time of turmoil, that does not necessarily mean that our society is going down the gurgler. We need to find new ways of teaching children respect for others, the law etc without using the God's gonna get you approach. We are still finding our way through the boundaries of individual freedom vs the impact of an individual exercising their freedom on the freedoms of others. We are trying to do so in the face of individuals who believe that they have a devinely ordained right to decree how others should live. To their credit many thinkers from a variety of religions including Christainity, Islam and Hinduism are strongly involved in this.

We will continue to make mistakes as we go forwards, some things may get worse before they get better but where we are heading is worth the pain. Are you with us?

R0bert

"However in the West, where Christianity is the major religion, the rulers tried to compromise between day-to-day affairs and the practices of the faith. They decided to include some of the values of their religion (Christianity) in the making of the rules of their version of a secular state."

We live in a democracy - our government is elected - it does not 'rule' or make decisions based on their own versions of a secular state (theoretically!). Of course the majority will have a greater say in how things operate - that is how it should be.

Yep
You're right Syed.
Here's an answer: Let's ban all public holidays. Whew no more penalty rates!

I agree with the article, there is no such thing as 'secularism' - thank God.

We live in a liberal democracy that is based upon the idea of the inherent worth and value of the individual. This is a direct result of the influence of Protestant Christianity in Great Britain and its ex colonies, including the USA.

For an excellent discussion of this jump to

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/spirit/stories/s1554286.htm

which is 'The Spirit of Things' on Radio National, this program discussing the church and state. The transcript hasn't appeared yet but you can listen to the audio.

Kevin Rudd and John Anderson both provide cogent arguments as to why a Christian MP should not leave his or her faith outside the door of the Parliament.

Also why Christinity (and not multiculturalism) is the bedrock of a liberal democratic form of government.

Syed Atiq ul Hassan, An excellent article that is well thought out. I agree with you about the glaring difference between what is supposedly a secular state, yet is under the control of a specific religion.

The problem, is that we have to get over the metronome mob, to have any chance of a satisfactory outcome, not much chance of that I'm afraid.

There is only one answer for this country, remove all aspects of religion from our parliaments, restrict religious teaching and practices to places of worship. To satisfy everyone, we should allow each religion a couple of days a year to celebrate and make them universal holidays, that everyone can enjoy.

There is no other option, other than to follow the current path of all religions into despotic conflict, which it appears you are all champing at the bit to get into.

Syed

I enjoyed you article, I note that the usual "Islam is evil posters" will disagree with anything you have to say.

I must point out that our head of state Queen Elizabeth II is also the head of the Anglican Church and has the power to dismiss an elected Government in Australia. I admit that this power in limited by convention, but it could theoreticlly happen.

If we have to rely on the head of a major religion for stability in our parliaments how can we claim to be a secular society. Britain the supposed source of all things good, does not pretend to have a secular state. It has a state religion.

Alchy.

Of course we need to remove religion from politics, but this unfortunately is impossible. From Mannix to Pell to Hillsong politicians need votes.

We could start by making groups like the lyons forum illegal, or at least make them publicise their membership. I do not like being ruled by 15 front benchers who meet once a week to pray and plot.

The fact that certain national holidays fall on Christian holy days may have initially been a "non-secular" idea but they have since been hijacked by the Gods of Secularism, Santa and the Easter Bunny. That those of Christian faith celebrate the birth of their Messiah on the 25th, and His resurrection during the Easter period is now just coincidental and the terms "Christmas" and "Easter" are now nothing more than advertising slogans.
So don't feel too bad that your Islamic or Hindu holy days are not acknowledged with public holidays because they would likely receive the same bastardisation.

Dear anti-christian secularists,

You are so irritably allergic to any christian notion that maybe you deserve the alternative religion that is coming to you sooner than you know.

Can you afford to wait to prove us wrong?

In an islamic dominated state your head will be rolling in the gutters faster than you can utter ridicule. If you are not sure ask a true muslim how much they tolerate atheists, humanists, animists and so on...at least they are told to respect the people of the book (Jews and Christians) not that this is much comfort I can assure you…

It is fun perhaps for you to dream of an Areligious state but that is not to happen... there will always be a dominant religion - the question is which one??

I hope and pray that our politicians are taking note of these opinions and are deeply moved to reality; start approaching the situation wisely instead of their tiptoe don’t offend them rituals.

Islam loves a secular country especially if it is pro multiculturalism. We might as well present it (oz) to them now and avoid the suspense.

"As a matter of fact, the extreme division among the people, who are in today’s terminology known as fundamentalists and moderates, are the consequences of the ideology of combining Islam and the secularism of the West."

In other words, the secularity of the West is to blame for all the ill's of morally bankrupt countries such as Pakistan. Give me a break..

Are the heinous Hudood laws (the requirement for a woman who has been raped to have 4 males witnesses to the incident before her word will be accepted in a court of law - elsewise she may be charged - and jailed for years - with adultery), or the Vani traditions (where daughters, pre-teen, are 'given' in 'marriage' to pay off debts), or so many other laws & islamic customs that debase particularely women but disgrace the entire country are a side affect of Western secularity? Bunkum Syed.

As a Paki who has seen the light and done a runner (can't blame you for that) I'd have expected that you would by now be blaming the West less and began delving into the reality behind the failure of Islamic nations.

Not that I blame everything wrong with Pakistan on Islam. I also think a lot has to do with the dubious practise of too many people marrying their cousin.

Dear Steve

Two aspects of your post concern me.

1/ You refer to the 'Islam is evil' mob who will 'rubbish anything the author says'.. ridiculous. I will draw attention to specific things which are important. Islam and its doctrines and History included. If there are 'evil' or dangerous social implications to fundamental doctrines of Islam, then they will be relentlessly exposed for all to see. As would those of "White Superiority".

2/ You suggest that a private meeting of various like minded government members in their own time to pray and discuss, should be 'made illegal' ? Good grief. Lets look at this 'dangerous' group of felons:

BELIEFS
Members of the Lyons Forum believe that the family is the fundamental unit of society and is the prime agency for the total development of children.

We believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life and provides the environment in which nurturing of children can best be undertaken.

We believe the well being of the family is essential to the stability, morale, security and prosperity of the Australian nation.

We believe the government through its activities should promote the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Yep.. sounds INCREDIBLY 'dangerous' to me... I mean.. we are on the edge of a cataclysmic desintegration of the world because the 'family' (not even RELIGION) is seen as worthy of being promoted.

Weird.. its been the mainstay of every tribe and nation for thousands of years.. and suddenly those promoting it are 'dangerous and should be made illegal' Get a grip mate..and please stop going to those secret Neo Nazi meetings :) because that is how you are sounding.

Lets not forget Steve.. this is still a democracy and if these 'evil praying weirdos' as you seem to think they are get too out of control the VOTERS (shout) will deal with them.

You don't want MPs to even PRAY for the country ? and you want them criminalized ? I'm incredulous. Secular state does NOT mean secular statesmen.

"As a matter of fact, the extreme division among the people, who are in today’s terminology known as fundamentalists and moderates, are the consequences of the ideology of combining Islam and the secularism of the West."

Congratulations, you just realised where the realists on this forum are coming form - Islamic culture clashes with our liberal society.

A secular state doesn't mean you can go around beheading people because it says its ok in Al Quran.

In a democracy the majority will always dominate, so keep having 15 children on govertnment welfare and bring the numbers of Islam up and we can piss the secular state off for sharia law... YAY!! I can't wait!!

