Peter: You say secular religion is expressed through three main systems. Totalitarian, a democratic variant and civil religion.

Do you regard sub cultures such as those that form along the lines of music/situation as a religion? Punk culture, death/glam metal, country, Emo, and the loathed pop culture and so on. If so is bringing popular music into a church to draw crowds appealing to a secular religious interest and does this weaken the churches main tenants for religiosity?

I want to add a fourth variant. That is the secularised christianity. Is it reasonable to recognise this as well?

I really love that you point out very worthy aspect of Christianity which is that it has a foundation based on faith, hope, love and patience. I also think that the Golden Rule is also relevant here. Even if one regards the ascension and that as bollocks - the philosophical grounds on which Christianity rests is far from myth.

Philosophical rationality is an important aspect; however, it is very hard -if not -impossible for us mere humans to do what even the great thinkers can only do to a certain extent and approach theology, and especially philosophy, without ideology and convictions influencing our thinking. That was the point of my quote re: the feminists.

I just read your article again and it is really connects for me. It is also more accessible than some of your articles. More suited to us battlers on OLO. I don’t agree with everything though.

I want to ask you something. If a person is not really religious, don’t you think that if the church wasn’t so “us only” and less judgemental and less inclined to converting folk and more open to secular folk - less exclusive - don’t you think that that kind of Christianity would provide a great foundation for life for the secular ones interested. Can you accept secular people in to the fold or is Christianity about Christians only. For instance: I won’t be a pretentious hypocrite and go to church but can I be a “whatever I am” and go to church?

YngNLuvinit,

Thankyou for your correction of Wobbles' misunderstanding of Luke 19:27 saving me some bother. I feel you might also have nisinterpreted those same verses however as Jesus' parable was to correct HUMAN misundertanding of 'godly' values. Observers around Zacchareus accused him of being a sinner unlike they believed they were because he was a publican/tax collector (unliked). Zacchareus believed himself a godly man because he gave half his wealth to the poor and returned fourfold anything he believed he had unjustly gained (HE believed). The nobleman who ordered the death of HIS enemies (not of Christ's) believed he was doing right as he understood it. Christ was giving a parable that was to display to all the error of their ways ("For the Son of Man has come to seek and save what was 'lost'" Luke 19:10) Humans believe what they do under their understanding and will is perfect when in fact they move further from the true will of God each day. Christ came to show us the way (back). He does the will of His Father in heaven perfectly, not as those who preach scripture pervert it or our imperfect (like wobbles) understanding of scripture.

Sells in his virtually unimpenetrable way of expressing his elitist ideas is actually trying to do something similar but is, in my humble opinion, failing dis gracefully!

kerravon,
Research how many rapes have been performed by coalition soldiers in the 44 months of US occupation of Iraq, then consider how many more iraqi's have had their lives needlessly taken from them because GW shot of his sick mouth and ordered the removal of the one (evil) ruler who was capable of keeping some kind of peace in Iraq for over 25 years (you gotta be cruel to be kind - in the right measure...) and consider if the illegal invasion was better for iraq than leaving things as they were and letting the Iraqi's figure things out for themselves? (with perhpas a little better organised 'intervention' if we were all so concerned for their welfare).

Matthew 7:5 but read the whole chapter.

A piece of advice to begin with Sells, don't rely on your spellchecker:

>>punishment could be the loss of employment and certainly the distain of the keepers of public morality<<

I initially gave you the benefit of the doubt, but unfortunately my OED tells me that you can only use "distain" as a noun when its sense is "tint, stain, colouring".

While I was there, I thought I'd take a quick peek at the definitions of “religion” and “religious”, specifically to see whether any of them would bear the weight of Mr Casey's assertion that “it is more illuminating to treat ideology as a form of religion.”

This is fairly critical to your own piece, since you take this as the foundation of your own rhetorical question “[c]ould anyone argue that the cult of Mao was not a religious phenomenon?”

Sadly, as robust a noun as it is, none of the eight OED offerings under “religion” is anywhere near strong enough to be the cornerstone upon which you have built your article. Definition 6 allows it to be used by transference to denote “devotion to some principle; strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment”, but then pronounces it obsolete.

