Many local Councils across Australia are now removing the Lord's Prayer from the start of their meetings. They are moving to very generic introductions to meetings and then progressing with Council business.

Some Australian State Parliaments are also trying to get rid of the Lord's Prayer also or already have.

In some cases, though it has led to a lot of controversy, with objections from some local elected members and the public opposing such moves.

I'm not for or against the removing the Lord's Prayer, but I do realise there are Atheists out there who don't want prayers, God or religion as part of their daily life and want a fully secular society.

In terms of a Council meeting or Parliament, you're there to make decisions on behalf of the public, not pray or engage in religious practice. I've also wondered though what prayers actually do in real terms. I just don't know.

So, prayer or no prayer, what is the way forward here?

Councillors and such are just like other people who have turned their backs on Christianity. We live in a post-Christian era in Australia.

Many people, including some posters here, thing that's a good idea. They like having a good old sneer at the drop in Christian belief, without ever noticing the drop in social standards that goes with the drop in Christianity.

So be it. A price will be paid eventually. While I'm still breathing, I will pray the Jesus Prayer and the Lord's Prayer twice a day, because it helps me. I never discuss my beliefs with anyone; I don't preach; I'm not particularly interested in the disbelief of others; I just feel better.

Dear ttbn,

Nobody is interfering w your prayers. You can pray as much as you like in any religion you like, but it is not the business of government.

S. 116 of the Australian Constitution states: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Government sponsored prayer is imposing a religious observance and is a violation of the Constitution. As an individual, pray as much as you wish in any religion you wish. S. 116 does not mandate a secular society. It just separates religion and government. Government cannot impose any religion, and religion cannot use government to further its influence.

Yes. Remove the Lord's Prayer from Council meetings
and Parliament. An oath or affirmation can be made
using a religious text but should not require one.
You don't need to have a religious belief to swear
an oath. It's not required in our courts.

I do believe that the preamble to the Australian
Constitution contains an acknowledgement of
"Almighty God," in the preamble.

However, MPs should be given the choice of a religious
text or affirmation instead. Once again - you don't
need to have a religious belief to swear an oath.

I do believe that an Oath or Affirmation of some kind
should be kept. A MP and Councillors are privileged positions
and the tradition of an oath or affirmation
should be maintained. But they don't have to be religious.

The preamble to the Australian Constitution:
Our constitution is a religious document by its very nature.
THE ACT:

[9th July 1900] WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.1…

Of course, the decline in moral values will want to remove any reference or acknowledgement to hold one answerable to a Moral being.

Not only are we becoming a post-Christian society, we are also becoming a post-familial society, in which marriage and family no longer play a central role.

The family is feared and hated by the totalitarians - hence the SSM attack on traditional marriage. That went well, so along came the encouragement of sexual dysfunction and now, in NSW a Bill not only to prevent counselling of sexually confused people - even if they ask for help - but the commercialisation of surrogacy so that people who maim themselves can still get their hands on children.

And, here again, the nutters want a ban on praying for troubled people. I don't how you could be caught and punished for doing that, but Premier Minns has felt the need to say that he would not consider it.

Once again, you speak sensibly TTBN. I admire your tenacity and courage to do so, especially when confronted with the likes of DAVID F. and his cohorts. Although I'm not a believer per se, having something to hold on to when facing death and the horrors in South Vietnam all those years ago, helped me to get through those awful times.

Stay strong, my friend.

It is interesting that those so keen to retain an acknowledgement of a spiritual connection at the start of government meetings are so opposed to acknowledgement of country.

Good for the goose....

Dear Steele,

On seeing Nathan's thread, I thought "Okay, and lets chuck out welcome to country with it.". At least religious spiels aren't chucked down our throats with their ceremonial usage. That cannot be said for welcome to country. You get that pretty much at the start of every ABC program these days. How would you feel if every program began with "I wish to acknowledge Jesus as our lord and Saviour"?

o sung wu

Good to hear from you. I don't call myself religious either; but I believe in a Christian way of life, even though I'm certainly a sinner like everyone else. I believe in the existence of Jesus Christ. But, like all people still living, I don't know what happens after this life. That's the big difference between david f and me: he is certain that there is nothing, that he is as lacking a soul as a possum is. He might be right, or he might be in for a big surprise. I hope he gets the surprise, because I cannot believe that this life is the best there is.

I'm glad you experienced a personal comfort during your service in Vietnam. I thank you for that service and, and I'm glad that you are still with us.

Dear ttbn,

If there is such a thing as a soul, why should a possum not have one?

Dear David,

More importantly than the question of a possum having a soul, you might consider whether or not it is right to be legally compelled to acknowledge such things as a possum spirit.

TTBN...Thank you, my friend, for your kind words. Though completely undeserved, I can assure you. Now I'm in my eighties, I know what I've done, and now I have to bear the responsibility for those sins I committed back in the mid-1960s.

The mysteries of life and death are far too great for some poorly educated individual like me to figure out. Something I have learnt quite starkly, I might add, is that taking human life is incontrovertible and, once taken, can never be restored.

I've participated in many an ambush, and when you're young and full of 'gungho,' there's a certain morbid excitement about the kill—watching a small band of Cong or NVA silently picking their way through the bush as silently as possible just moments away from being shredded from the waist down, by hundreds of miniature ball bearings packed into a Claymore mine. With the curvature of the mine bearing "This side to Enemy" or similar words, I've tried to forget.

Or mounting an M60 GPMG on board a UH-1D...if any enemy is caught in the withering fire of one of those...watch out. The survival rate is almost negligible.

I was a regular, not a conscript. Someone coined the phrase 'war is hell'. Can I tell you all something with some measure of authority...When the war is over. And the Peace Accord(s) are all signed. It's never over for most of those who had to prosecute that war. Never, ever over, for any of them. The shooting continues throughout the night, and the battles rage on. Ever more booby-traps are set and sprung. It goes on and on and on.

Dear o sung wu,

What led you to join and become a regular?

Hi there, DAVID F.

I was seventeen years of age and straight out of school, and I decided to join either the RAAF or the ARA. I wasn't sure how I'd go in the RAN, so it was a toss-up between the ARA and the RAAF. I chose the ARA as there was much more opportunity in the various Corps in the ARA than the RAAF, which was much more of a technical decision, in my opinion.

I enjoyed my six years in the ARMY, nevertheless - except in South Vietnam and on the Malay/Thai Border, Operating against the Communist Terrorists who were entrenched there.

Dear Josephus,

The constitution is supposed to apply to all citizens of this land. All citizens of this land do not believe in God, but the constitution refers to God. Wouldn't it better to have the basic law of the land a document that all citizens could in good conscience follow? I do not believe that the basic laws of Australia are ordained by God. I do not believe in God. Yet, I want to be a good citizen of Australia. A good citizen follows the law of the land. All religious people do not believe in God. Most Buddhists do not believe in God. As long as the Constitution refers to God it is not a document relevant to all citizens of Australia, and it should be a document relevant to all citizens of Australia. You are correct. The Constitution is a religious document, and I don't think it should be a religious document. In Australia we are supposed to have freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is defined in S 116 of the Australian Constitution. Section 116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. The mention of God in the Constitution is a violation of S 116. The Constitution should be a document every Australian can follow with a clear conscience.

The last time you raised this topic NathanJ,
I was of the mind that prayers should be removed simply because not all people follow the Christian religion.

And now I'm not so sure tbh, but it's not because I'm any more religious.

It occurs to me that Christianity isn't just slowly being removed;
- It's actually being replaced, with the pro-gay inclusivity agenda instead.

Is it really just about equality and inclusivity?
Or is it an attack on the family, or something more?
It seems that Christianity stands in the way of their plans, otherwise they wouldn't attack it in the way they do, in spite of claims of freedom of religion.

Forced to choose the lesser evil,
I'd generally state that I 'choose' neither and 'none of the above...
- But since that wont fly and I really do have to choose the lesser evil...

Do I choose Bible Thumpers;
- Or Drag Queen Story Time for kids,
as well as 10yo boys taking testosterone blockers and getting their bits lopped off.
- and Transgender toilets?

David f, you doubt your own existence. There is no such THING as a soul, you are the soul. It is not a thing it is the living breathing person. It is the life and impact you make by living. The spirit is the heart of your inner values. Your spirit is based on negativity and opposition to others' reality.