"Also why Christinity (and not multiculturalism) is the bedrock of a liberal democratic form of government."

Interesting. Anyone care to ellaborate?

David.

My comment about Islam is evil was directed at the posters who will not really read the article and just continue their bile against Islam. (Can you deny they don’t exist?)

My dislike of the Lyons Forum and similar clichés comes from the fact that our elected officials are serving two masters. They have to balance the views of their electorates and their personal moral and ethical views. I do not like the fact that we have a de facto cabinet that imposes its views on Government.

What gives them the right to decide on what a family is? Look at the statistics; sorry the happily married couple with kids are sadly in the minority. The majority of people in Australia live alone. However you look at it the Lyons forum view of the family is a myth.

We need our Federal Govt. to look after all Australians not just those who follow the views of The Mad Monk.

At each election we hear bribes to “The Family” baby bonuses, more tax relief etc. Instead of tax reform that benefits everyone. The Lyons forum at work.

I do believe that they are a dangerous group of felons, not because of their particular religion, but because they are using their religion to guide them in a secular society.

At least they could admit who they are.

Stay well
Steve

Hassan bounded by the chains of his religious perspective, cannot perceive that education, literacy, science, democratic freedoms, and economic development, flourished under secular states, in comparison to religious states, such as Islam. As an illustration of science, just imagine if religious leaders were in command of the state and had issued a fatwa upon the great discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo, all of us would still be flat-earthers.

This is the great challenge, for both moderate and hardcore Islamists: to liberate themselves from the dead weight of tradition which like a specter weighs upon the minds of the living, to quote Marx, that stifles the spirit of man from accomplishing his emancipation from all the wooden idols of religion. This is the only way for Muslim countries to achieve their CONTEMPORARY ambitions of freedom and economic development, and not live in the faded glories of a PAST era.

Isn't time we acknowledge the issue about religions is really about power plays with the dominant one, theocracy, Islam playing its card?

Religion is a *personal* practice or at least should be so, but the theocratic Muslims wish to institutionalise their religion. All the consequent power struggles we see around the world, is by Muslims seeking to impose their power, legitimised by their Koran.

Pull a chador (figuratively speaking of course) off most young women in Tehran for example, and see what they wear underneath (jeans and other non-islam clothing with a hint for any disbeliever in their footwear.) Who can stand for election there, only via a Guardian Council (read Big Brother).

Our society works on the division of religion from government. To talk about multiculturalism, is talking about division of power with the theocratic underpinned islamics.

I came to this country to be an Australian and spoke English within a year at home and forgot about my native country. I became Australian.

Multiculturalism endorses a fragmented society with all the consequent powerplays we see in countries like France, England etc. I've become Australian and have absolutely no time for the powerplays of Muslims. You're welcome here but dont impose yourself on me, or attempt to restrict my freedoms. Just look at Denmark's problem right now about a cartoon in a newspaper.

Multiculturalism is an experiment that is going terribly sour, potentially violent when there's talk about "majorities" as by Syed. The only majority here are the 20 million Australians.

I say "go home" if you cant accept that there are no majorities.

I don’t want to be a part of forum discussion on my article rather I leave on readers to judge with honest and proficient manner. You are most welcome to criticise on my write-up as it provides me the reflection and thoughts of different sections of the society. I hope it would initiate healthy and constructive discussion. However, I notice that some of you just criticise without going through the article deeply and try to understand my point of view. If you want to be an honest contestant then please don’t preset your mind just by looking writer’s background rather than focus of writer’s sayings - Thanks

Syed Atiq ul Hassan

Syed, I thought it was a very well reasoned article with no bias or hidden agenda, and I'm sorry that seem people on this comments list failed to read it properly, or should I say, they read into it stuff that suited their own personal agenda. I too may be concerned about the rise of Islam in Australia, but I know an intelligent, well written article when I see one.

Thank you Syed, We really appreciate you stating your positon. Again I agree with what you say. Just about every country that is seemingly secular has a religious controlled society, in that they include religion within their procedures. So a majority will always dominate culturally, religiously and socially, with a religious slant.

Thats what a majority of Australians want to change, we have the intelligence to not end up as other societies in the past have, because of ideological religious controls. So removing any form of religious control and public expression, would solve the problems. If religions really want to live in peace, then they would be happy to achieve that be taking the path of removing themselves from the public arena and keeping their worship and practices private.

We could still within our courts, have people swear on their religious books, or make affirmations. Isn't peace and harmony more important than pestering people about your religious rights and causing trouble.

We have no other choice, the monotheistic religions are going to fight for control of the world no matter what any of them say. We just want to stop it happening in this country and survive. Any religious approach will defeat that purpose. If people can't see that, we are in for a hell of a ride over the next few years.

Syed

I am a great believer in a secular state. I also believe people have the right to practice the religion of choice. I also believe people have the right to reject religion or believe in the Ancients Gods or even practise Satanism.
I ask why must people have a religious belief in Christianity, Islam or Hindu? Your article infers such. It doesn't talk of other possiblities.

There was recently a Government in this country that had at it's core a group of avowed atheists. They would not dare impose their particular traditions upon the majority even though the majority probably had more in common with them than practising christians.

The significance of religious public holidays in Australia is merely the result of our European historical preferences. Similarily other Public holidays. Labor Day, Queensland Day, Queens Birthday, Anzac Day and Australia Day. As can been seen these other holidays draw their legitimacy from concepts or events of special significance to Australians. Yep they were all determined by the preferences of the majority even though with some many disagree with the idealogical basis of them.

I'm an employer and I've already stated my preference. But most people would merely grin at my cheek. They'd certainly not hold a symposium involving children to discuss my preference. Such a waste of time really. I'm in a minority and I accept the reality of the rule of the majority. I don't grizzle about it. I just pay the penalty rates and get on with my belief in ... well that's my business.

Syed, thankyou for your input, however there are parts that I do have concerns about. You quoted the history of secularism and religion and Australia has both although, I do concede, that the lines may be blurred at times.

The separation of church and state does not deny the fact that a Christian society invaded or settled this country, depending on your viewpoint, in 1788 thus inculcating a Christian system of convention and commemoration.

Pragmatism would suggest that if Australia was to satisfy the holy days of every religion that is inherent in multiculturalism we would rarely work yet belief is an integral part of life.

That, in itself, is problematic enough but what is the solution to a religion that does not recognise that separation? Remco stated that multiculturalism had gone sour and, apart from emotional rhetoric, it is difficult to discount his assertion.

You portended an argument about the veracity of secularism however the article mounted an argument about the corruption of Islam by the west and Christianity.

To preface that argument you put forward questions from children. It is natural for children to come up with questions based on what they see or hear. What of the global conflicts of the world today? Would all the answers to their questions be based on the deleterious influence of the west on Islam?

Syed, I honestly thankyou for your input to this discussion but in this secular society we have the privilege to disagree with impunity.

It would be a boring world, indeed, if we were all the same.

All the best.

Personally I'm fed up with all holidays, christian and otherwise. Christmas ends up lasting for about 2 months from November when the TV Ads, fake santas and office parties are launched into space like ballistic missles, costs a small fortune and is forced down our throats to put us all in debt and a high state of anxiety and mania. I hate the fact that I end up stuck in traffic jams at shopping centres for a week before xmas, and then can't get to the shops or do any business for another. The Islamic holidays are no better. People show up half heartedly to work during ramadan at around 11am and leave at 2pm for a whole month, and half of them are nearly fainting from hunger or unhealthy dehydration. No-one talks or does anything seriously about poverty, and once its over, they all turn into binge eaters for a few days. No-one talks seriously about making the world a better place (surely the point of all these religions in the first place) on either Christmas, Easter or the Eid as they're all too worried about their credit card debts, their bulging stomachs and whether they've gotten everyone a present.

