People predisposed to a religosity love absolutes and authority. On the other hand, the secular perspective is an acknowledgement that there are no absolutes and no final authority.

The secular "myths" are merely abstractions, they are not dogma. At a particular point in time, it may appear the secular position is committed to feminism or multi-culturalism but the dialogue continues and evolves, bits are added, discarded and fine tuned. The constants, like equality and liberty, are subject to continuous debate and re-evaluation. Whilst, secularism has created its fair share of monsters these are but footnotes to religions' excesses.

The religious create and sustain immovable myths to awe and ensnare; to bend reality to a predetermined and inflexible narrative. The comfort this generates empowers the adherent with a fantastic disingenuity.

Caseys' article recognises, unconsciously atleast, that Secular Humanism is every religions' greatest threat. If the secular movement alone can create and sustain a vibrant and moral society than religion as we know it becomes redundant.

Whilst, I acknowledge that the secular dialogue has become decadent in recent times and requires re-energizing, this does not mean we should look to medieval scholasticism for inspiration. Rather, secularism must reconnect with its parent for inspiration - philosophy.

Interestingly enough, religion also inherited all its genius from philosophy but it was born and remains an ungrateful child.

Dear Yebiga, you are quite honest..but perhaps not making enough of the CONSEQUENCES and moral ramifications of a relativistic social morality.

Though you do comment accurately that the secular position has become 'decadent' :) Hmmm.. now that statement alone raises the question of "on what basis do you define 'decacent' " ?

You also said:

[Secular Humanism is every religions' greatest threat.]
Response: Not in the slightest. It might threaten some religions, but not Christianity, which is not based on the concept of a state, but of a spiritual commonwealth separate from the stream of secular history.

The true and only valid role of the Church in the world in regard to morality and values is this :

Matthew 5
13"You are the salt of the earth.
14"You are the light of the world. ....let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

Our calling is not to 'be' the government, but to call any government to account before God. It is a prophetic role. We are but signposts pointing to the Father. People can choose to take the left fork or the right at the junction.

Secular religion has inDEED created its own myths.. such as this rip snorter "Doing good is good to do, because it is" which one "Peace" activist pointed out to me when I contacted her one time. All I can say is 'duh'.

Our faith is not based on Myth, unless you call historical events 'myths'. On the contrary.. as Paul said regarding Christ's resurrection.

1 Cor 15:4
...that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Hardly a 'myth'.

cheers cobber

Oliver, the fact that "Mao used ideology in power" does not qualify communism (or Maoism, or whatever) as a religion.

To view totalitarian control-freakery as a religion falls sweetly into the trap set by Sells, and also Michael Casey, whose article Sells refers to.

Casey presents the issue as follows:

"An ideology or a philosophy of life is not a religion unless it takes on the attributes and functions of religion, and it is only in cases such as this that treating an ideology as a political religion is justified."

This I can readily agree with, if only because the argument is entirely circular.

However, when Casey actually describes a “political religion”, the cracks are exposed. He states on the one hand that:

"The totalitarian variant of political religion is distinguished by integralism and intolerance, the sanctification of violence in the service of human regeneration, the denial of individual autonomy, the primacy given to the community and self-sacrifice, and distinct rituals and mass liturgical celebrations”

[Sounds much like Christianity doesn't it – but that's another story]

This he contrasts with “democratic political religion”, which according to him “makes explicit appeals to inclusiveness and tolerance, repudiates violence, recognises individual autonomy and does not have a pronounced ritualistic and liturgical dimension.”

What “attributes and functions of religion” are displayed by his description of “democratic political religion”? None.

It flies squarely in the face of Casey's own prerequisites, and in doing so, effectively destroys the Maoism=Religion argument, and any variant of the politics=religion argument.

On its own this might seem harmless sophistry. But the intention is clear: call all political and social movements “religions” so that they may be compared in a religious, rather than a political or social context. This in turn deflects attention from the “is there a God?”, “is there only one God?” and “am I worshipping the right God?” arguments that most people believe is at the heart of religious discussions.

