I wonder what would happen to the firsat person that recommends banning all legalised killing of people under any circumstances. Just imagin, all hardware designed for war, for destruction, for domination would suddenly become obsolete, worthless. all that money and the resources saved.

There would be no more war heros medals for bravery under fire, for having been part of a war. All people waging war become war criminals, to be tried under the war-crimes act. No Memorial Services for the ill-fated HMS Sydney 65 years ago

think of the wider implications. would such a thing be possible?

It might seem that John Tomlinson's theme is hopelessly idealistic, impractical and impossible.
But - his article is one expression of the new thinking that is coming up now - a global view of problems. This sort of global view is incomprehensible to the likes of George W. Bush, John McCain and John Howard. But it found its expression in the huge rejection by the people of these politicians.
For sure, Australia's conservatives will criticise Kevin Rudd for "overseas jaunts" - but clearly, Rudd is showing leadership and a view of Australia's place in the world.
The U.S's election of Barack Obama has resounded around the world - with acclaim for a leader who wants to bring the USA back into a positive, rather than an over-bearing attitude towards the world.
So - the chance of peace and of saving the environment is there. First comes the thinking, like John Tomlinson's - then the writing, and the talking, and then the positive action.
Sounds pretty much of a dream, I know - but if you don't try, you certainly fail.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net

“Essentially human beings cannot afford war. Nor can we continue to breed like rabbits.”

Disagree with the former.

Agree with the latter.

Unfortunately whilst it is undesirable, war is often unavoidable and whilst agreeing the merit of negotiated peaceful solutions, such negotiations are not always an option when dealing with the Stalin’s, Hitler’s, Kaiser Willhelm’s, Saddam Hussein’s of the world.

As to breeding like rabbits, I wholly agree.

The biggest single danger to the future of humanity is too many humans battling over finite resources.

In simple terms, a world population of 1 billion people would not impose the demands on world resources which 6 billion do.
If you want to really fix the real environmental problems of fish stock depletion, deforestation, oil reserves, deal with population numbers, rather than try to restrict the available “quality of life” of individuals.

We do have a collective responsibility. I have always considered the best way to address that responsibility is as individuals. Electing and then expecting politicians and government to carry the burden of our individual responsibilities for us never ever works.

All we end up with, when leaving things to government, is mediocrity of what could otherwise be satisfactory outcomes.

Smaller government, and smaller numbers of individuals, each with more personal accountability and responsibility (and opportunity) is the path to improved life quality, not bigger government making mediocre decisions and bribing the electorate with welfare handouts.

Murdering the unborn is far worse than any war. All victims are innocent. If we want to get rid of violence we should start by banning environmentalism. Often when protesting for 'peace' we witness violence. Whenever Christianity has been the dominant culture everyone has been able to live in relative peace. Wherever Secularism or Islam is the dominant culture we have violence and oppression. Both the latter don't tolerate any other world view.

Runner “Whenever Christianity has been the dominant culture everyone has been able to live in relative peace.”

That theory only works if you ignore everything between Agincourt and certainly WWI, if not WWII
Henry V was not a “Pagan King” and nor were his successors in “100 year” war against France.

I do not think that his most Catholic Majesty the King of Spain was “secular” when he launched his Armada against Elizabeth’s England?

Whilst Napoleon Bonaparte was certainly not very devout when he is reputed to have suggested "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." and "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"

But he was opposed and defeated in his empirical aspirations by Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) who could only be described as “Christian” when being quoted as saying "Educate people without religion and you make them but clever devils."

Even when the good folk of Holland ceded from the Spanish throne, they did not abandon Christianity, even if they did give Catholicism the bird in favour of protestant values.

WWI was fought in the belief of both sides that God was with them.

I think you might want to reconsider your declaration to the universal virtues of organized Christianity, runner, I have commented on “Wars”, when I consider the Inquisition and treatment of the Cathars by the Church of Rome I feel “War” is a more honest one of the evils perpetrated by those who call themselves “Christians” upon other people.


I know little about Islam, except they fought on the other side in the Crusades (another War in the Name of Christianity) but if we consider “secularism” it would appear to have less blood on its hands than any religion except possibly Buddhism