Syed, thanks for a well written article, you raise some interesting points.
The holiday question has been explained by others, its simply a question of history. Most people use the time to forget about work for once and spend time with their families and friends. Religion hardly plays a role these days, in most peoples lives.

The last figures that I saw, only about 8% of Aussies bother about going to a church. The figures are not that much different in Muslim countries. I gather that only about 23% of Iranians go to a mosque. People have other things in life that interest them far more. The problem with the devoutly religious of any faith, is that they make far more noise then their numbers would suggest. The silent majority stay silent, whilst the passionately religious noisely try to force us to live by their holy book.

In Australia we are pretty fortunate, religion hardly plays a role in politics. Politicians are well aware that they could actually lose votes, if they are seen as religious nuts.

The perfect democratic system is yet to evolve, where a number of religions can live in harmony together. Us secular humanists are fighting hard to have freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. Keep religion as a lifestyle choice, no more. When Catholics try to manipulate our political system, to enforce their agenda, we protest loudly!

I understand your point about this being harder to introduce in Islamic countries, for Islam is a political religion. Thats the very problem, thats why there is so much conflict in Islamic countries, IMHO.

Regarding advances, the UN actually did a study on that and one of the reasons why the Middle East was shown to be backward, was in fact religion. If kids spend their days reciting the Koran off by heart, they are missing out on other education.
Its not those who constantly have their heads in religious books, who have made progress in and for our societies, its eg engineers who study engineering etc.

Steve Madden

The majority of people who live in Australia live alone?

Stats please?
Kay
PS: What a weird assertion.

"Why Christianity is the bedrock of liberal democracy and not cultural relativism that grounds multiculturalism"

Some say Thomas Jefferson didn't believe in God, if thats so then his inclusion of God in the American Declaration of Independence is a stronger argument for the necessity of God in modern life.

"Necessary for what? Necessary in order to complete the argument that constrains human power. Necessary in order to establish a ground so that the weak and the defenseless, so that those with no power, those with no eloquence, those with no case to be made by their money or their status or anything else about them would be able to stand in the face of every human power whatsoever and demand respect for their human rights and dignity. Do we think that that comes about [applause] . . . do we think that comes about because Alan Dershowitz feels like it today, or Alan Keyes feels like it today? No."

"I want you to listen carefully to what Mr. Dershowitz said. The thing that bothers me about it is that he wants me to give up my reliance on God as the guarantor of my claim to dignity, and instead rely on him and his good conscience. [applause]" Keyes

From a wonderful debate between Keyes and Dershowitz.

"Does Organized Religion Hold Answers to the Problems of the 21st Century?"

http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/00_09_27debate.htm

Religion is bunk the public holidays we have while many of them where created in a period when most Aussie went to a Christian church they are now very much secular holidays. The over welling symbol of Xmas is Santa clause ( not to be confused with saint Nicolas) Easters symbol is the Easter bunny a very pagan symbol. Very few Aussie go to any of the various churches that celebrate these holidays. Australia is very much a secular state (no matter how deluded radical fringe groups might think). While the people that wrote our constitution were Christians they were very much people of their time. Australians under lining moral codes are consistent with just about every religion (pagan or otherwise) and culture in the history of man. The main place were it differs is democracy and that is not a idea born from any of the major religions exiting today.
If Australia constitution was being written today the only reference to religion would be to up hold the freedom of it and from it.

Personally I thought the link between holidays and state religion was a bit thin hey.

The reason we have certain holidays of christian significance is more to do with the history of our country, rather than any significant political control of today.

Also I believe Christmas became a christian holiday later in history. According to Wikipedia (lol highly credible reference of course) that 'Originally it was a day in which the Romans worshipped the God Saturn'. Apparently Pope Julius 1 and Constantine changed it into a christian ceremony around 300-400 AD mark.

It could be said today that is has really reverted into a secular holiday, although I think too much is made of it all. I just think it has different significance for each person. For me as a Christian, I enjoy doing all the religious things. For some people its just about finding a time to give and enjoy the company of friends and family.

As for your idea that the majority always dominates the minority, including with religion, I'd have to say absolutely. That's democracy. We do not like in a state that enforces secularism like USSR or China. Rather our society is designed to cater for the needs of the majority.

To take an extreme example, if 51%+ of Australia decided tomorrow that Fred Nile was the answer to this countries problems, then I'd dare say that this country's laws would start lining up with Fred Nile had to say.

If you need any further proof of this, just look at the American elections. How could a moron like George Bush get a 2nd term you say? All the polls showed that the most important issue to the American Public was morality/religion. Hence when George Bush came out and stated his (so-called) Christian views, whereas John Kerry took on a humanistic view (which he revoked in like 2 days), it caused a massive swing of votes towards Bush. Religious leaders like James Dobson asked people to vote for him, and the rest is history.

The Alchemist et al.,

"Thats what a majority of Australians want to change, ...removing any form of religious control and public expression, would solve the problems...keeping their worship and practices private."

Do you have any stats on this “majority” or this is yet another of your wishful prophetic moments?

Do you truly understand the implications of such philosophical shift?

In view of the eminent islamic take-over of Australia, I don't think (they) will want to keep their religious expressions "private". What will be your solution to this real threat Al?

Have you heard about dhimmitude?

I'd say better the devil you know...don't you think?

reason democracy developed in christian nations is because Christianity has no set of religious law, humans had to come up with their own. And what laws did they choose, ones that represented Christian values of equality, justice (leaders are limited by the law), freedom of (christian) religion etc.

This is simple to see even with the lack of history in Australian classrooms. Islamic countries cannot accept that humans can make a law because they have a religious law. Christianity espouses morality (the spirit of God moves our hearts to the moral course of action), not religious slavery to a thousand year old law.

It shows an amazing level of ignorance not to recognise Christianity's effect on democracy. It is the only monotheistic religion that expects humans to have the moral integrity (guided by the spirit) to form thier own law systems including the need to establish laws dictating the approptiate starting point (a constitution). I am truly shocked everytime democracy is spoken of as though it owes nothing to Christianity. I agree there have been many other influences, such as the German tradition (and thus that of the angles and saxons) of having the king be held accountable to the representatives of the various areas of control (states). But the beginning point cannot be seen as anything other than Christianity's expectance that humans have the worth to create thier own laws. As well as Christianity's teachings of love of mankind which seeks to see each grow to thier own potential (human rights).

To not understand this is to lose sight of why the world is at a turning point, one could easily assume that a muslim country could be a democracy. They won't be democracies until they renounce their acceptance of slavery (Islam means submission), and accepts that humans have the moral worth to create their own systems of governance. For example, if you have an elected parliament that has no legislative responsibilities (ie, you have Shariah law, dictated supposedly by god, cannot be challenged), what does that parliament do? Have a look at Iran, nothing but a puppet parliament.

fidae mae

Of course you are mostly correct...but you've overlooked our heritage from the Greeks. How do you explain their democracy? For the Greeks had no Christianity. They however had higher spiritualities. Their Gods in likeness to the Christian belief did not dictate but allowed thought and choice.

I have a question.

