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.