The way soldiers are treated these days, a regular standing army will become a thing of the past. Our increasingly Communistic politicians will have to resort to conscripted troops to hide behind.

Who would volunteer after the way soldiers returning from Vietnam were treated? After the Brereton Report, the Morrison slandering of troops in Afghanistan, Cpl. Roberts-Smith - who would enlist?

How about the submarines that we will probably never get? There are moans already that nobody wants to crew them - or any other submarines - because of the time spent away. The reticence is more likely down to not wanting to be treated like criminals by the riffraff population they would be protecting.

david f

The difference between you and a possum is that you are a human being and a possum is an animal.

Dear ttbn,

Both possum and I are animals. We are different species of animals and have different ways of life. Possums don't invent gods and don't kill other possums because they have different beliefs.

Dear Josephus,

I exist. If I didn't exist, I couldn't reply to you. We don't have different realities. We have different ways of looking at things, but we share the same reality. I try to be neither negative nor positive but in touch with reality. I try not to cloak reality with nonsense. I see no need to define soul, god or God as I think they are imaginary entities. I follow Occam's razor which is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which, other things equal, explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. God, god and the soul are examples of those unnecessary entities.

david f

I don't degrade myself and other humans, including you, by identifying with animals. But, you have that 'kink'. So be it.

I'll repeat what I posted earlier in answer to the question
being asked in this discussion - whether we should remove
the Lord's Prayer from Council meetings and Parliament?

Yes we should. People could make an oath or affirmation
of some kind for being given their privileged position.
However they should have a choice as to how they will
do it and the Lord's Prayer should not be mandatory for all.

This discussion shows how opinions differ on religion
and belief in God. Forcing someone to prayer to a
Deity they do not believe in is immoral.

And, talking about morality the following link is worth
a read:

http://psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-secular-life/201908/how-can-you-be-moral-if-you-dont-believe-in-god

Gosh, here we have calls for the removal of a traditional and innocuous practice because it involves Christianity, ironically brought to you by the same people who are all for shoving welcome to country down our throats an wishing us to become legally obligated not to offend the possum spirit. Good help us!

Dear Fester,

Which God?

"I'll repeat what I posted earlier in answer to the question
being asked in this discussion"
- Yeah we got that the first time.

"People could make an oath or affirmation
of some kind for being given their privileged position."

Yeah who to?
Immigrants, sexual minorities, big business or foreign nations and bureaucrats? You pick one.
- Many of us here know they certainly wouldn't be making an oath of allegiance to the best interests of the Australian people.

Armchair Critic,

Take an intelligent guess as to who to give an Oath
or Affirmation either at a Council meeting or Parliament.
Who do you think they should swear an
oath or affirmation to?

You can do it - just try.

Ignorance is the major cause of unpleasant disconnects
between people. In extreme cases terrorism aimed at
killing fellow human beings exists and has to be explained.

The lack of exposure to other cultures and beliefs
leads to narrow
mindedness and worse , to an "us and them" divide.

Education is the answer, By definition education is secular.
Without knowledge of what leading thinkers are doing and saying
supernatural beliefs will remain unchallenged and an us-them
religious divide will destroy any vestiges of common ground.

A poor understanding of one's own religion let alone that of
other religions and beliefs can lead to disputes that
are avoidable.

Most people of all religious beliefs have only a very general
understanding of their religion as they are likely to relate
to those aspects which best suit their particular personal
philosophies.

That's why it is important to keep things neutral when
people are representatives of a wider group than just those
of their own beliefs. A more neutral Oath or affirmation is
more appropriate than a select Christian prayer.

Dear ttbn,

It is not degrading humans to recognize we are animals. It is simply recognizing elementary biology. Life can be divided into plants, animals, fungi and microbes. We humans are not plants, fungi or microbes. We are animals. It's not a kink. It is elemental biology.

David f,Your body has all the functions of an advanced animal, but you can make advanced choices, and have abstract calculated thoughts. You are more than any animal. You have lawful responsibilities to the community, and those that rely on you, you can create ideas and do things no animal has the power to envisage. If you are only an animal then you do not have moral values, and no ultimate accountability to anyone other than yourself.

Dear Josephus,

I am an animal with moral values. I assume you are also an animal with moral values.

Many non-human animals that have young feel a need to provide for their young. Is providing for your young a moral value? When meerkats are in a group, some will keep a watch for predators while others are feeding. Is being concerned for the safety of the group a moral value?

We humans are classified as follows:

Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: Sapiens

Some other animals are more advanced than humans in some ways. An eagle has better vision. A dog can run faster. A gorilla is stronger. Nevertheless, you and I share a common humanity, and we can care for each other.

Dear Foxy,

I think I will let the autocorrect ride. Good is useful and rarely contested or refused.

Dear Josephus,

I don't know what 'more than an animal' means. I am an animal not a plant, fungus or microbe. I don't how I can be more than what I am.

In our multicultural society where Christianity is no longer the dominant focus for the majority of citizens, the recitation of a Christian prayer at the start of decision making meetings that affects those very citizens seems rather archaic.

BTW; Didn't the NOALITION have their 'Prayer Room' in Parliament House where they could go and fornicate to their hearts content, whilst praying to the All Mighty for forgiveness at the same time. Seems a fair compromise.

.

What is it to be human ?

.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica :

« The gap in cognition, as in anatomy, between humans and the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) is much less than was once thought, as they have been shown to possess a variety of advanced cognitive abilities formerly believed to be restricted to humans. »

Human beings, like all life forms, are animated matter. The OED defines “life” as :

« The condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally ».

Life is a self-sustaining process. Birth is not the beginning of life. It is its continuance. And, as Shakespeare may possibly have said, had he been a biologist instead of a playwright : we are all just actors in a chain of events - from the cradle to the grave.

Here is a brief video on what separates humans from other animals :

http://www.britannica.com/video/193400/What-is-it-to-be-human
.

On separation of church and state :

As a British colony, the Westminster political and legal system applied in Australia and has never been abandoned, even after the Australia Act of March 1986 granted us so-called full independence.

Despite our so-called “full independence”, what we still have in Australia today is the British Crown as our Head of State and the Westminster system.

The Westminster system is, of course, based on religious foundations. In addition, the British Crown is both Head of State and Head of the Church of England and has been since the 16th century.

I don’t expect that the separation of Church and State in Australia will be complete until we decide to become a republic and replace our old colonial constitution accordingly.

If and when that were to occur, we could shake off our final shackles and remove all religious practices from the political and public sphere, hopefully, without offending anyone.

Freedom of religion would continue to be guaranteed by the state in the private sphere among the various religious communities.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank you for that:

https://www.britannica.com/video/193400/What-is-it-to-be-human

The above video says well what I have been trying to say. We are an animal with particular characteristics, and all animals have their particular characteristics. The particular characteristics define us, but they do not make us higher or lower. The religious myth of creation in the Bible sets us above the other animals. However, it remains a religious myth and not reality.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

The myth that we are put here to rule over forms of life has justified great environmental destruction. The recognition that we are part of nature and another species may serve to counter that destruction.

David f, your animal body is not really you, it has been created from plants, animals, and resources you have consumed. Every cell of your body has come from the Earth and other creatures and has been fully replaced every 21 years. So, what are you? You are the life you have lived and the impressions you have made while living, that remains as your history in the great scheme of history. You are HIS STORY!

Australia has changed a great deal from it's colonial
times and will continue to do so. The only constant
is change in this country. I hope that I shall live
long enough to see the positive changes that will
inevitably take place.

Exciting times ahead.

Dear Josephus,

My animal body is really me. That is all I am - an organization of various chemicals from various sources. My animal body is animate as I am living matter. When I die I will no longer be living matter. The dead matter will decay, and that will be the end of me. Eventually those who remember me will also die. My writings will disappear. Copies of my genes may continue to exist if my descendants continue to reproduce. Humans will eventually become extinct as other animal species have. The universe will eventually suffer a heat death.

Then star nor sun shall waken,
Nor any change of light:
Nor sound of waters shaken,
Nor any sound or sight:
Nor wintry leaves nor vernal,
Nor days nor things diurnal;
Only the sleep eternal
In an eternal night.

Dear David,

Thank You for putting things so beautifully.

I've always been easily distracted by intelligent
men, and books.(smile).

