Freedom of religion is a close ally and friend of the absolute freedoms of thought and of our conscience. Equally, it is closely allied to freedom of expression. For many people religious liberty and freedom is also essential for them to flourish.

The exclusion of religious perspectives through those involved in aggressive secularism has created in my view a void in moral and ethical values, with a shifting of focus to self-interest, lack of compassion and competition.

As a result, moral relativism and intellectual stagnation are on the rise. Without a clear vision, people risk floundering, which in my view sees people perish. In places like Australia, where intellectual discourse is increasingly limited and a place very anti intellectual, the absence of meaningful debate stifles growth, something we cannot afford to face. A society that disregards religious thought also undermines its own moral foundation and intellectual depth at the same time, something I believe people will regret in future years.

True freedom only thrives when truth, justice, and wisdom are preserved in public debate, religion being part of such debate with religious freedoms and open discussion having a vital role to play in the future growth and development of society at large.

Losing sight of religious freedoms and the rise of aggressive secularism will only push society further down a pathway we will regret in my view, with religious freedoms being something we must defend for the benefit of all.

Hi NathanJ

I agree that freedom of religion is a very important right, and one that is under attack by aggressive secularism. However, we need to negotiate the inevitable conflicts when different sets of rights and values (not just religious) conflict.

Some examples:
1. Should religious schools be allowed to dismiss homosexual teachers?
2. Should they be allowed to expel homosexual students?
3. Should they be free to teach seven-day creationism in preference to accepted scientific theories on evolution, geology and astronomy?
4. Is it ok for France to ban the Burqa?
5. Is it ok for Saudi Arabia to ban women from riding bicycles?
6. Was Rugby Australia right to sack Israel Folau for homophobic social media posts?
7. Should the sanctity of the confessional mean that priests are not required to report to police someone who confesses to a serious crime?
8. Should catholic hospital be forced to offer abortions?

People of good faith and conscience – including religious folk – will give different answers to these questions.

FYI my answers would be:
1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. Yes
5. No
6. No
7. Yes
8. No

I'd be happy to explain any one of these.

Religion should be free for anyone to follow however, it needs to be deemed an indictable offence to promote it in public !

Hi Rhian,
"7. Should the sanctity of the confessional mean that priests are not required to report to police someone who confesses to a serious crime?"
- You answered Yes.

So I'm thinking to myself what say happens if a person admits to sexual abuse of women and kids and murder?

Do you think that person deserves to have a free 'out' to get the burden of guilt off their chest without facing the penalty of law that all of us would expect?

I'm not sure they deserve to be able to openly confess to such things free of charge.

I'm not sure any human being enjoys a right to know such things about others and allow them to roam knowing they may continue to harm others.
Is the priests higher moral priority to save blackened souls / protect the sinner and hear their confessions or is it to protect the innocent amongst God's children instead?
- I'm not sure they can have it both ways.

In a secular society I don't believe that
preference should be given to any particular group.
All groups should be treated equally.

Only by treating people equally, giving them equal
rights, expecting all to obey the rule of law, we
might succeed in rejecting unfairness.

We need to seek respectful dialogue in the public square,
in our parliament, and in our courts.

Our aim in a secular society should be to seek justice
and compassion for all, whatever their religion - as
well as for those who have no faith. A secular society should
aim to create equality between religious and
non- religious groups.

Dear Nathan,

Religious freedom is paramount.
All other freedoms converge at the freedom to follow God (which is what life was created for in the first place).
Anyone to thwart religious freedom is an enemy of God, thus ultimately also their own enemy.

But there is a catch: people cannot tell for sure whether any particular action of another is religious or otherwise, whether or not it brings them closer to God, whether or not it serves God - our fickle human minds are just not capable of that.
(perhaps prophets could do that, but we have no prophets today)

Even people who claim to have no faith could be following and serving God in their own way: they may not know it, but still so; and even people who claim to follow and serve God could unknowingly be doing the opposite.

And this is exactly why all freedoms ought to be respected and preserved, not just those that our limited minds deem to be "religious", this is why we should always err on the side of caution and give all people the benefit of the doubt that their actions could be religious.

