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.