My wish is for your descendants to continue to
reproduce.

David f, I see! Your life has no meaning as you have been nothing else than earth chemistry. Sad really! Yet you talk about eternal sleep? Really! So, you do believe in a future beyond death.

Wow, I am beginning to see the light. Yes, there are no blasphemy laws any more, but how horrid that each session of parliament should start with the Lord's prayer. Yuck!

If only it could be a small and benign offering like the Voice. That only entails acknowledgement of country at the start of programs by the national broadcasters, welcome to country at the start of meetings, teaching kids all about their murdering and genocidal ancestors (a bit brutal for the little ones, so they just make "sorry" cards to teach them the concept of inherited guilt), and making small offerings to the rainbow serpent where appropriate (as determined by your friendly indigenous totem spirit assuagement service). There are probably a few other minor observances to be added, but don't worry as it will all be sorted out after we all vote "Yes".

Dear Josephus,

Life doesn't need meaning to be a joy. I hope you enjoy your life. One doesn't need religious or other fantasies to enjoy life. Eternal sleep does not mean life after death. It is just a poetic metaphor for non-existence.

I have no objection for you to have what superstitions you have. Many people share that type of thing. I object to missionaries who use the power of government to force their nonsense on other people.

It is not sad for me to be free of nonsense and to face life without delusions. I used to believe in God and have other religious fantasies. I have given all that up. I believe one should be kind and ask questions - not that you are going to punished if you aren't. One can feel better about oneself if one is kind. Asking questions to seek answers leads to learning. I find joy in that.

I don't feel sad that you are what you are. May you live a life of joy. Some people are sad that other people don't believe what they believe. As long as they leave other people alone, let them be free to enjoy their sadness.

Yes, feel free to kick Jesus as much as you please, but let's not question the new religion, where faith and blasphemy are now referred to as solidarity and racism. But I commend you for your tolerance. After all, who are we to make judgements about the beliefs of others? If a soldier finds solace from the terrors of war in his faith, then I don't see that as a provocation to kick Jesus.

.

Dear Fester,

.

You wrote :

« … how horrid that each session of parliament should start with the Lord's prayer. Yuck! »
.

As I mentioned in my previous post, in the UK, the British Crown is both Head of State and Head of the Church of England and has been since the 16th century.

But, unlike the UK, in Australia, we do not have an official state religion. For that reason, Australia is generally considered to be a secular country. But I should put a caveat on that.

Religion is allowed in the public sphere in Australia. It permeates our parliamentary and local government procedures at all levels. We permit chaplains to operate throughout the country in our schools. The federal government funds schools run by religious organisations and recognises marriages conducted by religious celebrants.

That said, people are free to choose between belief and unbelief. And though religious leaders may lobby for their points of view, so too may leaders of atheist, humanist and rationalist organisations.

What we have is probably best described as a hybrid system, a mixture of secularity (more than 50%) and theocracy (less than 50%).

According to the 2021 census, roughly 40% of Australians declared having no religious affiliation, compared to 30% in the 2016 census.

The tendency for a further decrease in religious affiliation is expected to continue in the foreseeable future.

.

David f, your life is recorded in light, and one hundred light years from now the universe will look back on your life. Your living cannot be erased from history, it is observable from somewhere in the universe.

Seems, NATIONAL PARTY MP James Hayward was a very religious man when he wasn't molesting an 8 year old girl. Hayward must have recited the 'Lord Prayer' many a time, probably knew the words off by heart. How about Gold Coast LIBERAL NATIONAL PARTY Councillor Ryan Bayldon-Lumsden now charged with murder, he too would have recited the 'Lords Prayer' with gusto, I'm sure. They just keepa commn'.

Dear Fester,

If a man questions he may avoid being a soldier and engaging in the terrors of war. Religion usually does not encourage questioning. The vice of faith is usually their stock in trade. Often, religious leaders may support a war as Kirill, the Orthodox Patriarch supports Putin's war. The crusades and other wars have been supported by religious leaders. The Quakers are a religion that opposes war. Unfortunately, more religions support than oppose war. Possibly, the world might become more peaceful if religions would encourage people to learn to live with others who have different beliefs rather than trying to persuade other people to adopt theirs. Too often, the gunboats follow the missionaries.

As far as I'm aware Fester's comment about "kicking Jesus"
is false. Nobody is suggesting that.

What is being said is that with so many religious affiliations
in Australia and having parliaments and councils who
represent multicultural, multi faith societies we should no
longer align ourselves with just one religious viewpoint.

There is a great deal of talk about "religious freedom,"
But Australians should also have the right to their own
religious beliefs as well as freedom from religion,
especially in our institutions of government.

While some may believe the best solution in our secular
society is no prayer or similar recitation at all. A short
formal reflection of some kind can serve a useful purpose,
giving our representatives a moment to recall and ponder
their commitments.

Last year the City of Whitlesea replaced the Lords Prayer
with a diversity statement:

"We strive to be an inclusive, welcoming City that fosters
active participation, well being, and connection to each
other and this land."

Clearly there are varied solutions.

We can expect that each state and parliament will find one
that suits.

Foxy, all very nice, but has no one accountable to any higher power than themselves.
"We strive to be an inclusive, welcoming City that fosters
active participation, well being, and connection to each
other and this land."

The City of Greater Dandenong has for many years drawn
on leaders from its multi faith community to deliver their
own affirmations. Some councils such as the Surf Coast
recite a pledge, others have chosen to affirm their
responsibility to the Local Government Act. And so it goes.

Clearly as stated earlier there are varied solutions.

There's a lot of talk about "religious freedom," but
Australians should also have the right to freedom from religion
especially in our institutions of government.

With more than 100 religious affiliations in Australia
and parliaments and councils who represent a multicultural
multi-faith, others with no faith, society.

We should not longer align ourselves with just one religious
viewpoint.

Dear David,

I think you should instead be blaming a trait common to all living creatures, that of manipulating one another for advantage. Religious belief is simply a means of manipulating others in this respect. You might also note that the manipulation can also serve the common good.

Dear Banjo,

It is part of our history and heritage. Perhaps you think that it should all be discarded because it doesn't reflect how people live today? Like mythology, I think it gives a richness to life if people have the inkling to seek it, but you wont die if it is denied to you. It is quite another thing if it is rammed down your throat and anyone who doesn't go along with it is singled out as a bad person. That is where I think the Voice will take us.

Dear Foxy,

Then what of all this acknowledgement of country/welcome to country then? Does that have universal acceptance and approval? I think it all a bit insidious and Orwellian.

Religion is a personal thing.
It should not be exhibited blatantly in public?
In private, you can experience all the religious fervour you desire.
And you can dress how you want to.
But in a public place, public standards should be observed.
Mostly quiet and sober dress?

The young need leeway in this, as they must express themselves.
Ladies too like to experiment with 'fashions'.
But full religious 'regalia' is to be abhorred?
In businesses etc, I just don't speak with the 'faceless' ones any more.

It is imperative that religion does not prevail in the halls of government.
Religion and the state must be kept worlds apart.
Why religious ceremony is undertaken at the beginning of meetings and so on, is questionable.
Probably because the chief 'head of state' is also the head of a church?
A crazy state of affairs to be sure.

Dear IF

"116. Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious
observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a
qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

What then is welcome to country/acknowledgement of country if not an imposed observance? Do you feel that it is pushed on you? I do.

Reading the words of the Lord's Prayer, they are not appropriate to modern Australia. The prayer is a Christian call to their god to bestow forgive upon them, and to deliver salvation. I fail to see the prayers relevance to council proceedings. If adherents want to invoke their gods forgiveness and have him deliver salvation, they should do so in their places of worship as a group, or individually in private.

Jesus would not have approved of prayer at official proceedings:

Matthew 6: Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. [6] But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Jesus did not approve of public displays of religiosity. Relations with God are between the worshiper and the deity.

.

Dear Fester,

.

You wrote :

« It is part of our history and heritage … Like mythology, I think it gives a richness to life if people have the inkling to seek it, but you won’t die if it is denied to you … »
.

I presume you refer to the practice of reciting “the Lord's Prayer at Council meetings and Parliament”.

As I indicated in a previous post, I don’t expect that the separation of Church and State in Australia will be complete until we decide to become a republic and replace our old colonial constitution accordingly.