Foxy is correct in saying that we should treat all people and all groups equally, that anything short of that would be unfair, but nothing could be worse and more evil than the suppression of religion, such as by forcing religious people to place human law above God, thus unlike her conclusion, nobody should ever be expected to obey the rule of law, equally nobody, lest it conflicts with another's religion, i.e. with another's following and serving God.

May God lead us from falseness to truth.
May God lead us from darkness to light.
May God lead us from death to immortality.
May God grant us Peace [from universal calamities]; Peace [from human actions]; Peace [from internal mental disturbances].

.

Dear NathanJ,

.

You wrote :

1) « The exclusion of religious perspectives through those involved in aggressive secularism has created in my view a void in moral and ethical values, … »
.

I think what you have in mind is atheism, not secularism. Secularism is simply the separation of the State and religion.

President Thomas Jefferson, who was influenced by the writings of Locke, described the First Amendment to the US Constitution as “building a wall of separation between Church & State”.

Encyclopædia Britannica traces the historical origins of secularism as follows :

« The word secular is derived from the Latin term saeculum, meaning “a generation,” “a human lifetime,” “an era of time,” or “a century.” In its original Christian sense, the word indicated the finite temporal world of mundane daily or political affairs as opposed to Christian religious time and practices filled with the sense of eternity and laden with spiritual significance. The first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1768–71) defined secular as “something that is temporal; in which sense, the word stands opposed to ecclesiastical.” The English thinker and writer George Holyoake in 1851 was the first to use the term secularism to refer to a particular nonreligious civic and ethical philosophy that he intended to lack the negative ethical connotation that atheism carried at the time.

The protestant reformer and French ecclesiastical statesman John Calvin, championed a separation of the religious and the secular by internalizing religion as the private realm of conscience in contrast to the external and public political world. »

Secularism is not “aggressive”, NathanJ. The term simply refers to the fact that the Sate (public) realm is separate from the religious (private) realm :

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” [Matthew 22:21 (NIV)]
.

2) « The exclusion of religious perspectives through those involved in aggressive secularism has created in my view a void in moral and ethical values, with a shifting of focus to self-interest, lack of compassion and competition. »

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Religion is not the source of morality, NathanJ. Morality exists in all living species. Our cousins in the Animal Kingdom to which we belong also practice altruism and morality to varying degrees as we humans do. Altruism and morality co-exist with selfishness in each species.

There appears to be a quasi-consensus among biologists that altruism and morality are part of the survival instinct that nature has endowed us all with.

Our disenchantment with religion is largely due to the knowledge we have acquired through the development of our scientific endeavours. Our beliefs in religion, spirituality, superstition, and magic have been progressively discarded and replaced by rational explanations based on empirical evidence.

But we still have a lot to learn, and in the meantime, religion continues to be an important cultural phenomenon around the world whose progression and regression vary in accordance with the progression and regression of the fertility rate of the female population in each country.

.

You don't say what you mean by 'freedom of religion'. Western civilisation is based on Christianity. Christians are free to practise their religion. Is that freedom enough for you? All other religions are permitted in Australia; is that enough freedom for you? Or, do you mean that people's religious should be allowed to run free, and out of tune with the rule of law e.g -an eye for and eye, or the Koranic call to kill infidels.

"Freedom of religion" means absolutely nothing unless you define what it is that Christians, Muslims, Hindus and all the rest should be free to do in a rule-of-law society.

Not a religious freedom, but the anti-freedom for under 16s accessing social media Bill was passed yesterday, the last sitting day for the year. It's never been done anywhere else in the world, and it will be interesting to see how well the Albanese government - which has stuffed up everything else - will go with that.

I don't give two hoots about religious freedoms, and I don't see why any other ordinary citizen would. Religion was ‘privatised’ long ago. The Enlightenment did that and released us from the power of the Catholic Church.

Can anyone tell us how, in their ordinary lives, they have had their religious freedoms removed by a government or anyone else, in Australia.

I am a Christian, but I keep it personal, in my head; nobody can touch it.

I was raised a Catholic and during my youth I saw a great
deal of branding of those who did not fit into the
Catholic mold.

That's why to me it is important to be inclusive, and
tolerant, and respectful pf others. That we need to treat
each other as equals under the rule of law.

Religion should not divide us.

We claim to be tolerant people of free speech and acceptance
yet we often don't live up to that claim.