For many years in the West, and for many people, the idea of human worth has been entrenched in the idea that we are created in the image of God.

Once we have removed that supposition, from where do we derive any particular worth that separates us from animals, plants, atmospheric gases, etc.?

Some philosophers have said it has to do with the ability to make choices and have mental cognition. In that case a healthy non-human mammal might be considered more of a "person" than a mentally challenged human infant.

Perhaps this seems irrelevant? But I think its very important in regards to making laws with bioethical considerations. Is there a secular mode of thought that can give man the same level of dignity or worth as a Christian foundation of thought can, in regards to these issues?

Because to officially celebrate Hannukah or Eid or Thanksgiving for that matter as public holidays here in Australia would be weird. Christmas and Good Friday/Easter Monday are typical Australian holidays, so what the is problem?

It would be weird because we're in Australia. Like Chinese New Year right now, they're not part of our culture, they're interesting foreign festivals remembered by some people here.

My dad's a migrant, I don't want Australia to hold his festivals here, that would be too weird. If I wanted to celebrate them officially, I'd go there. This is not a difficult concept.

Kay.

I meant to say the largest demographic group of people in Australia live alone.

Only 5,061,000 (latest ABS figures) people live as a couple with dependent children. About 25% of the population.

There are 4,277,000 people living as single parent and dependant children.
Staying with rough percentages another 25%

About 22% of the population live as couples with no children.

Percentage of lone person households is 28% this is the largest of any “Family” grouping. Only about 25% of the Australian population lives in the typical Lyons Forum family. Their views do not represent the vast majority of Australians.

YngNLuvnIt

The very use of the term bioethics makes me cringe. Why do we need this weasel word when all it means is traditional Catholic views. Laws with bioethical views, abortion, euthanasia, RU486, IVF etc.

The entire point is that these “issues” are non issues for the majority of Australians. They only become issues when a private members bill is introduced and defeated or a Health ministers lets his religious views override his duty to his county.

If I may underline what I consider the most crucial point from Syed's article again....

* The simple FACT that children are 'asking' 'why not our holidays too' is indicative of what happens when people of non traditional Aussie background (Brit/Anglo etc) are accepted.*

This is not an indictment of those people because of their culture it is a simple basic fact of human nature. We are cultural-centric, ethno-centric and Religio-centric.. its the way we "are".

Hence, my continued advancement (some might say 'diatribe' :) of the argument for strictly controlled, and socially positive selection criteria, based on social/cultural/religious compatability and cohesian for Immigration Policy.

One major flaw in 'Multi' culturalism, is its lack of emphasis on the existing 'CULTURAL' flavor of Australia as a host country. The idea of 'multi' suggests 'all equal in status' which I absolutely reject.

In contrast, I suggest all minority cultures are equally valid and valuable to the communities concerned but- (and its an important 'but')UNDER the umbrella of the prevailing Anglo/Judao/Christian cultural traditions upon which this country was founded.

This is not in concflict with the idea of separation of Church and state, but it IS an affirmation that the State has a particular cultural basis.

A denial of this, opens the floodgates to cultural relativism and opportunism, and don't for a moment think that minority cultures will be backward about coming forward on many issues apart from public holidays which reflect their own 'take' on things.

Again..I remind the readers, that "Syed" means 'blood relation to the prophet, and coming from Pakistan (?) is also a reminder of the incredibly vast rivers of Hindu blood which flowed as Muslim forces over 900 yrs progressively took control of more and more of North India.

So, a simple thing like "why can't we have a holiday for Eid" means far more than a child asking an innocent question.

Quote:

"Also why Christinity (and not multiculturalism) is the bedrock of a liberal democratic form of government."

Interesting. Anyone care to ellaborate?

Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Wednesday, 1 February 2006 4:18:47 PM

Unquote

I mentioned the New College Lecture by Mr John Anderson MP.

Here is an excerpt from that lecture.

It can be found at:

http://www.newcollege.unsw.edu.au/whatsnew.php

In a recent interview on Radio National’s ‘The Religion Report’, on the growth of Protestantism – Evangelicalism – within China, David Aikman (the former bureau chief for ‘Time’ magazine in Beijing’), stated:

Protestantism historically has been the source of dramatic political change. I mean you only have to look at the Puritan revolution in England and in the Netherlands and so forth to see that ultimately Protestantism spawns democracy … I mean, if you look at the history of the emergence of political participationand democracy in the Netherlands and then in England during the Puritanrevival, leading up to the English Civil War, and then of course in the United States itself, you find that religious sentiment based upon a conviction of the sovereignty of the individual conscience is a vital ingredient in the emergence of political consciousness at the political level.

Essentially, the Protestant view of the individual, Aikman argues, is the cornerstone of the development of democracy. Each individual, because of their created status (‘in the image of God’), has a conscience and dignity that must be valued and recognised.

A strong argument can be made for seeing this view of the individual emerging out of the Reformation – Luther’s understanding of the universal sin of humanity, the universal need for one grace from God and the consequent notion of the ‘priesthood of all believers’. Within the public sphere, the consequences are immediately recognizable.

First, the opinions of all must be recognised. The king must recognize the inherent worth of the most insignificant serf, and vice versa.

---

It is worthwhile listening to the enture lecture.

Steve Madden:

"The very use of the term bioethics makes me cringe."

bi·o·eth·ics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-thks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)
The study of the ethical and moral implications of new biological discoveries and biomedical advances, as in the fields of genetic engineering and drug research.

(www.dictionary.com).

What is it about the word that makes you cringe? The biological aspect or the ethical aspect? Do you argue that bioethics is not something worth investigating/arguing over? And does anyone have a non-Christian reason for the inherent dignity and worth of a human being as different to that of an animal, plant or the atmosphere?

Syed,
The definition given by Webster is obviously the definition used by the American compiler of the Dictionary.

To quote the definition you used:
"In the Webster's dictionary the word "secularism"; is defined as "a system of doctrines and practices that rejects any form of religious faith and worship" or "the belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the function of the state especially into public education".

The word "rejects" has improper conitatons, the idea should be it is "other than matters of religion". In Christianity the same person divides their life into "religious" and "secular". "Religious" is dealing with matters of the spirit and "secular" the matters of the body. This came from the Greeks view of the human as a triparte being, body, soul, and spirit. Animals only have body and soul in their view. The spirit of man reflects the nature of the god he believes he images.

The definition reflects the American court decision of Mary Ohare to have religion excluded from public education. Her son brought up as an atheist, in his mature years [whom I have met] has become a Christian Conference speaker and has endeavoured to have this decision reversed.

Since the New Testament used Greek language and idiom these terms of defining man appear in the Greek New Testament. The Hebrew OT only sees man as a whole being and there is no distinction or seperation of the spirit from the body. In Hebrew the living body is the spirit; that is why Semetic Tribal peoples equate divine laws upon the whole person. They do not see a difference between secular and religious

Cont:
Christianity is based in teaching the ideals of the character we worship, like: our love is to extend to all persons even an enemy, our forgivness is to extend to all persons even a murderer, etc etc. Why? Because these attitudes reflect the nature of the God we worship. An examination of the character, attitudes, behaviour and wisdom as taught by Jesus Christ amplify how Christians should view God and imitate these values we worship as God.

Christianity must teach the social graces of living together as a society, because Jesus Christ taught Jews to respect Romans, Samaritans, etc as brothers. Christianity should teach service to the oppressed, sick, weak and poor because Jesus Christ demonstrated these qualities.