That won’t happen overnight and if it does happen it will probably be a long, gradual process of phasing out the theocratic practices embedded in the Westminster political system we inherited by British colonisation.

As a matter of fact, my personal life journey has followed a similar path. I was christened at 6 months, confirmed when I was 10 and served as an altar boy until I was 20. Most of my friends were young priests in the Church of England – one was my religious instruction teacher at primary school. He later became Archbishop of Melbourne and later Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia before retiring in Adelaide with the title of Bishop. We remain very close friends.

I grew up in the Queensland bush in a family that religiously said grace before every meal. As I was the youngest in the family my mother usually asked me to officiate.

My expectation was that I would eventually believe that there really is a God, and it was just a question of time. But exactly the opposite occurred. I had been studying the question off and on ever since I was a boy and finally had a flash of enlightenment much later in life.

It suddenly dawned on me why primeval man imagined the concept in the first place, and then why subsequent generations continued to perpetuate it despite the perpetual absence of any conclusive evidence.

I guess not everybody has had that chance.

.

Hi Fester,

The acknowledgement of Aboriginal land is a statement of fact. Paying respects to those people past and present is the right thing to do in my opinion. You and others may not like it, but there is no ground swell of public opinion that is hostile to the practice. It took some time for the conservative side of society to embrace such things, but they seem to have gone along with it okay, the sky hasn't fallen in, as some always predict with these matters.

As for the 'Lords Prayer' at council and parliamentary decision making sessions, I think the content and outcome of the proceedings are far more important than the goings on beforehand.

Dear David and Banjo,

"Jesus did not approve of public displays of religiosity. Relations with God are between the worshiper and the deity."

Exactly! Both my parents were firm atheists and instilled in myself and my siblings a detestation of being manipulated and coerced. As I said, I don't see very much manipulation and coercion in reading a prayer at the start of parliamentary sessions, and think it more part of the pomp and ceremonial traditions of our democracy.

In contrast, the Voice seems to me very much about the manipulation and coercion of the Australian population. How many people are happy with acknowledgement of country/welcome to country? How many don't speak out against it for fear of being labeled or victimised? And what of those preschoolers writing "sorry" cards as an activity, something yet to be reported by the "impartial" ABC? To me, that smacks of something far more toxic.

Don't bother me with facts. I've made up my mind.

"Don't bother me with facts. I've made up my mind."

Yes, you make that very clear with your constant Jesus bashing, yet you fail to see that the harm doesn't come from Jesus but from other people. That is probably why you get so uppity about an innocuous democratic tradition yet are oblivious to an abusive exploitation of preschool kids (also ignored by that wonderful fair minded ABC) and the insidious acknowledgement of country/welcome to country that makes me feel very uncomfortable and is possibly unconstitutional.

Fester wrote: What then is welcome to country/acknowledgement of country if not an imposed observance? Do you feel that it is pushed on you? I do.

S. 116 forbids imposing a religious observance. Welcome to country/acknowledgement of country is not a religious observance.

Dear Fester,

Please cite where I have bashed Jesus. The constitution requires Australia to be neutral regarding religion. Government should not favor Christianity over other religions. Government should not favor religion over non-religion. That is not bashing Jesus. There is evidence in the Bible that Jesus did not want to start a new religion.

In Matthew we find: 5:18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. 5:19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 5:20For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The law Jesus was referring to was the law revealed in what Christians call the Old Testament. Jesus was a Jew and remained a Jew. In not following Jewish law Christians have bashed Jesus.

Heaven and Earth have not passed away so those who want to follow Jesus should go to a rabbi for instruction.

I don't think the Bible is a reliable guide to behavior, but those who take Jesus seriously should consider adopting his religion.

Dear David,

I no more think that you would have a beef with Jesus than with Santa or the Easter Bunny. Instead I think you more interested in winding up people of faith. As for welcome to country/acknowledgement of country not being a religious observance, I differ with your opinion:

Example from ReconciliationAustralia.org.au:

"Reconciliation Australia acknowledges and pays respect to the past, present and future Traditional Custodians and Elders of this nation and the continuation of cultural, spiritual and educational practices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples."

It implies a special spiritual connection which strikes me as decidedly religious in its connotations, rather like the Israelites being god's chosen people.

Now what of abusing those preschoolers by making them write "sorry" cards? Is that all hunky dory as well Dave?

Dear Fester,

I agree with you on having school children write sorry cards.

Fester,

I think we can all agree on the subject of the sorry cards.

We can acknowledge that schools don't always get it right.
And that includes religious schools as well.

Take the toxic culture of the schools run by the Christian
Brothers where decades of horrific child sexual abuse
took place. The Opus Dei schools where kids were encouraged
the group practice of corporal mortification, the deliberate
experience of pain and discomfort so as to be "closer to God."

Schools where families are asked to sign "statements of faith"
that implied transgender students are "offensive to God," and
"immoral." Private schools where anti-Semitism is practiced.
Where Nazi salutes and rantings of violence are regularly
practiced.

And the list goes on.

Well done David. You now stand ethically above the ABC in my estimation. As for welcome/acknowledgement of country, I think you would have a better understanding of religious coercion and manipulation than me, as I have never had any religious affiliations other than a few discussions with people from religious cults who were unable to convince me of anything (I'd imagine that this would come as no surprise to you).

I certainly feel that welcome/acknowledgement of country is at least manipulative and coercive, and given what I feel is the implication of a spiritual connection of the land with indigenous Australians, it is also a religious imposition and unconstitutional.

https://adelaideanglicans.com/news/why-christians-should-encourage-the-use-of-welcome-to-or-acknowledgement-of-country/

Welcome to country and acknowledgement of aboriginal elders past and present is a religious ceremony of animism and ancestral worship. This is the worship of ancient aboriginal culture. It has nothing to do with those who have built this great Nation, it is totally aboriginal.

Quote, "Animism is a belief that all objects and living things have a soul or spirit. It is considered to be the earliest form of religion. The term animism comes from the Latin word anima, meaning breath, spirit, or life. Animism is a way of perceiving all things as animated and alive. It is also an anthropological construct used to compare different systems of beliefs."

In classification of religions: Morphological
Ancestor worship, prevalent in preliterate societies, is obeisance to the spirits of the dead. Fetishism, the veneration of objects believed to have magical or supernatural potency, springs from the association of spirits with particular places or things and leads to idolatry.

Dear Josephus,

I don't think that animism is more ridiculous than a religion which has a god in three parts, life after death, virgins having babies, hell, heaven and the devil. That religion and animism seem like a pile of rubbish to me. However, Christian missionaries pushed their religion on people who worshiped a rainbow serpent. They had absolutely no respect for people who didn't believe what the missionaries believed. However, I don't expect you to give up your beliefs even though they seem ridiculous to me. I respect your right to believe what you will. Christian missionaries showed no such respect for the religion of the Aborigines. I think all religions are primitive ways of dealing with the world. However, if one is going to respect one religion one should respect any religion whose proponents obey the law of the land. People who practice idolatry have as much right to practice idolatry as you have to practice your religion.

Ah Foxy. Yes, indeed Australia has an infestation of Nazis, just like Ukraine or anywhere else I'd imagine. There will always be revolting people, but the worst that can result from that is to believe we need a revolting system of rule to deal with them. Then we all lose. Acknowledgement of country/welcome to country is not so different from a Nazi salute as you might think.

Dear Dave,

There you go again typecasting Christian missionaries. They are human beings too you know.

Dear Fester,

Christian missionaries as well as Muslim missionaries or other kinds of missionaries are human beings. Some are very flawed human beings. I tend to resent them. You have possibly never been subject to attention from a missionary. I have been many times, and I have found it unpleasant. It is very arrogant for a person to try to get you to adopt that person's beliefs. If a person is dissatisfied with their beliefs, they can seek people and written material which will give them information about other beliefs, Perhaps, we can learn to accept that other people have different beliefs and ideas from us rather than trying to change them to accept the beliefs we have. We can learn to live with them. We can tell other people what we think and believe, and they can tell us what they think and believe. I think taking Aboriginal children away from their parents and forbidding them to speak their language or practice their religion is evil. It alienates them from their family and their culture. My mother was a teacher in the St. Regis Indian Reservation in the US. Indian kids were forbidden to speak the language or practice the religion of their parents. Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things. For good people to do bad things, that takes religion. Missionaries can do great evil.