We often brand others who are different from ourselves.
Muslims are terrorists, Catholics are homophobes, Jews are
money controllers, and so on.

We live in a very different world today. Much has changed.
Today we see women marrying women, men marrying men,
men can become women and women can become men. For many
these changes are scary. And many brand people who don't
live up to the status quo.

That's why for others religion is or has - died out.
Religion has given societies so much in the past.
Both good and not so good. On the plus side - think of
the contribution of religion to Art, Literature, Architecture.
And how much richer this has made cultures and societies.

Therefore it is important if we don't want religion to
die out we need to be inclusive, respectful, and tolerant
of others. Treating each other equally would help to unite
not divide and it would help religion to survive.

Thank God we don't suffer the rubbish that people in the UK do.

It is “Islamophobia month” there. Presumably that doesn't mean this month, ‘go for it’; rather, it is a very divisive and silly idea not extended to other religions.

One Labour politician has already asked if Starmer would consider criminalising the desecration “of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions”.

The introduction of blasphemy laws, in other words. Starmer hasn't said yes or no; but we are learning that the man is capable of doing all sorts of awful things.

The Pakistani who made the request is integrated enough to get into Parliament, but not enough to believe in the freedoms Parliament is supposed to uphold. And the only Abrahamic religion he cares about is Islam; but he could hardly say, publicly, just Islam.

The UK did have blasphemy laws until 2008. They were
abolished for England and Wales and in Scotland in 2021.

The Labour MP Tahir Ali who urged the government to
introduce legislation criminalising the desecration of
religious texts was given a response by PM Sir Keir
Starmer who told the Commons:

"Can I agree with him that desecration is awful and I
think should be condemned across the House".

"We are, as I said before, committed to tackling all forms
of hatred and division, including blamophobia in all of its
forms".

Although the PM did not rule it out, his answer was simple.
No religion would be given any preference in law. And, -

"Blasphemy Laws have no place in the UK".

Armchair Critic

Yes, it is precisely in the cases of the most serious crimes that the principle of the sanctity of the confessional is tested.

We do already allow some legal protections in this area – lawyers are not obliged to tell the police or courts if their client admits they really did commit murder or rape. I’m not Roman Catholic and will happily stand corrected, but my understanding is that, theologically, the seal of confession is somewhat analogous – the sinner confesses not to the priest but to God. The space to do this with complete and total honesty is necessary for genuine repentance, atonement and forgiveness, which are the characteristics of the divine justice.

As I understand it, priests can require people who confess to crimes under the seal of confession to admit them also to victims and authorities as a condition of forgiveness. They can also refuse to give absolution if they believe a person is not genuinely repentant, and refusing to submit to legal consequences would be clear evidence of that. So I guess cases where rape or murder are confessed to a priest but not to the police are pretty rare (except maybe deathbed confessions)

Of course freedom of religion is vital; and unless there is evidence that people in Australia (other countries are not our concern) have been denied their freedoms, the topic is BS.

UK PM Starmer has been described by British media as “weak and cowardly” for leaving the door open to blasphemy laws by hesitating to defend free speech on religion.

People, including children, are already punished for ‘desecrating’ the Koran in the UK. Last year a 14 year old boy was suspended from school for scuffing a copy of it. His mother had to front up at the local mosque to appeal for his safety.

As I said, any worries about religious freedom in Australia are BS when compared with other parts of the world.

There was another reminder a couple of days ago that religious freedoms are still safe in Australia after AG Mark Dreyus's attempt to remove the exemptions to the Sex Discrimination Act for faith-based schools back in 2022.

Even his own party didn't support him.

Banjo Patterson,

<<I think what you have in mind is atheism, not secularism....>

Sorry, no I don't.

Meaning, secular:

not having any connection with religion:

We live in an increasingly secular society, in which religion has less and less influence on our daily lives.
- secular education
- a secular state

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/secular

<<Secularism is not “aggressive”, NathanJ....>>

Well actually it is and can be, particularly when pushed by certain individuals, groups and those in parliament in todays time. In my view such activity will only increase and one only needs to look at some activity overseas by Governments, people and certain groups to see what is occurring in that area.

