Maybe my thanks is rather late, Relda, but really appreciate your expression of a Kantian hope.

Must say since the death of my darling wife over two years ago, while in tears I get with my sorrow also feelings of gladness, wondering whether it is the Comforter that as a political scientist I should discount?

And yet it is history that tells that both Aquinas and Kant were scientifically minded as well as spiritual?

Regards, BB.

This is possibly the most fruitful thread I can remember being attached to one of Peter’s articles! Thank you to those posters who have been taking part with a genuine effort to put aside prejudice, refusing to exchange insults and, whether or not they disagree with the article, trying to come to some greater understanding.

Relda: Now that you’ve brought Jung into the discussion, let me say something that’s been in the back of my mind for a long while as I read these posts. Jungian psycho-types may be partly at the root of much misunderstanding and hostility about Peter’s articles. The intuitive personality probably grasps a lot of his ideas much more easily than the sensate type, whose knowing is based on empirical data. The appreciation of symbols (rather than signs), thinking through analogies, the perception of multiple possible meanings in stories and events are very much the intuitive’s cup of tea. Unfortunately most of our educational institutions don’t understand intuitive thought these days and so it isn’t nurtured in those that way inclined.

Priscillan,

I think it is nice of you to admit that your objections (or frustrations) are personal perceptions (impact your life). So are my comments on them which are mostly an acknowledgement of the fact that Australia is still traditionally a Christian country, and the majority of Australians are, at least nominally, still Christians. There are other minorities that have to accept that some customs reflect the “taste“ of the majority as long as these customs are not forced on the minority.

>>her final words were "......so help me god"<<
That means that she apparently believes in God and wants thus express the seriousness of her intention (I assume this appendix is not compulsory for atheist candidates; if it is, then it is an unfair leftover from the past).

Churches pay no tax because they are supposed to do also a job that otherwise the state would have to do (they teach also maths, provide service to the sick, needy etc). In a democratic system those who find this untrue or unfair have legal ways to try to change the legislation or regulations.

You apparently have to ask to make an affirmation in court because the majority are still happy with swearing on the bible. This is a right, not an embarrassment, the same as you have the right to ask for an interpreter if your English is not good enough, and should not be seen as an embarrassment.

>>We are continual reminded to respect other peoples religious beliefs....why?<<
Because showing respect is, I hope, still part of our culture. For my generation there were words we would use when talking to our peers but not when talking to our grandma. I could exclaim “are you blind?” when frustrated by somebody’s slowness to comprehend, but that would be disrespectful, if that person was actually blind. A civilised person should not be disrespectful to anybody: knowing the difference between disrespect and criticism is one of the things that makes one civilised. (ctd)

George,
I didn't suggest you should not show respect for people. I am talking about their beliefs. I find it quite easy to be polite to people who, I think, have quite silly and sometimes dangerous belief systems.
Obviously we have to get along together in society and remain silent at times to avoid uneccesary conflict.
Yes, I am part of a minority (at the present).

Let me test you George. Do you respect these beliefs?

The magical power of crystals?
Male and female genital mutilation?
The belief in a "chosen people"?
The claims of Scientology?
Cannibalism and blood drinking?
Animal or human sacrifice?
Polygamy?
etc. etc.

I guess there are a few there that revolt you. Beliefs for which you have absolutely zero respect.
Because someone has a belief does not follow that we must bestow respect on that belief. You may very well respect the right of a person to hold a belief and respect the person them self but why are we compelled to respect their beliefs?

As far as Christianity is concerned I do respect some beliefs but not others. I would love to expand on this but alas, I would over run my 350 word limit.

I hold you and Peter forever in my respect.

(ctd)
>>We are reminded by believers regularly that the unfaithful are devoid of morals<<
This unfortunately happens: clichés like unbelievers are immoral and believers are irrational (or even illogical) appear frequently also on this OLO, especially the second one.

>>We are continually accused of having no basis or framework for our lives<<
Ditto, happens both ways.

>>We have to opt out of religious instruction and our kids are often treated like second class students <<
This follows from the fact that you belong to a minority (if that is the case) so you have to opt out from something taken by the majority. I do not know the situation now in Australia, but there are countries where a subject called ethical education is compulsory, but you, or rather your parents, have options, one of them being secular humanism. Something like the subject “foreign languages” consisting of a few options.

If you are worried too much about being in the minority, just reread the contributions on this and similar threads to realise who is getting the short end of the stick, for instance, here.

I had to wait before I could post this continuation. Now as to your comment on “respect“, you are right that my examples concerned rather respect for a person as such, that you never questioned (one of the meanings of “respect” in my dictionary is “have due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of “). You questioned “respect for other peoples religious beliefs“. Here the problem is what belief can be regarded as religious (hence firmly entrenched in the identity of the holder of such belief) in our society, and that is not easy to answer. I would take beliefs that are part of one of the - six or so - so-called higher religions plus secular humanism to cover serious non-religious. Of your examples only “chosen people” is a symbol that belongs to such a higher religion (Judaism and Christianity, although they interpret it differently). However, I agree that it is hard to define what is a “respectable” religion, and in what context.

George wrote: >>We have to opt out of religious instruction and our kids are often treated like second class students <<

We had a six year old Chinese girl staying with us who knew no English. We enrolled her in the local school so she could learn English. The school system was good in the respect that had a Chinese speaking teacher visit her and talk to her twice a week. She rapidly integrated with the other students and learned English. We allowed her to be enrolled in 'religious education ' (actually it was called education, but it was actually indoctrination.) as our not wanting her separated from the other children overrode our objection to having religion pushed on an innocent child.

She came home one day singing 'Who is Jesus?' I taught her 'Yes sir, that's my baby' as an antidote. She is now a delightful 22 year old woman with a good job. 'Who is Jesus' has long been forgotten, and she is uncontaminated by Christianity or any other religion. When she visits us we still have a duet of 'Yes sir, that's my baby'.