.

Dear Fester,

.

You will perhaps recall that Jesus is quoted in the synoptic gospels as having said :

« Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. »
.

This is a widely quoted definition of the relationship between Christianity, secular government, and society.

As we all know, the UK does not have a secular government. The UK has an official state religion. The British Crown is both Head of State and Head of the Church of England and has been since the 16th century.

Historically, the Parliament of England was the legislature of the Kingdom of England that evolved from the great council of bishops and peers that advised the English monarch. The Great Council was first referred to as “Parliament” (from French parler “to speak”) in 1236 during the reign of Henry III (1216–1272).

The Westminster political system was subsequently conceived, organised and developed over centuries as a joint effort of the Church and Parliament under the British Crown. It was named after Westminster Palace where Britain’s bicameral Parliament meets – just 200 meters from Westminster Abbey, the magnificent gothic cathedral owned and administered by the British Crown (not by the Church of England, as one might imagine), that has played an important role in British political, social and cultural affairs for more than 1,000 years.

In their great wisdom, our forefathers took inspiration not only from the Westminster system but also from the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution in drawing up our old Australian colonial constitution – which states that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

.

(Continued …)

.

Hi Fester,

I don't think David is "typecasting Christian missionaries", he is given his opinion from a balanced view. I can say my, experience with male Catholic clergy, in rough terms I found one third okay, not menacing or threatening, one third ambivalent and one third down right nut jobs, does that mean I should accept their behaviour because only a minority were nut jobs, by that I mean sadistic, perverted religious zealots. No, the nut job minority on balance brought the whole group into disrepute with me.

.

(Continued …)

.

Expanding on this, Jefferson famously wrote in 1802 :

« Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State ».

As a result, maybe it was to placate the foreseeable discontentment of the staunch Christian members of the then-Australian population that the authors of our old colonial constitution undertook the delicate balancing act of conserving the Westminster Standing Orders that imposed Christian prayers at each sitting of our federal and state parliaments and local governments.

But, however you look at it, the secular constitutional rule of “a wall of separation between Church and state”, and the Westminster practice of saying Christian prayers at each sitting of our federal and state parliaments and local governments, are in total contradiction with each other.

I, personally, formulate the wish that if and when we become a republic, we eliminate this blatant contradiction by removing all religious practices from our current Westminster Standing Orders.

« Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. »

.

In the 1901 census 96% of Australians professed to be Christian, with no religion or other being 1.8%, around 98% answered the question on religion. By 2021 93% answered the religion question with 44% professing to be Christian and 49% answering no religion or other. The decline in Christianity, and the growth in 'no religion' has been around 8% to 10% in recent census, and that is expected to continue, along with a small increase in other non christian religions.

I would say in 1901 there would have been no problem with the 'Lords Prayer' being recited before the start of parliamentary and council proceedings, in those times there would have been no problem if the Archbishop of Canterbury had turned up at Federal Parliment and blessed the whole congregation, all 111 of the blokes, today its somewhat different.

David f, what you have quoted here,"
"I don't think that animism is more ridiculous than a religion which has a god in three parts, life after death, virgins having babies, hell, heaven and the devil." is a Catholic view of Biblical religion, it is not the basis of Jesus teachings.
God is one Spirit expressed in living character.
Jesus never taught he was miraculously born.
The term devil applies to anyone who opposes.
Heaven is a place of being blessed.
Hell is a place of unfulfilled life.

Dear Josephus,

You wrote: "The term devil applies to anyone who opposes."

One whom opposes me is not a devil. The person who opposes me is merely someone with a different opinion. Apparently, your religion believes that heaven and hell are places.

You also wrote: "God is one Spirit expressed in living character."

I don't get any meaning from that statement. The Bible is a document containing writings produced over a period of time which was not peer reviewed, has many different versions and errors of translation. The prophesy of a virgin birth appears in the King James Protestant version. It is not in the original Masoritic text. The Bible contains both beautiful passages and nonsense. It has phrases such as the "four corners of the earth" which indicates that the individuals who wrote that part thought that the earth had corners. The Bible has greatly influenced western culture but accepts such concepts as slavery which is no longer acceptable in most of the current world. It is not a document to live by.

Anyhow, freedom of religion means to me that all beliefs are to be given equal respect whether it be Catholicism, your religion, animism, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism etc. I hope that humanity will become sufficiently enlightened to discard all forms of supernatural belief and appreciate the wonder of the real world.

Interesting how Josephus and the devout in general can "interoperate" the Bible to their own satisfaction. The description of hell, the devil and his followers, and who will go there, is well explained though out the Bible, hell (gehenna in the Hebrew) is described as a physical place of punishment. When the biblical description is considered too ridiculous Josephus and others simply reinterpret to something more acceptable in keeping with modern thinking......"Blessed are the Cheese-makers... that includes all in the dairy industry."

Dear Banjo,

From what I read about 116 I got the impression that people did not like having impositions like Sunday laws placed upon them by religious groups, so it may have been born as much from a desire for freedom as for secularism, perhaps more so. Those tentacles of manipulation and control I do not welcome, and as Paul pointed out, nearly all Australians identified as Christian at the time of Federation.

Dear Fester,

You wrote: "From what I read about 116 I got the impression that people did not like having impositions like Sunday laws placed upon them by religious groups, so it may have been born as much from a desire for freedom as for secularism, perhaps more so."

The desire for freedom and for secularism are not separate desires. In return for not having the government united with religion, the government cannot interfere with religion. The Sunday laws were not placed on people by religious groups. They were placed on people by government acting at the behest of Christian religious groups. If people want to behave in a certain way on the sabbath whether it is on the different Christian, Jewish or Muslim sabbaths government may not interfere.

Dear Dave,

"The Sunday laws were not placed on people by religious groups. They were placed on people by government acting at the behest of Christian religious groups."

That sounds like coercion by proxy, much like the Voice might be.

Late to this thread, when parliament/council recites the Lord's Prayer for 3 minutes, these are 3 minutes they won't harass us, 3 minutes they won't legislate against us, 3 minutes they won't devise all sorts of fancy projects to grab our hard-earned savings.

I therefore say, let them pray all day to all gods, let them acknowledge all lands and all countries, and then let them have all kinds of fun activities there, let them enjoy themselves till they forget us, let them enjoy pleasures that do not involve seeing us suffer, just give them all games, all toys so they play with them and not with our lives!

I do recommend they also include some physical yoga exercises in their daily parliamentarian routine: unlike Putin or Tony Abbott, not all politicians are young and fit for vigorous physical exercises, but some yoga postures can be done by everyone.

Dear David F.,

«If there is such a thing as a soul, why should a possum not have one?»

It's the other way round: humans and possums have no soul, yet some souls have a human while others have a possum.

«The Constitution should be a document every Australian can follow with a clear conscience.»

No one can follow with a clear conscience a constitution that was forced over all the people of a land without their consent.

«My animal body is really me. That is all I am»

WHOSE animal body did you say?

If you say that it is yours and that you are an animal body, then it necessary implies ad absurdum:

"My animal body's body is really me"
"My animal body's body's body is really me"
"My animal body's body's body's body is really me"
...

«Eternal sleep does not mean life after death. It is just a poetic metaphor for non-existence.»

But of course, death is not life, non-existence is not existence.
Suppose even that there was no life after death, then that would only mean that once dead you are not alive, that you have lost that property of being alive, also the property of existing - big deal, you would then be dead and non-existent, but it will still be YOU who are dead and non-existent.

«Religion usually does not encourage questioning.»

Hinduism does. Buddhism too, I think.

«There is evidence in the Bible that Jesus did not want to start a new religion.»

While I believe that Jesus privately taught religion to his disciples, he never started an organised religion... because there wasn't yet any at his times!

I just started reading a new book by Yigal Bin Nun of Tel Aviv University. I need to read more to be convinced, but according to his research:

* Christianity was the first organised religion in the West.
* Judaism as [attempted] religion, along most of its main scriptures, was only created in the 10th century, in response to Christianity.
* The Quran was written by Christian(s).

See more in http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2023/08/15/rabbi-akiva-and-shimon-bar-yohai-of-the-talmud-and-mishnah-are-fictional-characters/

Dear Yuyutsu,

I wrote: "«Religion usually does not encourage questioning.»