<<Religion is not the source of morality, NathanJ. Morality exists in all living species. Our cousins in the Animal Kingdom to which we belong also practice altruism and morality to varying degrees as we humans do. Altruism and morality co-exist with selfishness in each species.>>

It depends what considers or how they perceive religion, how they take it in as a person and what part or role it plays in their daily life, alongside how they define it. It will vary per person and each person will be different in terms of their take and approach.

<<There appears to be a quasi-consensus among biologists that altruism and morality are part of the survival instinct that nature has endowed us all with.>>

In terms of other animal species (from a person who does not eat them), no generally they do not have the same level of morality as humans do. I still know they suffer when killed, so I don't eat them, but other animal species that do, to my knowledge have little to no idea, nor respect either - it's a survival of the fittest approach - plus they have to take on what they have available, and it's only limited. No blame from me there.

Continued.

From previous post (to Banjo Patterson).

Whilst these same animal species (as a group, not humans) are smarter in so many ways compared to human beings (an understatement), it is humans that can tell the difference between right and wrong morally so much more clearly and this is where we need guidance to go down a pathway that will lead to goodness and better outcomes.

It's not something that simply comes from nowhere, there are a range of factors that come into play, for some religion being one of them. When it comes to morals, you're not go going to get the same from a butterfly compared to say your next door neighbour. Whilst the butterfly might be nice 100% of the time, that's more something built within butterflies more than anything else. Anything else re morals there I can't comment on as I know little about them internally. If anything there is likely nothing there in terms of morals and values.

<<Our disenchantment with religion is largely due to the knowledge we have acquired through the development of our scientific endeavours.>>

More mainly due to the fact, places like Australia are very anti-intellectual and have a growing self focus, not due to anything relating to science in my view, and I have a lot of respect for science, research, facts and evidence.

I have no problem with "freedom of religion" providing that religious bigotry is not taken to extreme and used as a weapon against others, which it very much is today in many parts of the world. The religious have played a dominant roll in society since, who knows when. The imposition of religious doctrine on secular society by church hierarchy and their cohorts (power) has had a negative impact, and has retarded social development. The "dark age" of man was very much dominated and controlled by religious superstition and fear, imposed by those who wished to control society. Fortunately an aged of "enlightenment" dawned and with a great struggle, which is still going on in the world today, humanism replace superstition and fear, as the foundation of our progressive modern society. Bigotry, including religious, however still has a profound impact on social development today.

Hi Rhian,
You make an excellent point in regards to lawyers.

However I thought to myself are lawyers and priests really equivalent?
The lawyers job is to defend the murderer, and act to try and get a minimal sentence as possible.

Isn't it the priests job to take care of the 'flock', that is act for the greater good.

I understand that the priest is 'God's man here on earth', but I'm not certain I agree that he - a mortal man himself can truly arbitrate over the matter, within the church and outside the justice system.

It's this same mentality that saw heaps of kids sexually abused within the church and it was covered up.

I think your reply deserved credit for being a good response, although I'm just personally not completely convinced, maybe if I was an actual Catholic already, maybe it would seem to make more logical sense to me.

Does religious freedom promote unity or undermine it?
- When politicians act as foreign agents for Israel?

Dutton dotes on Israel during visit organised by pro-Israel lobby group
http://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/dutton-dotes-on-israel-during-visit-organised-by-pro-israel-lobby-group,18836

Federal Parliamentarians Continue to take more lobby trips to Israel than to any other country.
http://apan.org.au/learn-more/israeli-junkets/

"In the last four years (June 2018-April 2022),* Australian federal parliamentarians have received more sponsored trips to Israel than to any other country."

Should receiving sponsored trips be considered a form of gift or inducement to support the policies of a foreign nation?
Should those who act as partners of a foreign nation be considered foreign agents themselves.

If Russia or China was offering our politicians sponsored trips to their countries would Australians be opposed to it?
- And if so, doesn't the same rule apply?

What happens when religion impacts foreign policy in a secular state?

.

Dear NathanJ,

.

On the world scene, 152 countries are described as secular in their constitutions or other official state documents – Australia being one of those countries. Another 78 countries have an official state religion – the UK being one of them.

Secular countries do not impose religion on anybody, nor do they prohibit anybody from adhering to a religion and actively participating in it. Their duty is to ensure that each party respects the freedom of the others.