Caring for the oppressed, sick, poor etc are secular values and the act of doing it reflects an attitude of the persons spirit. There is no seperation or what is religious and what is secular in Christianity. It is just that the Government of State should not be the Church and the Church should not be the Government of State. They are seperate entities caring for secular affairs, not seperate people. That is: the Government of the State should not even be defined as atheist, because that is an idiology even as Christianity or Islam is an idiology

YngNLuvnIt,
“And does anyone have a non-Christian reason for the inherent dignity and worth of a human being as different to that of an animal, plant or the atmosphere?”

That’s the question isn’t it? Does any human actually have inherent dignity greater than that of an animal, plant or ‘the atmosphere’ (are you alluding to all basic atomic structures with this part of your question?).

Perhaps the answer lies more with the Buddhists than the religions of Abraham? Seems they (not being a deifying belief system), have caused less grief and killed less then Abrahams children, wouldn’t you say? It could be argued that this is then a more perfect and true (i.e. harmonious) belief system than has been spawned from others...

Further to:

Quote:

"Also why Christinity (and not multiculturalism) is the bedrock of a liberal democratic form of government."

Interesting. Anyone care to ellaborate?

Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Wednesday, 1 February 2006 4:18:47 PM

Unquote

Multiculturalism is all about the superiority of the cultural group over the individual. That is why so many people from non Anglo-Celtic-Australian culture say that there is no Australian culture.

For these people 'culture' is about a system of belonging to a group with certain prescribed practices: not being an individual in a liberal democratic society. Therefore they cannot see that indivuals can form a culture.

Democracy did not evolve into its present well recognised form in any country that was not predominently protestant Christian.

Even many Catholic countries in the early 20th century went towards Fascism, where the state was more important than the individual, think of Italy, Franco's Spain, Argentina and some other South American countries. The Catholic Church, of pre-Vatican 2 days, provided a great model for non democratic sytems of government where the individual was not allowed to question authority or doctrine.

Other countries are as bad or worse. Whilst India is on the surface a democracy it still has an entrenched caste system, which values a person according to their caste and sex. China still follows a much modified Confucianism, where the elders of the (Capitalist) Communist party have taken over as society's elders.

It is only in Protestant countries where democracy has bloomed, due to the valuing of the individual rather than the survival of a 'culture' being important.

I will repeat, multiculturalism is the encouragement of cultural systems, disregarding the value of the individual within those systems. The classic example being the mention of 'community leaders' This is the antithesis to democracy. In a democracy there are no leaders, only representatives.

"But the beginning point cannot be seen as anything other than Christianity's expectance that humans have the worth to create thier own laws."

Umm Fide, perhaps you should put down the religious books and pick up some primatology books, to really understand humans. Ethics and morality have a grounding in biology after all. Social species like us primates of various species, evolved to kind of get along amicably. Frans de Waal's "Good Natured" is not a bad start.

Syed,

you are right on one thing: secular states work best with secular people - probably atheists. We can see the impact everywhere of religion on Government decisions.

All religions are based in mediaeval belief systems, irrationalities and claptrap - so, ideally, none of them should be influencial on political matters in a modern state.

It seems at me that other public institutions eg the ABC are unduly influenced by this religiosity - eg how often do we get hear committed atheists or agnostics on the various ABC religious programs - almost never.

I don't think you should read too much religiosity into the christmas holiday. For the great majority its just a holiday; an important tradition, but nothing more.

I would like to see christians and muslims demanding less funding support for religious schools and less religion in political decisions. eg catholic ministers demanding contraception teaching in all schools - buckleys!

I am especially fearfull of Muslim influence on political decisions and frredom of expression -you need only to look at the Denmark cartoon experience to understand why - sharia by degrees!

By the way, I do not think christianity dominates in western states - generally they are in a minority - its just that they are organised; whereas non believers are not. Which accounts for their power, and is why we are in such a mess.

Keith,
a kind of democracy evolved with the greek religious culture long before christ, it is true. But let me ask you what percentage of even the male population of the city was able to vote. Slaves were not, and I believe they made up about 90 percent of the male population. And was this really comparable with the representative form of democracy (with stability enough to make progress)?

It is hte equality of Christ which enabled a true democracy to evolve. And speaking of equality, you realise the greeks of the period had invented steam power, water power and many other inventions thought to only exist in the middle ages and onwards. Now why didn't they take off? the same reason democracy didn't, slave power was too cheap. Much cheaper than steam power etc.

With Christianity in the picture, this changed. "Christians were the worst slavers in history" I hear you say. Well they were also the only ones to argue against it with any seriousness.

Fide Mae
It may be true that democracy only applied to freeborn Athenians but the idea, which in fact is the most important point, was invented there in Athens.
Your remark that Christianity was the first religion to proscribe slavery is also correct; but it took them a very long time, didn’t it?
In fact, but for the Reformation, I doubt whether it would have happened given the resistance of the Catholic Church to change.
The Reformation, coupled with the rise of the commerce minded Middle Class in Europe, after a while put an end to meddling in political matters by Clerics.
Now we are at a much more advanced stage of human development, where religion has little place in political life, and indeed not much place in the day-to-day existence of the people.
Unfortunately, it appears that not all our Islamic friends have quite reached this stage yet, however the trend towards democracy and rational thinking in the Muslim lands, while not yet very strong, is at least, encouraging.
If the human race is to progress, and take its first faltering steps off this planet into the vastness of the Universe, it must be willing to rid itself of this superstitious nonsense.
Fortunately, it appears that progress in this direction is being made. That is why I am quite optimistic about the future of humanity.
However, if certain people want to keep their "comforter" they are quite welcome to it as far as I'm concerned. Just don't try to push it down my throat, thanks.

Last Word wrote:

It seems at me that other public institutions eg the ABC are unduly influenced by this religiosity - eg how often do we get hear committed atheists or agnostics on the various ABC religious programs - almost never.

Well, Phillip Adams - a well and truly committed atheist - has his own ABC Radio show - its called Late Night Live - and he never ceases to inform 'the Glady' what his (lack of) beliefs are. Why would you expect the religious programs to promote atheism? That would be like the AFL version of the Footy Show promoting Rugby League.

The democracy of the polis of Athens also excluded women, but it did have some positives, in that all citizens who were physically able were expected to put their lives on the line as hoplites, that is the heavy infantry, defending the polis. If you were not willing to serve the city-state then you were not prepared to be a citizen Perhaps we should have a similar system, that only those who are willing to provide some form of sacrificial service to the state, not necessarily military in nature, should be entitled to the vote, or to government employment (yes, I am sounding like Robert Heinlein in ‘Starship Troopers’ – the book, not the travesty of a movie).

Another positive in the Athenian polis that we could learn from is that jury trials (read anything about the trial of Socrates) involved the whole of the citizenry. In today’s society people can get out of jury service at the drop of a hat. Jury duty is part of the obligation of a citizen, but so many people bludge their way out of it.

Yes we can learn from the Greek city states, we can also learn to avoid becoming like Sparta, which was successful in its time, but at the cost of the subjects of the Spartan kings’ individualism.

There is no connection between Athenian democracy and the modern form, except in name.

"Well they were also the only ones to argue against it with any seriousness."

You forget Fide, that plenty of slave owners quoted the old testament, to justify their holding of slaves.

Lots of people have lived and died for the human rights movement, without being religious.