I read Casey's piece with the same scepticism, fascinated as always to find how easy it is to begin an article with a false premise and build a case for the most ludicrous ideas and concepts.

Using the "all philosophies are the same as religions" argument to take potshots at atheists is relatively harmless. But a similar "start from a false premise" activity is presently taking place in Teheran under the chairmanship of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Unless it is possible to show, with clean hands, that this is demonstrably false argumentation, then "real religion" deserves the fate of becoming itself just another starting point for discussion, rather than the firm base that its adherents would like it to be.

Sorry skelett, you misunderstood the good Deacon Associate Sellick.

Hardly suprrising really since i could hardly make sense of it myself and I'm a frickin' Genius, if i do say so myself! (and have the IQ tests to prove it)

Having read the elitist pomp Sells has put out in 'discussion' (a perjorative term since that requires two or more participants and Sells does not consider there exists another here yet who is worthy of entring into such with him).
See Sells two most recent posts on this thread:http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5101

If he ever is capable of lowering himself to your and my 'standards' we may learn something from him but don't hold your breath.

As for rational discourse, the sad truth is owing to a deplorable lowering of educational standards since the reformation and renaissance, you and I are incapable of achieving it... according to the christian Mr Sellick's view.

Not our fault apparently, but there you are.

I believe Sellick is actually trying to show that humans are incapable of following a 'true' ideology of a monotheistic God (somewhat akin to what Jesus did) because of what amounts to our base stupidity from which so very few of us ever pull our dumb arses out of - even the one's who think we do and pat ourselves on our collective backs about what good rational little secular scientists and economists we all are, still just don't get it - only Sellick does, out of all of us here, it seems.

Was i even close there, Pete?

BrainDrain, "Research how many rapes have been performed by coalition soldiers in the 44 months of US occupation of Iraq"

Any rapes performed by coalition soldiers were ILLEGAL and the perpetrators will be CHARGED and JAILED. Under Saddam, it was LEGAL for him to rape as many women as he wanted to. Do you understand the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL? It is absolutely shocking that you would rather leave Saddam raping women than respond to their screams. Legally raping women was "being cruel to be kind"? How would you feel if it were your daughter being raped by Saddam and there was not a damn thing you could do about it?

Check out these videos of other atrocities Saddam was doing:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/media/r9der1.ram
http://www.benadorassociates.com/media/p5osax8.ram

How can you not respond to this? It beggars belief what passes for other people's "morals".

"iraqi's ... lives needlessly taken ... GW ... sick mouth ... removal ... one (evil) ruler ... peace in Iraq for over 25 years"

Peace? Wars with Iran, Kuwait and a bloody revolution? All for NOTHING? Hundreds of thousands of people dead, for no purpose whatsoever? And you have the gall to call GW sick, after he liberated 27 million Iraqis from state-slavery? It's not GW that's sick!

"illegal invasion"

If it's illegal to bring a rapist/murderer/torturer/mutilator to justice, then the law is wrong and should be ignored and changed. Besides which, the war was a continuation of the first Gulf War, that only ended in a temporary ceasefire, which Saddam violated within 6 weeks of signing.

"Matthew 7:5"

You're quoting from the bible, the same book that failed to outlaw slavery, producing centuries of suffering, and which is clearly not spelled out in enough detail for you to recognize that modern-day state-slavery of the like that Saddam practiced also needs to be outlawed. You think your God condones you going out of your way to ensure that a rapist like Saddam remained free to rape more women? Not just failing to protect them yourself, but from trying to stop others from protecting them? Humanity has reached a new low.

Why is my life being assumed in relationship with three like minded religions/faiths created by the tribal social histories of the Middle East. I'm Celtic. I have come from a long history of spiritual faith and social values. Why did these ME faiths judge all others as pagan and their morality and social values Gods will.
Why after infecting the rest of the world by force with their religion as the highest good , they now complain when they are themselves under attack by their converts who may have found a different implication.
The value of what is written, how it is defined, who defines it, who's transliteration, what pretext, history of abuse, politics and family bloodlines. There is only one God. God is Jewish. God is Christian. God is Muslim. Who's lying?