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic believers as well as those who do not profess any religion or belief. It is a balancing act that is impossible to realise to everyone’s entire satisfaction and requires a concerted effort of tolerance on the part of all.

It is extremely rare that people choose their religion freely. It is something that is inherited as part of their culture. The same is true for non-theistic and atheistic believers as well as those who do not profess any religion or belief.

Most people accept the fact that they inherit these beliefs as part of their culture without even realising it, but I know a couple of people who consider that it’s the worst thing that could ever have happened to them.

One chap’s family is of Russian-Jewish origin. He ostensibly wears a gold chain around his neck with a cross on it and attends Roman Catholic mass every Sunday to hide his Jewish ancestry. I suspect he’s afraid that people will find out that he is a Jew if he registers to attend classes for adult conversion to Catholicism.

Despite Australia’s secularity, all our state and federal parliaments read the Lord’s Prayer at the start of each sitting day – with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory, which since 1995 start sittings with an invitation to MPs to “pray or reflect” on their responsibilities as elected representatives.

Also, though the 2021 census found that 38.9% of Australian-born Australians claim no religion, research indicates a rejection of institutionalised religion but not necessarily of spirituality.

.

Hi AC

I accept that there are very important differences between lawyers and priests; my main point was that we allow some exceptions to the rule that we should report to authorities when we know the perpetrator of a crime.

And priests have many roles. The job of a priest includes helping to secure repentance and forgiveness, and to save the souls of sinners. It is not actually the priest who achieves this, it is God, but in In Roman Catholicism the priest is an intermediary. That is part of the reason they insist on the sanctity of the confessional. One analogy is that the priest is eavesdropping on a conversation between the sinner and God, in order to translate God’s response to the sinner.

I fully appreciate how weird this can seem to someone who is not religious (or even to and Anglican like me who confesses their sins directly to God without needing a “translator”). The logic of religions can sometimes seem perverse, ridiculous or malign to outsiders because it is based on assumptions, priorities and sources of authority they don’t share. That is why I think there needs to be some protection for freedom of religion, but also why that cannot be absolute. We need thoughtful conversations around areas where religious and secular values clash.

HI Rhian,
Thanks for taking the time to explain, I think I understand it a little better now.
FYI, I had no real concerns or objections to your other examples.
I thought those positions were reasonable, and would likely agree with all of them.

Hi Rhian,

In the scenario where one Catholic Priest confesses to another Catholic priest in the confessional that this month he sexually abused 2 choir boys, and the confessional priest give him absolution. Then next month the same priests returns and confesses he has this month sexually abused 3 choir boys, and again the confessional priest gives him absolution. For a third month the same priest returns and confesses he has sexually abused 4 choir boys this month. The confessional priest instead of giving him absolution says; : "Fr Fookemup, you must do better, that's a disgrace, don't you know us priest have a monthly quota of 10 choir boy! You're letting the side down, life your game!"

Religions are a little bit like loving relationships.
- Sometimes they aren't so loving, but are harmful, and even fatal.

.

Dear Rhian,

.

You wrote :

« The job of a priest includes helping to secure repentance and forgiveness, and to save the souls of sinners. It is not actually the priest who achieves this, it is God, but in In Roman Catholicism the priest is an intermediary. »

.
This may seem like splitting hairs, Rhian, but I think the distinction is important. To the best of my knowledge, nobody in this great wide world has, to this day, proven beyond all reasonable doubt, that there is a God or gods.

Therefore, until proven otherwise, God must be recognized as a belief, not a reality.

That being the case, as the word intermediary means “one who acts between others; an intermediate agent; a go-between, middleman, mediator” (OED definition), instead of writing “ … In Roman Catholicism the priest is an intermediary”, one should write :

« … In Roman Catholicism, the priest is believed (thought, said, imagined, conceived) to be an intermediary. »

He can only be considered an intermediary if there really is a God, and until that has been clearly established, he (the priest) is “preaching in the wilderness,” as it were.

Sorry for being a bit pedantic, Rhian, but I find that religious zealots all too often confound their religious beliefs with reality and present their desires, suppositions, and opinions as established facts.

I find this at best erroneous, negligent, improper, or lackadaisical, and at worst dishonest.