In fact it can be argued, that its a more moral person who believes in something, because they have a sense of justice and fairness, they know what is right, without doing so because they fear
judgement day

Last word,
I note you believe Atheist secular States work the best, so I assume you believe the Karl Marx doctrine and support the old USSR, Cuba, North Korea, and China. Where the individual under these regimes who chooses religion is dispensable and practising religion is a State crime.

With your claim: "Syed you are right on one thing: secular states work best with secular people - probably atheists. We can see the impact everywhere of religion on Government decisions."

In these State we can see the impact of Atheism on the decisions of Government. Exactly Last word, so true. Unfortunately for you - religion raised its ugly head and destroyed the Soviet Union. Thank God! It is the influence of Christianity in South Korea that has caused them not to unite with North Korea. By the way - in South Korea the Rev Fred Nile is considered a Saint as he frequently addresses political rallies to thousands of Christians in universities and Colleges.

South Korea according to your theory has not got the superior Government like the North Koreans - have they Last Word? They are a bunch of backward loosers in comparison to the atheistic North. Yes we can all agree that atheism gives us the best Government; well according to "Last word" that is the fact.

It is apparent most who object to Christianity have never entered a Church that genuinely teaches the words of Christ. The fact is the God we worship ought to be seen incarnate in the lives of people who follow the teachings of Christ - that is the God Christians worship [compare my two previous posts]. God is not a remote being he is the spirit that that emanates from people who worship the idealism of character, behaviour, service, wisdom and revelation. That is why Christianity refuses to accept as lifestyle the decadence and abhorrent behaviours of a modern anti-god society

Froggie,
The captive use of slaves was not authorised by Christ as part of Christianity but was practised by Gentile people who may have called themselves Christians who failed to follow Christ's teaching. If you note the words spoken by Jesus at his commission in Luke 4: 18 - 19 "He [God] sent me to proclaim the release of slaves" (captives) is one of his primary missions and that was quoted from Isaiah's writing who was a Jewish prophet held as a slave in Babylon.

Israel had experienced being slaves of other nations like Egypt and Babylon. Christ never endorsed slavery unfortunately the Roman Church failed to read the words of Christ as that privilege was denied Roman Christians by their Church till the last 100 years as Clerics only read the scriptures and interpreted them to the Roman Church. Protestant Churches were responsible for the printing press and the free reading of the Biblical text where they realised slavery was anathema to Christ's teaching.

To quote you, "Your remark that Christianity was the first religion to proscribe slavery is also correct; but it took them a very long time, didn't it?"

Philo
Thanks for your correction, which should perhaps be directed to Fide Mae, one of your fellow believers, who first made reference to the attitude of Christianity towards slavery. I still hold that my assertion is correct however, as the original Church, the Catholic one, certainly said nothing at all against slavery, and I am told actively participated in it, at least for many hundreds of years.
It is just another example of the myriad of ways in which organized religion has not kept faith with the original teachings of its founder, or founders.
This is one of the reasons, among others, for why I regard organized religion as complete nonsense. In this, I include all religions, not just Christianity. I have no respect at all for fundamentalist Islam, which I feel is very primitive, and seems stuck in the 6th century. The "cartoon" furore at the moment makes me think that followers of Islam cannot be very sure of the strength of their religion, if they can be so easily upset by some silly drawings.
Just think of how much more peaceful the world could be, if there were no religious fanatics in it.
As many other posters on this forum have eloquently pointed out, there is little factual evidence for the stories in the Bible.
I think it is time the Human Race moved on from all these childish beliefs. However, perhaps I'm expecting too much, so please carry on believing if it makes you happy.

Philo, I must correct you on a couple of points, the Russian orthodox church fully supported Marx, thats why it and its churches survived and flourished. If you look at the facts, you will find that the church was prominent at work camps around the USSR. As it was in hitlers Europe.

Sth Korea's overwhelming majority is Buddhist and Confucianism. Christians make up less than 10%.

“It is apparent most who object to Christianity have never entered a Church that genuinely teaches the words of Christ.”

This statement shows how irrational and ridiculous your claims are. What you are saying is that 99.9% of churches are false, could it be you believe that your USA late 20th century invented churches are the only true church.

“the Roman Church failed to read the words of Christ as that privilege was denied Roman Christians by their Church till the last 100 years as Clerics only read the scriptures and interpreted them to the Roman Church.”

This is an incredibly false statement, as I've seen a bible going back to 1565, printed in Holland and have one printed in 1742, a sea captains bible which includes marriages, death sections. Gutenberg produced the first moving type press in 1452, 65 years before the Reformation. However the Chinese created ceramic type in the 11th century. One of Gutenburgs original bibles is in the USA congress library, printed in 1455

The first books to show up in print shops were bibles and religious tracts. The next books to attract publishers were the "humanist" texts brought back from Byzantium by the Crusades, and other texts of antiquity.

You people get more fanciful each day.

Froggie... so GLAD u can actually see the difference between the 'founder' and the 'followers' :) well..in the case of 'organized religion' at least.. and I totally agree.

So.. now.. why not just look at the founder.. at Jesus, and follow Him as He really is ? "You" can be the first 'perfect' Christian :)

But.. be warned.. there is a cost...

THE INVITATION (Luke 14)
16Jesus replied: "A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, 'Come, for everything is now ready.'

18"But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, 'I have just bought a field,[or Holiday House] and I must go and see [Relax in] it. Please excuse me.'

19"Another said, 'I have just bought five yoke of oxen,[or F6 Typhoon Falcon] and I'm on my way to try them out [Drive it]. Please excuse me.'

20"Still another said, 'I just got married, [am plain too busy] so I can't come.'

21"The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.'

THE COST
26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

NOTE.
Forgive the little 2006 additions to the holy writ.
I'm sure you are knowledgeable enough to identify the 'cultural' way Jesus was speaking about 'hating' mother and father.....If not, please get back to me and we can discuss it.

In Australia, settled and built, largely by white Christian people, we have many freedoms and we have welcomed many different races and religions, most whom seem to find their 'special'place in society...except for people of one religion who never give up trying to make their will felt by the rest of us.
We have freedom to worship or not worship, the freedom to do all legal activities.
We also have the freedom to leave this country if we do not find here that which we are seeking.
I would recommend any one who is dissatisfied leave as soon as possible.

Philo, you of course forget, that it was the wisdom of Gorbachev, understanding the failings of the Russian economic system, who brought it down. Not religion.

Yup there are fundamenalists in South Korea. Even Rev. Moon :)
Stop confusing religion and politics.

"That is why Christianity refuses to accept as lifestyle the decadence and abhorrent behaviours of a modern anti-god society"

Umm, well Osama bin Laden and his ilk think that you lead a decadent and immoral lifestyle! Different holy book, same principle. The relgiously obsessed are the real danger to our society, as they throw reason out the window and follow their dogma as the ultimate truth.

Alchemist,
Please do your homework before correcting me! I assumed you were well informed on world affairs. With figures like this: "South Korea's overwhelming majority is Buddhist and Confucianism. Christians make up less than 10%."

http://www.maps4free.com/map-of-south-korea.shtml
Religions in Korea: no affiliation 46%, Christian 26%, Buddhist 26%, Confucianism 1%, other 1%.
Christianity is the fastest growing religion in Korea they have an active Christian Political Party, polling 28% of the vote.

Quote, "This is an incredibly false statement, as I've seen a bible going back to 1565, printed in Holland and have one printed in 1742, a sea captains bible which includes marriages, death sections. Gutenberg produced the first moving type press in 1452, 65 years before the Reformation."

