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