I consider that those of us who have the good fortune of living in the free world have nothing to fear in recognizing the true nature of our thoughts, beliefs, and opinions and should make sure we express them with due diligence and precision.

.

" To the best of my knowledge, nobody in this great wide world has, to this day, proven beyond all reasonable doubt, that there is a God or gods."

Nor has anyone proven beyond all reasonable doubt that there ISN'T a deity.

Believe what you want, let the other guy move on unimpeded. That's what freedom is about

Religious freedom is just a subset of freedom. If you don't have religious freedom, you aren't free. If you don't have freedom of speech, you aren't free.

Free is free. There are no carve-outs. You have it all or you aren't free.

No one can be completely free. Our talents, family
situations, jobs, wealth, cultural norms, and
of course - our laws. Laws against - murder, incest,
domestic violence, sexual abuse, burglary, to name just
a few - constraine our choices. As well as the freedom of
others, which limits ours.

Freedom is not absolute. Most of our rights are subject
to limitations and these limitations are necessary to
protect the rights and freedoms of others, public order,
national security, public health, and so on.

"Freedom is not absolute."

In other world shattering news, the sky isn't blue because sometimes there are clouds.

Yes freedom ends where it interferes with other's freedom.

I used to participate in weekend workshops called "Enlightenment Intensive".
While there are many details to describe and opinions for and against it, let me present here only what is relevant to this discussion:

The purpose of the workshop is spiritual and there should be every reason to classify it as religious even while it includes no theology or mention of 'God'.

At the core of the workshop are dyads, where participants are paired up and sit in front of each other. Half the participants in turn contemplate and then communicate to their partner whatever came up as a result of their contemplation - the partners listen silently, then at the end of each 5-minute interval only say "Thank You" and the roles reverse.

Now while the workshop is not about confession, removal of guilt feelings or absolution, things one is remorseful about do come up quite regularly in the process as a result of contemplation and are then communicated across to one's partner - thus confessions do incidentally occur.

To keep a safe and sacred space that allows the process to proceed and enlightenments to occur, participants are instructed and agree to keep absolute confidentiality and never mention or act on what they hear from their partner, "even if they said 'I murdered my grandmother and then ate her corpse`".

Participants come from all walks of life - they may happen to be doctors, lawyers, judges, priests or teachers, or they could just as well be bus drivers. Whatever they be outside the workshop, in there confidentiality is sacredly kept and none of what was said will ever be reported to anyone, not even to other participants and certainly not to police.

In order to allow this sacred religious process to occur, freedom of religion is paramount.

'In other world shattering news, the sky isn't blue because sometimes there are clouds.'
- Yes and for 12 hours a day the Sky is BLACK

Try to be a rainbow in someone's clod.
(Maya Angelou).

Besides, beautiful sunsets need cloudy skies.

Sorry for the typo.

It should have read - "Try to be a rainbow in
someone's cloud".

"Sorry for the typo...."

No....clod seemed apropos.

" Yes and for 12 hours a day the Sky is BLACK"

No, its still blue. It just appears black due to the lack of light. Just as a red rose remains red all night even though it appears black in the absence of light.

Earth's skies are actually violet.
We just see them as blue.

Talking about clods?

They have much in common with clouds. Just like clouds -
When they go away. It's a beautiful day.

"When they go away. It's a beautiful day."

and yet we'd prefer you to stay.

mhaze,

You got that right!

I prefer you to stay as well.

Trumpster,

Is Trumpism a religion?

"To the best of my (Trumpster) knowledge, nobody in this great wide world has, to this day, proven beyond all reasonable doubt, that there is a God". You said the Dangerous Doctor Donald was God, now you disappoint, are you now a Doubting Trumpster?

Paul, ya dill. The sentence you quoted was from Banjo.

BTW I never said Trump was God. He's much more important than that!! Although Niall Ferguson did opine that Trump's comeback was the biggest since Christ's resurrection

Hi Banjo

I agree with much of what you say, and will happily accept the wording “in Roman Catholicism, the priest is believed to be an intermediary ...” I try to avoid presenting desires, suppositions, and opinions as established facts.