Since Bibles were first compiled they were hand written and chained to Church pulpits. Bishops and Priest never read the Bible they were indoctrinated in Roman Catholic beliefs. No common uneducated citizen ever read the Latin so implicitly believed whatever the Priest told them till Priests began rejecting Roman Catholic doctrine; for example John Wycliffe 1329 - 1384, known as the morning star of the Reformation, translated the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate 1380; and the known Augustine Monk Martin Luther 1483 - 1546 rejected Roman Church doctrine. These men were the foundation of the Christian Reformation movement.

William Tyndale in 1526 gave the English people a press printed English version of the New Testament translated from the Greek. The first printed book was Gluttenberg's Christian Bible, whereupon William Claxton in 1474 introduced printing into England and Walter Chapman to Scotland in 1508.

The fact is what was assumed to be Christian had nothing resembling the teachings of Christ. So to call it Christian is not more than fictitious fantasy, it actually characterised Roman control of a syncretism of pagan religions that was called "Christian". There were some genuine Christians under the umbrella of this State Church as there was only one religion allowed and it was controlled by the State. However these Christians were underground movements as for them to speak up placed their life in danger of heresy

Alchemist,
Facts about Christianity in Korea from:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+kr0081)

"Given the great diversity of religious expression, the role of religion in South Korea's social development has been a complex one. Some traditions, especially Buddhism, are identified primarily with the past. Buddhist sites such as the Pulguksa Temple and the Sokkuram Grotto in Kyongju and the Haeinsa Temple near Taegu are regarded by most South Koreans as important cultural properties rather than as places of worship.

Confucianism remains important as a social ethic; its influence is evident in the immense importance Koreans ascribe to education.

Christianity is identified with the modernization and social reform of Korea. Many Christians in contemporary South Korea, such as veteran political opposition leader Kim Dae Jung, a Catholic, have been outspoken advocates of human rights and critics of the government. Christian-sponsored organizations such as the Urban Industrial Mission promote labour organizations and the union movement. New religions draw on both traditional beliefs and on Christianity, achieving a baffling variety and diversity of views."

Some websites put the Religions in Korea as: Christian 49%, Buddhist 47%, Confucianist 3%, Shamanist, Chondogyo (Religion of the Heavenly Way), and others 1%.

http://workmall.com/wfb2001/korea_south/korea_south_people.html

Religion
Christianity in Korea (35%) and Buddhism (23%) comprise South Korea's two dominant religions. Christianity initially got a foothold in Korea during the Japanese Occupation, then in the 1970s and early 1980s grew exponentially, and despite slower growth in the 1990s, caught up to Buddhism as a significant faith. Presbyterians (with around 6.5-7.8 million members), Roman Catholics (2-3.8 million), Pentecostals (1-1.7 million), and Methodists (1-1.4 million) are the largest denominations. Statistics have been published purporting to show that almost 50 percent of South Koreans are Christians, but these figures are almost certainly inflated, due to the high incidence of dual membership and unrecorded transfers of membership among different denominations. Christians, although well represented in all parts of South Korea, are especially strong around Seoul, where they comprise about 50 percent of the population.

http://south-korea.kiwiki.homeip.net/
http://atheism.about.com/library/world/KZ/bl_SKoreaReligion.htm?terms=korea+statistics

Worth a look: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=167

Syed,

I read your article twice. Interesting stuff.

Where I live in Sydney it is 90% non-whote so I guess by your theory the arabic and asian writing on shop fronts is shall we say "normal". They are after all the majority and lets face it without them I would be speaking japanese now.

I'm of the opinion that a certain vicious wicked faith wants to take over Australia. That won't happen so I guess us good ole Christians will run the show because we are the majority.

I know most people don't go to church, most are pro-choice etc. There is another thing you should know. Most people in this country don't like muslims.

Your article states the obvious. The majority rules.

There is a difference between Christian and islam majority. Christians are followers of truth. It's not about 72 virgins. That by the way is interesting. The virgins are to lay there and cop a pounding. Are the virgins flesh and blood? Human by any chance. Androids? Do they cooperate or is it forced? VICIOUS AND WICKED!!

Philo, regarding Korea, I admit getting that wrong. That was a tongue in cheek statement to see the reaction. The statistics I used come from the 1970's and shows us how fast the insidious mental illness, monotheistic religion is spreading throughout the gullible world. Dragging us further into religions aim of world conflict and a final solution, in the hope that one faction wil overcome all other factions and rule the world.

Rather a bent philosophical approach, but understandable considering the veracity of your faiths claims and its unchanged approach over the last two millennium.

However your statement, “the Roman Church failed to read the words of Christ as that privilege was denied Roman Christians by their Church till the last 100 years as Clerics only read the scriptures and interpreted them to the Roman Church.”

Your subsequent post supports my saying that it's a false statement. Then maybe you got the years wrong, and it wasn't until the last 100 years, but the last 500 years.

Philo, most non believers can easily handle being wrong and are prepared to admit they are fallible, as is all existence. I don't mind being wrong, as it means I need to learn more. I'd hate my philosophy to be right for all, as it would mean the complete mental breakdown of billions of religious people, I'm not that selfish to wish that upon anyone.

But monotheistic belief systems, refuse to be wrong as if they admit it once, their entire belief system collapses. Sadly, the only way monotheistic religion can survive, is by trying to ignore their history, blame others, or lie.

A religion, it's adherents expression and history is what defines it, not what its adherents say.

Religions contain free speech as much as they can selectively, because freedom to speak freely, means that the truth is presented. With religion, and most ism's, they don't stand up to scrutiny historically, literally or in their application. They all are suppressive, dictatorial and dangerous

Reason, The problem is that that lends itself to equating people with trees and, to utilitarianism: people only have rights/responsibilities for as much as society needs them.

So in the same way you let a sick dog die when you can’t afford medical treatment, you (potentially) reduce elderly access to Medicare (& let them die) because it’s too expensive?

We are venturing into a whole new bioethical world of scientific venture, and we don’t know the future outcomes. Like mickijo, said, we do have freedom. We also have underlying premise that we’re created in the image of God. Perhaps this is true, perhaps its not, but it affords us a unique human worth that other philosophies seem not to.

I believe Australian politics are, thank God :), nowhere near as bad as American politics. There something is only right if God says it OR if man feels like it (depending on which side of the spectrum you’re on).

In Australia, we do have Christian politicians, politicians must still argue their politics secularly.

E.g. “I think abortion is wrong, because I think God creates us ‘in our mother’s womb’. I will argue pro-life on the basis of the scientific definition of the child as from when it has different DNA, and also consider negative psychological effects on the mother.”

Yes their faith has influenced them (perhaps as much as their upbringing, socioeconomic status, etc.) but they cannot argue something just because Lev 9:5 says it.

You have to remember, these politicians are voted in by other people with similar views, so its still a free, democratic process. And even if non-Christians are the minority, there’s enough of them shouting loudly enough to prevent their political freedoms going away.

Some Buddhists in Sri Lanka are persecuting Christian missionaries atm, but for the most part, yes, Buddhism has had less bloodshed than Abrahamic religions. But I don’t think that necessarily makes Buddhism truer than other religions.

