Yes Dan, I do. I won't suggest the method is infallible; I think it is possible to 'fool all of the people, some of the time', but in the absence of an infallible arbitrator, it is the best we have.
I know you believe in that infallible arbitrator, and further that you believe he/she/it has made it's feelings clear, but I'm afraid I can't see it.
I truly wish the Earth had come with an owner's manual.
This brings up another bone atheists such as I have to pick. Dogmatic theists start with the belief in a being infinitely greater than themselves, then claim to be able to dictate to the rest of us exactly what this being wants of us, based on their perfect understanding of it.
I doubt I can perfectly understand Relda, George and David, if only because I haven't read the same books.
I'm guessing your God has read even more books than they have.
Your 'owner's manual' has been interpreted and misinterpreted in too many ways, by too many people, for too many years, to have much contemporary credibility, to my mind.

Dear George,

You are an intelligent human being with a generous spirit. You respect other's opinions and have a logical mind. When I read your last post, I thought, "George can't really be Christian." Then I thought that such a thought revealed my own prejudice. In the face of reasonable people one's prejudices are challenged.

Grim, given your view of democracy, what would you say if the majority of voters in a state of America voted for equal time for creation with evolution in discussions in schools? (I’m not advocating this. It’s just a hypothetical.)

“Dogmatic theists start with the belief in a being infinitely greater than themselves, then claim to be able to dictate to the rest of us exactly what this being wants of us, based on their perfect understanding of it [the Bible].” Grim (24/10/09)

My belief is this: I believe God wants to communicate with us. And the main messages communicated in the Bible are clear enough. Yet I do not think that I or the church to which I belong is above criticism. I hope to take this kind of attitude into the open discussions in this forum.

Is this sense of being dictated to coming from me or someone else on this thread, or someone elsewhere?

Dan, if that's what the majority of voters wanted, then so it would be.
That prospect doesn't bother me as much as it might others; I think because I have moved around a bit. If I found the state I was in to not be in step with my beliefs/requirements (NSW), I would move to another state (Qld). I appreciate some people would rather chop off an arm than move from their home towns; I imagine they must have an strong community of people with similar beliefs to their own.
On that note, I believe the if Australia really wanted to acknowledge the prior ownership of this continent, the best thing we could do is reinstate the traditional national boundaries and names. State governments are useless anachronisms anyway, why not just have local and federal? This allows for more cohesive, local communities, and genuine choice between the sorts of communities we want to live in.
A very 'Evolutionary' way of doing things. Allowing socially discriminate communities to compete, not having all your eggs in one basket...