You wrote: "Hinduism does. Buddhism too, I think."

Read my statement again. I did not write, "Religion does not encourage questioning." I wrote, "Religion usually does not encourage questioning." My statement does not deny that sometimes religions encourage questioning. It just maintains that usually they don't. If you are going to comment on my statements, please read them carefully. I try to compose them carefully.

Someone has stated I have brought this issue up before, I may have, but I have raised it now as some in local government for example are disrupting the core operations at a council meeting to push the Lord's Prayer through a meeting, with no consideration of others.

This is not democratic or respectful, it is trying to get something through by force.

The Councillor in question has called for the matter to be put to a vote. I don't think that is unreasonable to try and end what may be an ongoing issue here.

This link also includes more detail and a video involving the Councillor at a Council meeting. http://indaily.com.au/news/2023/08/09/christians-rally-as-council-prayer-row-escalates/

.

Dear Fester,

.

You wrote (to David f) :

« … coercion by proxy, much like the Voice might be. »
.

I am intrigued by your comment. How do you think the Voice might be coerced or are you afraid that it is you who might be coerced by the Voice ?

Would you kindly elaborate ?

.

.

Dear NathanJ,

.

Thanks for the link to the news article on the Adelaide council prayer row.

I just sent the following comment to CityMag :
.

« Dear Editor,

I wish to make the following comment :

We inherited the Westminster political system, together with its parliamentary and local government standing orders, at British colonisation. In their great wisdom, the authors of our old colonial constitution took inspiration not only from the Westminster system but also from the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution which states that :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

Commenting on this in 1802, Jefferson concluded : “ ... thus building a wall of separation between Church & State”.

In acting our old colonial constitution in 1901, our forefathers founded Australia as a secular state. Section 116 of the Constitution states : “ The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, ...”

This is different from the UK which is not a secular state. The UK has an official state religion. The British Crown is both Head of State and Head of the Church of England and has been since the 16th century.

As I see it, in Australia, the standing orders of the British Westminster political system we inherited at colonisation are unconstitutional and should be deleted. »

.

Dear David F.,

I was not attempting in my previous post to refute your statement that "Religion usually does not encourage questioning": it was just a side note.

Whether or not your original statement is correct, depends on what you consider to be a religion.

I sadly find that many people tend to mistakenly attribute the title of "religion" to organisations/groups that have little to deserve that title, including national/ethnic/cultural groups and the three so-called "Abrahamic religions". Under these circumstances any crime on earth can be attributed to what they think of as "religion".

I think you may find Bin-Nun's book interesting because one of the things he demonstrates is that Judaism was never meant by its founders to be a religion. It was essentially a national identity and even the temple priests were essentially just part of the secular establishment. Then he writes about "Islam" which was created by Christians for the purpose of refuting some church doctrines...

Dear Yuyutsu,

We do not agree on the definition of a religion. Without that agreement I don't think we can have a good discussion on the subject. I will try to avoid commenting on your posts.

Hi David,

When the evil past of religion is pointed out to the religious, many simply say, "Oh well, that wasn't religion, this is religion, I can't be responsible for what non religious people did, yuda, yuda, yuda." Its a cop out.

Recently when I put forward for discussion; "Burning people at the stake in 1523, by Christians in the name of God, was just as a Christian act, as Christians in 2023 giving welfare to the needy." The fact that we approve of one act today, and not the others doesn't make the first act un-christian. For me if a Christian does something in the name of his God, then its a Christian act, rightly or wrongly. Some in the discussion wouldn't have a bar of it, others thought maybe so, they could see where I was coming from.

They should get rid of the welcome to country as well.

I am tired of being welcomed into my own country.

Dear Paul1405,

The Nazis printed Martin Luther's diatribes against the Jews to justify their genocide. As far as I am concerned, the Holocaust was a Christian act justified by the founder of a major Christian denomination. When the Nazis rounded up the Jews of Rome Pope Pius remained silent. The Nazis didn't invent Jew hatred. It was a Christian tradition, and the Nazis appealed to an endemic hate in the German population fostered by both Protestant and Catholic religious tradition. During WW2 the Japanese didn't share the Christian gestalt and gave Jews who managed to get there refuge in Shanghai from Christian evil.

Recent popes have acknowledged the evil of their past.

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2453&context=consensus is an account of Lutheran feeling toward the hatred fostered by the founder of their religion.

Some Christians feel remorse, but I don't most even recognise their responsibility. Some would deny that it was really religion.

Dear Paul,

A Christian act, past, present or future, need not necessarily be a religious act.

Some use knives to stab people, others to butcher animals, others to operate and save lives.

Just because some Christian people use Christianity as their religion (or part thereof) does not mean that all other Christians also use it that way.

Dear shadowminister,

Our country, Australia, was declared Terra Nullius or empty land when the British settled it. The British said the land was theirs and waged a war against the people who were living here. Other wars are remembered in the Australian War Memorial, but the war that marked the beginning of English settlement isn't. We can't undo the past, but we can acknowledge it.

I enjoy living in Australia and think the mention of who was living in Australia before the English took the land and forced an alien religion and culture on the Aborigines who weren't massacred is a good gesture. I assume that's what you're objecting to when you object to welcome to country.

Present day Australia is a fairly humane and pleasant place. I appreciate what is done for me as a 97 year old man, and I think acknowledgement of what has been done in the past is another manifestation of current Australian decency.

davidf,

<<We do not agree on the definition of a religion. Without that agreement I don't think we can have a good discussion on the subject. I will try to avoid commenting on your posts.>>

Life in principle, a good discussion or debate is not about agreement. If two people always agree, one of them naturally becomes completely redundant.

Also, please be aware if you comment here, there will be people with positions different to yours and you can (if matured and smart enough) should be able to have a good discussion on a subject with others regardless of differing positions.

It is clear you only want to discuss matters with people you agree with or those who put out views that align with your own. I'd encourage you to take an alternative approach.

We are facing a range of global issues today, including the Lord's Prayer being read in parliament and at local council meetings. As people we must be willing to debate the issue/s at hand.

Dear NathanJ,

Agreeing on definitions does not mean agreeing on substance. It only means you're talking about the same thing.

If you're not talking about the same thing, discussion is pointless.

I can discuss things with people who disagree radically with me, but not if we disagree on facts and definitions.

Yuyutsu and I don't agree on what can be called a religion. He wrote, "I sadly find that many people tend to mistakenly attribute the title of "religion" to organisations/groups that have little to deserve that title, including national/ethnic/cultural groups and the three so-called "Abrahamic religions". Under these circumstances any crime on earth can be attributed to what they think of as "religion"."

From that statement he would not call Christianity, Judaism and Islam religions. I call them religions and see no point in discussing religion with him.

Dear Banjo,

We see the world in our own way, so a bother to me may not trouble you and vice versa. Regarding the Lord's prayer being read, with Australia being a democracy I am sure that things will change if enough people think they should change, but aside from it troubling you I would ask what harm has it done and how much does it cost to read the prayer?

As for why I think the Voice would be coercive, I would direct you to look at some things happening today, like acknowledgement of country/welcome to country, and preschoolers writing "sorry" cards. Did these things come about by popular demand? Is it appropriate to give such acknowledgement of special status to a small group because of their status in egalitarian Australia? But it is your inference that the problem might lie with me that is perhaps most suggestive of its coercive nature.

Dear Dave,

You cannot help yourself bashing Christians can you? It reminds me of Saturdays as a child listening to my father (who I loved very much) and grandmother picking the bible to pieces, pointing out its many contradictions. You mention the Nazis, but I'd throw in Putin as well, given that he seeks religious justification for a war of conquest. Would you say that these people are bad because of Christianity or simply bad people? Hitler at least did not even pretend to be Christian.

Dear Fester,

You wrote that Hitler did not pretend to be Christian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

"In a speech in the early years of his rule, Hitler declared himself "Not a Catholic, but a German Christian".[17][18][19][20][21] The German Christians were a Protestant group that supported Nazi Ideology.[22] Hitler and the Nazi party also promoted "nondenominational"[23] positive Christianity,[24] a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament.[25][26] In one widely quoted remark, he described Jesus as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against "the power and pretensions of the corrupt Pharisees"[27] and Jewish materialism.[28] Hitler spoke often of Protestantism[29][page needed] and Lutheranism,[30] stating, "Through me the Evangelical Protestant Church could become the established church, as in England"[31] and that the "great reformer" Martin Luther[32] "has the merit of rising against the Pope and the Catholic Church".[33]"

He sounds like a true Christian.

