Wobbles good call but a few years outdated. Sky scrapers are not where its happening currently. The great temples are sports stadiums and shopping malls. May I even go as far as to suggest that development for the Olympic games constitutes one great massive wonder? Entire cities almost bankrupt themselves and draw on the resources of a nation to allow hopping, skipping and Jumping. Mighty Zeus God of Gods would be proud. On that premise I contend that the land scape of modern civilisation is dominated by even bigger icons than malls and stadiums. The franchises- McDonalds, Ikea, ect, the modern day Dutch East India companies the modern British Raj for whom the sun never sets. Yes we can wring our hands and bemoan the evil of wearing the jeans of Taiwan and the 100% beef patties of Brazil but at least franchises , malls and stadiums are not blowing up people in Iraq or Oklahoma, telling aids ravished communities to not wear condoms or banning marriages.

YngNLuvnIt - "Can anyone please give me an example of a secular democratic nation that has not derived its traditions, in large part, from traditional religion?"

Probably not, human progress and breakdown tends to build on what has come before, at it's best adding to the good that was there and rejecting the bad and at it's worst building on the bad and discarding the good.

It's the way humans do things.

But then we don't claim divine inspiration so that's OK.

Now your turn

"Can anyone please give me an example of a religion that has not derived its traditions, in large part, from foundations already laid by what has gone before?"

Ronnie, it may come as no surprise but I thought of that same discussion when I read Peter's comment as a proof of the point Peter makes (from the other side of the discussion though). So much is in the eye of the beholder.

R0bert

Oh yes another article about a dieing religion, Christianity is going the way of other beliefs. Not to many people pray to thor or Apollo these days, different ages invent different religions that’s the way of it. Peter just put yourself in the shoes of a Roman priest in Mars' temple as Christianity started to take over.

PS, Since when is the belief in the supernatural a myth? We also must have very different views on what rational thought must be because I don't think the whole trinity bit is very rational, and don't get me started on the Noah farce.

Ronnie Peters.
Idolatry is the basic criticism of religion. The OT is, among other things, a history of Israel’s struggle with idolatry, trusting in something other than God. Any aspect of culture that claims allegiance is a source of idolatry and hence may be called religious. It is alarming to see pop culture take over young minds to the extent that it determines how they see the world and how they act in it. This is substitute for a robust sense of self, a desperate attempt to define who we are by using cultural constructs and it is the antithesis of freedom.

Turn on your TV early on Sunday morning and you will get a does of secular Christianity from the televangelists. This is religion used for monetary gain or for personal healing. When Christianity is used instrumentally it becomes secular, i.e. having God on our own terms.

Christianity cannot be reduced to an ethical system, even one as simple as the golden rule. The ascension and that is not bollocks but an integral part of what Christianity is. People say that they are not religious but they believe that Jesus was a good person, so what! My neighbor is a good person, why the fuss about Jesus? Did they crucify him because he told everyone that they should be nice to each other? The significance of Jesus is that he brought about the destruction of world and the initiation of a new age. That is the significance of apocalyptic in the NT.

My point about rationality is that it is very fragile on its own, it needs a substrate and for Christians that substrate is the history of Israel and the life and death of Jesus. These historic events are crucial in a way that others are not. It would be a mistake to place Gallipoli as a seminal event, it just does not have the freight of the events described in the bible.

RObert: “Ronnie, it may come as no surprise but I thought of that same discussion when I read Peter's comment as a proof of the point Peter makes (from the other side of the discussion though). So much is in the eye of the beholder.” Wha? If it is the f-word comment – be unfair to start that up here.

Peter’s comment? Which one? You’ve lost me.

Peter Sells I respect your faith and your thoughtful words. Will it harm you or your religion if I just stick to my individual “between God and I” secular christianity?

Instrumental. Yes we do seem to be heading towards a world that sees individuals only as means. For instance: We can all think of the blatant ones such as soldiers, crime victims, innocent civilians as terrorists’ targets etc – these are just means to further other’s position and power base. The more subtle ones are also similar in thinking. A very charitable, very altruistic Christian must occasionally ask them selves what really drives him or her. Am I respecting these people as ends in themselves or am I using them as a means to my own happiness – or both. We are only human. Am I using a previous hurt to further some issue which suggests I respect people as an end or am I just imparting a guilt trip to give me leverage in an argument or gain some advantage?

Although i found this article difficult to digest, i think somewhere in there is a point that i agree with, although i am still finding it hard to pin down. It seems to me that the author is arguing for reason over dogma and I definately support that proposition. I do find it odd coming from someone whose religion has the "faith catch" and "The Commandments" as some of its main lines, so it doesn't suprise me when he follows up with presenting Christianity as the ultimate solution to the supposed 'decay of culture' problem.

To me the idea behind secularism is not to "proclaim the end of religion" but to allow freedom of religion so that one is not confined to a particular institute or another and is therefore able to utilise their reason to seek truth (or The Truth). Maybe it hasn't turned out that way in reality but i think this is more because the concept of secularism has been too frequently mingled with ideologies such as materialism or humanism and therefore it's meaning has been distorted to give these philosophies more credence than they may deserve.
This could be what the author is bemoaning and the elusive point of the article that i might be agreeing with but am having trouble grasping because it is shrouded by an insistence on his own ideological beliefs.