Runner you would be better off facing me at a mythological judgement day , I would be more interested in helping you than judging you.

Could say that right-wing Christianity has made the US too sympathetic with Israel letting them go militarily nuclear to solve a political problem with other ME nations who are not nuclear.

The above is thus an example of faith in an extreme right-wing Christian cum Jewish realism rather than in the Socratic reasoning which has helped to form the laws and commonsense which has helped more to form our democracies rather than reliance on our religions.

Peace in the Middle East will thus never be found by trying to abolish the hatred between two sides by battle tactics, but by sensible diplomatic reasoning.

bushbred,
You said:
"The above is thus an example of faith in an extreme right-wing Christian cum Jewish realism rather than in the Socratic reasoning which has helped to form the laws and commonsense which has helped more to form our democracies rather than reliance on our religions."

I beg to differ with you. I do not agree that Socratic reasoning has reached conclusions (i.e laws) that are any different from those reached by religious authorities. I do not think you will find a single secular law, in any nation state, that cannot be traced back to philosophical principles rooted in religious doctrine. The beauty (and complication) of religious beliefs is that they are not all the same i.e Christianity and Judaism differ significantly, as do the laws in their corresponding nation states

"I do not think you will find a single secular law, in any nation state, that cannot be traced back to philosophical principles rooted in religious doctrine."

Perhaps, but maybe this is only true because historically (and prehistorically) religious doctrine came first. If so, I don't see that religious doctrine has any intellectual superiority, or that it can claim any causal effect on legal principles. Especially since many modern legal systems attempt to do without or at least minimize some notable religious doctrine (the vengeful eye-for-an-eye stuff).

In brief, though I admire a lot of what people call Christian principle, I think it is irrelevant that it may be Christian. And I cannot see any way that social principles can logically be defended or attacked because they do or do not agree with Christian teachings.

Well in that case bushbasher,
You should simply "turn the other cheek" !

DB: "eer..sure.. until ur in the trenches, and the bullets are zinging over your head and around your ears and you suddenly wake up to the reality that you know its 'just a belief'.... rather than a belief grounded in something as enduring and eternal as the resurrection of Christ."

And that is your "belief." Just like West's determination that there is absolutely. no god. Another "belief."

That's the problem with the god debate. It's all entirely based solely on belief. You can talk about your eternal christ bedrock all you want. But that's just your "belief."

In any case, we're getting somewhat sidetracked (and yes, I know the direction of threads is allowed to veer from topic, but really, the "my god is great, no your god is fake" discussion gets pretty old after a while) from what I suspect is a potentially more fruitful discussion - is welfare based on a preconception of charity wrong? Should it be viewed as an entitlement for all Australians, rather than an act of charity?

This really is a crucial issue, yet I suspect few are aware of its significance.