David,

The "welcome to country" is virtue signalling, a meaningless gesture whose sole purpose is demonstrate the virtue of the moron exposing his audience to 10 minutes of tedium. The left whingers calling for the abandonment of the lord's prayer should see the irony.

http://twitter.com/i/status/1698490064697803109

.

Dear Fester,

.

You wrote :

1. « Regarding the Lord's prayer being read, … aside from it troubling you I would ask what harm has it done and how much does it cost to read the prayer? »
.

No harm at all, Fester. Nothing intrinsically wrong with the Lord’s prayer either. I think it’s a great prayer. The problem is that Australia is a secular state which excludes religion and religious practices from state affairs. Article 116 of the constitution stipulates :

« The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, .... »

The Standing Orders of Westminster regarding religion that we inherited on colonisation should be deleted. While they are both legal and appropriate in the UK because it has an official state religion : the Church of England, the British Crown being head of both Church and State, they are unconstitutional in secular Australia.

It is also logical that the prayers said in the UK parliament and local governments should be those of the Church of England because it is the official state religion. But it is neither appropriate nor logical in Australia. The Church of England, or Anglican Church as it is now called, is not our official state religion, nor is it even the principal religious denomination in Australia.

According to the 2016 census, we now have over 120 different religious denominations due, principally, to our large, diverse migrant population.
.

2. « As for why I think the Voice would be coercive … is it appropriate to give acknowledgement of special status to a small group because of their status in egalitarian Australia? »

I understand your point of view, Fester, and I share your aversion to coercion - not just for you and me, but for everyone, including the "small group" to whom you refer.

Your question “Is it appropriate to give acknowledgement of special status to a small group [?]” ... tells all !

Thank you for your explanation, Fester. It’s most enlightening.

.

The prayer calls us to identify our sins and ask for forgiveness. That is too confronting for most secular people who do not believe they could offend.

Dear Nathan,

David F. is correct in saying that "Yuyutsu and I don't agree on what can be called a religion".

The reason for that is that I claim that being a religion requires certain qualifications and David seems to believe that none are needed.

Suppose someone throws on your plate some dog morsel with an old rotten banana and therefore claims to be a chef, then I would dispute that title - but someone else could still disagree with me and agree with that self-claimed "chef" that just the fact they prepared a dish for you does make them a chef.

Not anyone who mentions the word 'food' is a chef, nor anyone who mentions the word 'God' knows what they speak about, let alone has any will or skill to lead people towards God.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You distort my words. I don't claim there are no qualifications for stating what is a religion. My classifications are different from yours. In a previous post you claim that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are not religions. Most people would see them as religions. You don't. There is no reason that anybody should accept your idiosyncratic definitions.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Religions vary very much. Theistic, non-theistic, ancient, recent, hierarchical, communal etc. They vary so widely that it is difficult to define them. However, there is one common criterion. A religion is what most people think of as a religion. Somehow, you don't define Judaism, Christianity and Islam as religions. You're entitled to your own definition. However, that would limit your discussion of religion to those who would agree with your definition. Would you care to make explicit your definition of a religion rather than make metaphors which attack me?

Hi Yuyutsu,

A fair question is to ask you to name those organised groups you consider to be religions? If its not, maybe, Buddhism, Taoism etc etc.

Dear David F.,

«In a previous post you claim that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are not religions. Most people would see them as religions. You don't.»

Most people also see certain industrial poisonous junk as "food".
It may provide calories and taste, but does not nourish anyone in the true sense of the word.

Now I am not saying that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are as bad and never nourish the soul because there still are individuals who are able to digest what they provide, get the nutrients out of them and discard the rest.

It is therefore extremely difficult to blanket call any group or organisation "religious" - for those who can digest what they provide it is, for the others it is not.

Now on the balance, you please tell me according to your own view: does Christianity, Islam and Judaism on the whole spiritually nourish more people or poison more people?

«Would you care to make explicit your definition of a religion rather than make metaphors which attack me?»

A group/organisation is religious to the extent it helps, teaches and supports its members to come closer to God.

I know of no such group or organisation that wholly does that for all its followers and at all times, thus we truly can only speak of a group in relative terms, as "relatively religious".

«Most people would see them as religions.»

Yes, that popularity bar is not high enough for me, just as I wouldn't accept any plate as "food".

Dear Paul1405,

I should not have let Yuyutsu's distortion of my words upset me. I should not have risen to the bait. My advanced age is not always accompanied by wisdom. I didn't have to respond. I should have remembered: "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

david f,

<<Agreeing on definitions does not mean agreeing on substance. It only means you're talking about the same thing.

If you're not talking about the same thing, discussion is pointless.>>

I'm not talking about substance or definitions. In fact I don't care, particularly when we're talking about open debate, discussion and important issues.

The reality is if two people always agree, one of them becomes completely redundant. You can't expect that imposition to placed onto someone else, but selectively exclude yourself from such a principle.

I am a vegetarian. There people in this area that identify differently and hold differing views and values, like vegetarian, vegan, plant based, those who eat fish, but claim vegetarian status etc. and we will disagree, sometimes respectfully, sometimes not.

Whilst there are others that hold differing and stronger views, have differences on substance and definitions I still respect their views and can debate with them as people with rigour. I don't put out single, one dimensional lines and then use that to opt out of the debate - a topic which is very important.

I also understand that discussion will and can lead to better outcomes. This is much better than war, violence, bombs, attacks etc. We must value words more and give them the respect they deserve.

We face a range of important issues to address globally. In this topic we are talking about reading the Lord's Prayer in Parliament and at Local Council meetings and it's a debate we must be able to have with others - no opt out clauses included.

Dear Dave,

Thanks for enlightening me with that most interesting link. One can never read enough about Hitler. Indeed, Hitler did lie about being a Christian as he did about other things, all for the purpose of pursuing his horrible agenda. Your quoting from the link was incredibly selective (tongue in cheek?) as pretty much the entirety of what you did not quote from said the opposite. Do you think there might be a self help book called "How finding Jesus helped me build my own National Socialist movement"?

Dear Banjo,

You are welcome, and I thank you for your explanations also. One further question about your belief that reading the Lord's prayer is unconstitutional: What is your position on the constitutional status of Christmas and Easter? Why might they go unchallenged as religious observances?

Dear Paul,

«A fair question is to ask you to name those organised groups you consider to be religions? If its not, maybe, Buddhism, Taoism etc etc.»

No organised group that I know is wholly religious - human organisations are mixed bags. The Buddha himself predicted that in 500 years time after his death, the group that will carry his teachings will distort his teachings so much that it will cease being religious. He did not use the word "religion" or "God", but effectively that is what he said. We now even see Buddhist monks violently attacking Muslims in Myanmar.

Yet there are some groups and sects, even within Christianity, Judaism and Islam, where overall, I believe, most of their adherents, most of the time, benefit from them spiritually, where more of them are drawn by the group closer to God than those which the group repels further away from God.

.

Dear Fester,

.

You ask :

« What is your position on the constitutional status of Christmas and Easter? Why might they go unchallenged as religious observances? »
.

Christmas was, of course, a pagan feast called Yule, the winter solstice, before Christianity hijacked it to celebrate the birth of Jesus. It has never been exclusively a religious feast and, in fact, the date of Jesus’ birth (presuming he really did exist), is unknown (nor is the date of his death).

The Encyclopaedia Britannica adds :

« Since the early 20th century, Christmas has also been a secular family holiday, observed by Christians and non-Christians alike, devoid of Christian elements, and marked by an increasingly elaborate exchange of gifts. »
.

Easter originated as an ancient pagan celebration of the spring equinox celebrated around the time of the Jewish Passover. However, Christians who did not participate in Jewish customs eventually merged their ceremonies with the pagan spring festival, recognizing Easter as "resurrection day.”

A major symbol of Easter is the Easter egg. This symbol goes back to the Ancient Babylonians. They believed an egg fell from heaven into the Euphrates River, and "hatched" the goddess of fertility, Astarte (also known as Easter). Pagans exchanged eggs as gifts during their springtime festival.