I have observed that Christians actually do not believe in god at all. That subconsciously Christians know that God is just a product of imagination. Aside from the fact that god , his nature and abilities , his views and his motives is limited to the intellect of the believer and the believer must on some level know all they say and chose to believe is a product of their own imagination there is a concrete indicator that this is so.

If John Howard, Elton John, Joe Blow claimed they were god Christians would reject it as false. The reason is because they know subconsciously that god is impossible. If god was possible there would be no reason why a rock, a screwed up piece of paper or even secularism itself was not god. If Christians truly believed god was possible then they have to admit god could be anything and do anything ie if god existed then there is nothing to say that god did not create man, he only destroys man. God could be evil itself , or god could be benign , that is to say god could exist but have had nothing to do with this universe. God could be a single atom inside a cows hoof completely mindless and ignorant. That is of course if god is impossible.

Christians know that their god has no credibility so they recognise that religion is derogatory and degrading. The current Christian propaganda attacking secularism is an attempt to bring secularism way low down to the level of religion.

Secularism, like good science and atheism is not understood by Christians and this is why they present a weird and contorted argument. Simply they cannot understand systems that are not organised by emotional bias.

If you return to this topic as presented in the media, the Christian websites, go and listen to a sermon or re-read this thread you will find that Christians choose to see the world as prophets and soothsayers because it is integral to their dungeons and dragons style game role playing.

I agree with those words of Mao's. Of course not what he did but those words are true today and have been since man started manipulating people through their fears and beliefs.

Religion has no place today, it is trouble and hate, not what is written. Spirituality though is vital to all of us as individuals and should be left to us to decide rather than being pushed into identifiable groups simply through peer pressure and more.

As to mateship. Howard doesn't know the meaning of that word in the Australian context. To me his version of that word is being able to rely on people to support what he does regardless of what it is. That's not mateship, it's bullying.

So many politicians ride on the soldeirs backs, using them for political gain, then forgetting them when they need help having seen war up close.

In that context mateship is indeed what was seen in all Australia's involvements in war. It was simply doing what had to be done to help themselves and their fellow combatants in life threatening situations.

It disgusts me what Howard does to these people, how he uses them and runs away when money is needed to help them try and recover after doing what they were ordered to do. Of course he's not alone in that, he's just made it an art form.

The entymology of 'Religion' is enlightening and may help eliminate misunderstandings being raised in this post and others. It reaches the English language via Latin (via French). 'Religio' meant scrupulousness, exactness, of people. When applied to Gods it meant something worthy of sanctity, worship; a holy place or thing. Meaning it's superior to mere human falibility.

Religion in English (c: 1200)- "state (way) of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power." (monastica is the latin translation for religion) it was therefore first used in English to mean a 'way of life' as typified by those in monastery's, ie. dedicated to a supreme power other than one's self.

In this sense all of us are 'religious' in that we dedicate our way of life to one, or a bundle of, 'divine' concept(s) to which we devote our 'belief', in hope that we eventually are rewarded with the achievment of some kind of heaven (retirement on the beach) We do this even if we don't actually believe that it is our will to do this (enforced devotion to a higher 'power', working for an unappreciative boss/god) and we truly believe that if we had the chance we would be doing something different (following our OWN will rather than the demands of our society).

If we use religion in this sense we can better appreciate what Sells was trying to relate: today we mostly give our lives over to a dedication to 'higher' powers (such as the Holy Buck), the god of personal freedom, etc. but which are essentially without a 'true' foundation. (Rock, 'Peter')

The definition of Myth has also become corrupt today.
C:1830, from Gk. mythos "speech, thought, story, myth," of unknown origin.
(Cont next post)

Kerravon,
I can assure you i have not forgotten your abysmal logic and will respond at a time and place of my choosing, this thread is possibly not the best place as we are way off topic. Maybe you should start a discussion since you feel so passionately?