Alcehmist: “A religion, it's adherents expression and history is what defines it, not what its adherents say”. No, Christian means “follower of Christ”, so the history of Christ, and what He says defines it. It’s no good to say “oh look at the Nazi Catholic church of Germany last century- they claim to follow Christ, therefore they define their religion.” Bonhoeffer and other Christians, I believe, represent a truer version of Christianity and this can be determined by cross-examining their lives with what their text, the Gospels, teach. The Bible (the “Constitution of the faith”) is the ultimate authority on what Christianity is- not how people interpret it, and not how people claim to “live” it.

Have people exploited religion for the sake of political power before? Heck yes.

The Bible doesn’t call Christians perfect, it calls Christ perfect. It calls us to live lives of holiness, but gives us the grace to work through the process (‘run the race’) of getting there. (I think its asymptotic, the more time you spend with HIM, not His religion, the more you’ll be like Him, however, people can always be corrupted).

Alchemist, “religions… don't stand up to scrutiny historically, literally or in their application.” http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible3.html Really, like the alleged non-existence of Nazareth, found to be false in the 20th Century, as have many other claims against the Bible?

For a book written across 1500 years, in 3 languages, from 40 authors of a wide range of backgrounds, it shows incredible consistency (yes we could be here all day arguing over why Moses’ people had to sacrifice sheep and we have Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice, but that’s merely a matter of debate). It is the most historically reliable source we have from antiquity, with the most copies found, and the shortest time frame between when the book was originally written, and when the earliest copies of it were written.

Many centuries worth of people have died to give you the right to disagree with its claims, but its heritage is one thing that has made our country great

FRIEDRICH,

>>Are the virgins flesh and blood? Human by any chance. Androids? Do they cooperate or is it forced? VICIOUS AND WICKED!!<<

Indeed – as you know submission is islam’s MO. Submission to Allah, his prophet, the Koran, ALSO women to men, the only viable role for women in islam is to please men ‘unconditionally’; so why wouldn’t be any different in their heavenly brothel?

Two questions:
What if men preferred other men or boys here on earth? Doooh!
Will there be a heaven for muslim women? (I don’t think so: eternal submission)

The real wicked part is that the majority of muslims still believe the lies no questions asked (not allowed to question).

I believe islam’s is Satan’s masterpiece of deception - the sad part is that millions of muslems die not knowing the truth.
________________________

The alchemist,

>>I'd hate my philosophy to be right for all, as it would mean the complete mental breakdown of billions of religious people, I'm not that selfish to wish that upon anyone.<<

I wouldn’t lose any sleep on it if I were you. Truth always prevails.

Nice to watch you mellow in your old age Al, I didn’t think I’d see the day you’d admit that you were wrong. What’s going on man? Is some of our stuff getting to you? NaaaaaH!

It is absolutely vital that government in Australia is kept in the hands of Christian/Judeo polititians. If we want to keep our country free of disastrous third world dictatorship, we must keep out all other religious nominees.
Sounds terrible but the result of permitting a possible majority of Islamic followers to take control of our parliament is too dreadful to imagine.
As Boaz said, our laws are the finest and people here must realize that we intend to keep them.

Yabby,
Study Gorbachev attitudes to religious freedom and determine if it had any effect on his change of mind about what was happening in USSR. It was not just economics that changed his mind and direction.

You-said, "You of course forget, that it was the wisdom of Gorbachev, understanding the failings of the Russian economic system, who brought it down. Not religion."

If it was economics he could have followed the same direction as China. He opened the doors to religious mission in USSR that had been previously banned and was by law a State crime. He changed the atheistic face of Russia to allow the teaching and free practise of any religion. Baptized in the Russian Orthodox church as a child, Gorbachev though an atheist maintains respect for the faiths of people of all religions, as evidenced by his leading role in the establishment of freedom of religion laws in the former Soviet Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev#Religious_affiliation
http://www.gfna.net/newsdetail.php?newsid=15&&PHPSESSID=f155f919e81de95782dbac4d14276b04
Archon National Commander Dr. Anthony Limberakis read a letter from Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew granting the Archon title, which described Gorbachev as "a zealot of grace, honour and devotion toward the church and one who has provided valuable services to the church and humanity in general."
"Among the most important and vivid episodes of perestroika, I recall the day when I invited to the Kremlin the representatives of all faiths," he said. "The leaders of different churches sat at the table where the politburo used to meet."
Gorbachev also referred to legislation adopted during the waning days of the U.S.S.R that offered increased religious freedom for its citizens. "Freedom of religion is one of the most important inalienable rights of the human being, and I am proud that the law we adopted in those years became one of the most democratic legal instruments in the world," Gorbachev added.
Quote, "The religiously obsessed are the real danger to our society, as they throw reason out the window and follow their dogma as the ultimate truth."

So the atheistic Soviet Union threw reason out the window endangering their society by allowing religion to flourish.

Alchemist,
Don't worry about me having a mental breakdown your attitudes toward God and philosophy is so negative it does not grab my attention as the answer to the human condition. I can accept the words of people who lived 2,000 + years ago like Aristotle and Jesus Christ. I enjoy their ethics and teaching. There is not to many new ideas in the world just new ways of saying it. Atheism is as old as man himself, even Eve believed God tried to scare them so he could control their behaviour. So there has always been unbelievers that believe religion is about scaring people about the afterlife in an attempt to control them

coach,

You are correct about Satan. That's why you're not allowed to draw the "prophet".

Philo, if you really want to understand what Gorbachev is about, read an interview with him. Here is not a bad one:
http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/184/gorbachev.htm

The idea of perestroika was about uniting socialism and democracy, which also means things like human rights, freedom of religion etc.

There is a big difference between believing in somebody's right to believe and having any respect at all for what they believe.
Thats exactly what the Arabs don't understand right now, over the Danish saga for instance.

Yes, the religiously obsessed are clearly a danger, for they lose their ability to reason. Look at Osama bin Laden, look at Pat Robertson. That does not mean they should be banned or not allowed to hold those opinions. It just means its a bad idea to mix relgion and politics, for once people like that have any influence on power, thats where the danger lies.

To sum up my point again, religion had nothing to do with bringing down the Soviet Union. It was Gorbachevs belief in human rights and the failure of the old system, that created the changes, not religion. Gorbachev is no fan of Christianity.

Philo, As a youth, I adored christians ideals. You certainly cannot reject things like justice, love and equality as ideals. These are the goals proclaimed by christianity. But in reality these ideals have only brought about repression and violence.

Violence is used in order to impose religious models on society. That violence is not only physical but psychological, as can be seen by the constant threats of damnation and hell prescribed by the demented faithful.

My philosophy is based on common sense. Common sense refers to a sense of measure, a sense of moderation, a sense or reality and the sense of verifiable fact. If for example, freedom is linked to adhering to a religious belief system, it's not freedom, it's repression.

Even if some religious methods are claimed to be progressive, yet they result in the destruction of life, then they are unacceptable. Religion doesn't put an intrinsic value on nature, yet without nature people cannot exist. If we do not respect nature, which religion refuses to, we will eventually disappear; and on Earth, once again, we would have nature without humans.

Mikhail Gorbachev, “Well, I believe in the cosmos. All of us are linked to the cosmos. Look at the sun. If there is no sun, then we cannot exist. So nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred. Trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals.” I agree wholeheartedly.

Again Philo, your mob just jump in with more and more unsubstantiated fallacies. We have proven records of what Aristotle wrote, there is nothing written by this jesus. What is written was not nor could it have been written by those attributed to the new testament, they were all written by Greek scribes, as the jews in question, were illiterate and couldn't write Hebrew let alone Greek.

Answer this, how many gospels are there.