Neither Christmas nor Easter are exclusively religious feasts. Christianity simply jumped on the bandwagon of two major pagan feasts that have existed ever since time immemorial and which continue to exist independently of religion.
.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

In Australia, Section 115 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 is the federal law that defines our public holidays :

(1) The following are public holidays:

(a) each of these days:

(i) 1 January (New Year’s Day);
(ii) 26 January (Australia Day);
(iii) Good Friday;
(iv) Easter Monday;
(v) 25 April (Anzac Day);
(vi) the Queen’s birthday holiday (on the day on which it is celebrated in a State or Territory or a region of a State or Territory);
(vii) 25 December (Christmas Day);
(viii) 26 December (Boxing Day);

(b) any other day, or part-day, declared or prescribed by or under a law of a State or Territory to be observed generally within the State or Territory, or a region of the State or Territory, as a public holiday, other than a day or part-day, or a kind of day or part-day, that is excluded by the regulations from counting as a public holiday.

Section 116 stipulates :

Payment for absence on public holiday :

If, in accordance with this Division, an employee is absent from his or her employment on a day or part-day that is a public holiday, the employer must pay the employee at the employee’s base rate of pay for the employee’s ordinary hours of work on the day or part-day.
.

To the best of my knowledge, Fester, the state does not participate in any religious activities relating to Christmas or Easter. Nor does it oblige anybody to participate in any such activities. It simply allows people to take leave of their work obligations on public holidays without loss of remuneration.

They can do what they like at Christmas and Easter and that is perfectly constitutional.

.

.

Oops ! The reference I indicated as the federal law that defines our public holidays should have been the latest version of that law which is the Fair Work Act 2009.

Sorry about that.

.

114 comments and 10 days. A lot of yap about prayer for a country supposed to be in post-Christian mode.

Dear ttbn,

What makes you think Australia is in post-Christian mode? Christian holidays are also national holidays. Holidays of other religions are not officially recognised. God is mentioned in the Australian Constitution. As Josephus pointed out, that makes it a religious document. I think the mention should be eliminated as the Constitution should be for all Australians.

6% of Australians are regular church attendees while about 3% are aboriginal.

"Welcome to country" has less standing than the Lord's prayer. And this is coming from an atheist.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

As Isaac Asimov used to say : "People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do".

.

If attending church is the criteria for prayers before meetings, then Buddhist, Hindus and Muslims would win hands down, its those Christian with their lack of attendance on Sundays that are dragging the team down.

Paul,

Then you would be happy to cancel the welcome to country whine?

Dear Shadow Minister,

As Paul Keating once said:

"I think Australia has to be a country which has
the 'Welcome' sign out."

SM

11% of Western Australian NATIONAL PARTY MP's from the current parliament are convicted paedophiles. A bit of irony, convicted paedophile JAMES HAYWARD most likely recited the 'Lords Prayer' before he voted on Child Protection Laws.

No need to concern yourself with 'Welcome To Country' but have you ever been so welcomed? Me thinks not.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for another comprehensive explanation. I see that Christmas and Easter are defined as public holidays, so that might avoid them being defined as religious observances also.

The only other issues I could think of are the wording of the preamble "humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God", and whether 116, while applying to legislation passed by the parliament, would apply to the rules and procedures of the parliament itself.

I suspect that if reading the Lord's prayer were unconstitutional then an astute lawyer might have spotted it a long time ago.

Note also that acknowledgement of country precedes the prayer in the Federal Parliament, so I suspect that the procedures of the parliament are determined by the parliament itself.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter8/Acknowledgement_of_country_and_Prayers

Dear Fester,

«The only other issues I could think of are the wording of the preamble "humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God"»

Why the concern when they never meant what they wrote in the first place? Humble politicians??*??

When you embark on doing good, you have God's blessings regardless, you don't need to claim it; and when you embark on doing evil you will incur God's curse regardless.

The purpose of placing such clauses in different places is to remind people of God, wherever that happens to be - it doesn't seem to work for the parliamentarians, but here it just reminded you and Banjo of God - that's good!

«Note also that acknowledgement of country precedes the prayer in the Federal Parliament»

Excellent! The more time they waste, the less time they have left to harm us!

Dear Yuyutsu,

My considerations of this question are its legality and appropriateness in a democratic institution. As it happens I would not be crestfallen if both the prayer and acknowledgement of country were dispensed with and replaced with an acknowledgement of all people responsible for the nation we inhabit. Also note that unlike the Lord's prayer, welcome to country/acknowledgement of country is commonplace in a great many public and private organisations across Australia.

Dear Fester,

«My considerations of this question are its legality and appropriateness in a democratic institution.»

There is nothing democratic about that institution. It does not represent the people who live here, never did. There is no reason to question its legality because it is them who make their own laws.

«As it happens I would not be crestfallen if both the prayer and acknowledgement of country were dispensed with and replaced with an acknowledgement of all people responsible for the nation we inhabit.»

This whole "nation" thing is their own propaganda, there is no such thing, there are just people who inhabit this continent who are their victims. I would not be crestfallen if the earth opened up and swallowed this whole gang, then they can do or not do, say or not say whatever they like down in hell.

«welcome to country/acknowledgement of country is commonplace in a great many public and private organisations across Australia.»

Yes, I noticed that, including where the one who announces it feels coerced and only says it because s/he is afraid of the consequences if they didn't.

Green activist Jonathan Doig paid to view and direct child abuse material in the Philippines.

A former Greens candidate has been jailed for paying a poor child in the Philippines to create her own child abuse material for him over video calls.

"It’s not every day that a major European political party has to apologize for having supported paedophilia, but two weeks ago, the German Green Party had to do just that. For the past year and a half, investigators commissioned by the party have been probing its past associations with pro-paedophilia groups, and their report has been shocking to many Germans. It found that the German “pedosexual movement,” which advocated the legalization of “consensual” sex between adults and children, found a surprisingly warm reception in the party in the 1980s. "

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think it a very complicated and inaccurate exercise to define one person, let alone a group of people. I feel that people like ttbn don't appreciate that the great privilege of this site is to learn how others think about various subjects and so reflect on one's own opinions.

You seem very annoyed with things. A nice starting point is to be able to define what you can change and what you cannot.

Dear Fester,

Thank you for your insight and care.

«You seem very annoyed with things.»

I am not annoyed with things - I am annoyed with myself that I found it appealing to be born into this world and at this very era.

«A nice starting point is to be able to define what you can change and what you cannot.»

I do not expect to change this world, because to change it into something higher would be like changing a school into a university. We come here to learn, at the level we are, then eventually we graduate and others come in over and over and study the same curriculum. If primary schools were teaching at university level, then how would the little kids ever learn?

.

Dear Fester,

.

You wrote :

« The only other issues I could think of are the wording of the preamble "humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God", and whether 116, while applying to legislation passed by the parliament, would apply to the rules and procedures of the parliament itself.

I suspect that if reading the Lord's Prayer were unconstitutional then an astute lawyer might have spotted it a long time ago. »
.

The question of the constitutionality of reading prayers at parliamentary and local government meetings has been debated among lawyers and politicians ever since the prayers were introduced shortly after federation, in response to a highly aggressive petition campaign organised by Protestant church leaders.

The first prayer was the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer which the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne immediately contested as "distinctly Protestant".

The second prayer calls on God:

« … to direct and prosper the work of Thy servants to the advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia » – a modified version of "A prayer for the High Court of Parliament" from the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer.

It presents Australia's federal MPs as servants of the Christian God, working for his glory.

As I pointed out in a previous post on this thread, this is somewhat incongruous with the fact that the 2016 census showed that 30% of Australians have no religion; 22% are Catholic and Only 13.3% of Australians are Anglican.

When prayers were introduced into federal parliament, most politicians took the view that standing orders were not laws and so were not subject to the constitutional prohibition on religious observances.

But it is interesting to note that in the UK a classic text on the law and usages of the British parliament describes standing orders as a species of law.

The High Court of Australia has never ruled on this issue and I, personally, think it should.

As a matter of fact, I just wrote to the mayor of Adelaide suggesting she set the wheels in motion.

.

Dear Banjo,

Good for you and my apologies for my ignorance on this subject. I would think an acknowledgement of the contribution of all citizens to the nation we live in rather than a prayer or special acknowledgement of indigenous citizens, something I see as divisive and harmful, more appropriate.