The existence (or otherwise) of God is not something that can be proved like a mathematical equation or scientific hypothesis. But this does not mean that people of faith should not be able to act as individuals or in communities in accordance with their beliefs, or to participate in public debate and policymaking in ways that are influenced by those beliefs.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams made what I find a useful distinction between “procedural” and “programmatic” secularism.
http://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/the-graded-levels-of-christian-allegiance/

“Procedural” secularism says that no religion or denomination is our official or state religion, and public policy should not seek to advantage or disadvantage any religion or religious group. I fully support this. “Programmatic” secularism says that religion is a purely private and personal matter and has no place in the public sphere. I don’t support this. For many people, faith is important in shaping how they see the world and society, their morality and values. Being a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist is not just about what people think and feel; it’s about who they are and what they do.

Other posters have noted that religious rights and freedoms are a subset of broader rights and freedoms that apply to us all as individuals and groups. I don’t think religious considerations or organisations deserve any more, or less, respect than non-religious ones

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

« " To the best of my knowledge, nobody in this great wide world has, to this day, proven beyond all reasonable doubt, that there is a God or gods."

Nor has anyone proven beyond all reasonable doubt that there ISN'T a deity. »
.

That’s correct, mhaze. So far as I am aware, nobody has ever proven nor disproven the God hypothesis.

The origin of the concept dates back to primeval man as an explanation of natural phenomena such as lightning, thunder, floods, bushfires, volcanoes, earthquakes, droughts, and the occasional meteorite over which they had no control. They imagined there was an invisible god behind each of nature’s physical features and terrifying manifestations and elaborated a strategy to honour, worship, and placate the gods with offerings, supplications, and sacrifices – which later developed into what we call religion today.

But while it is true that no proof or disproof of the God hypothesis has, so far, been forthcoming, I’m sure you will have noted that I purposely limited my remark to the lack of proof that there is a deity – the reason being that the onus of proof is on the affirmation of [something], not on the lack of affirmation.

The affirmation that [something] exists requires proof. No affirmation that [something] exists requires no proof.

A affirms that God exists. B does not affirm that God exists. A must provide proof of his affirmation. B has not affirmed that God exists and therefore has nothing to prove in this regard – irrespective of whether he agrees with A or not.

The following version of Bertrand Russell’s flying teapot explains the famous analogical argument quite well :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO667BQ8LHA

.

Banjo Patterson,

<<On the world scene, 152 countries are described as secular in their constitutions or other official state documents – Australia being one of those countries. Another 78 countries have an official state religion – the UK being one of them.>>

So what? I live my life by my own rules and rarely think about constitutions when making decisions. I shouldn't feel forced to live according to one either.

<<Secular countries do not impose religion on anybody, nor do they prohibit anybody from adhering to a religion and actively participating in it. Their duty is to ensure that each party respects the freedom of the others.>>

Sadly, this isn't always the case. People are often restricted from practicing religion, and many activities limit others' freedoms, often negatively.

<<Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic believers as well as those who do not profess any religion or belief.>>

While this may be true, many governments ignore these protections. Look at global legislation: the violation of rights is evident. Refugees fleeing persecution because of their culture, religion, or ethnicity often face further penalties or restrictions once they reach another country.

<<It is a balancing act that is impossible to realise to everyone’s entire satisfaction and requires a concerted effort of tolerance on the part of all.>>

I agree. Protecting religious freedom is essential, but all freedoms must be safeguarded as core principles in our lives.

<<Despite Australia’s secularity, all our state and federal parliaments read the Lord’s Prayer at the start of each sitting day – with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory....>>

This ritual, performed by a small group of politicians, is largely symbolic. It doesn't reflect their actions in parliament. If they truly cared about freedoms, they wouldn’t support laws that restrict people’s lives. I don’t see these politicians as genuinely religious.

Finally, as our society becomes more self-centered, combined with a growing disregard for intellect, those who are taking action for change in challenging times need protection. This of course includes religious freedoms.

Just to clear the table, I'm an agnostic on the issue of whether there is or isn't a deity.

Its the standard argument from the atheist that God must be proven. But why? For the theist, God is already proven...to them. I know many a Christian who talks to their God daily. For them he's real and requires no proof. For them, they argue that the proof is there for you to see if you are open to seeing it. Without getting too preachy, they'd argue that if you open you heart and mind to God then you'll receive the proof. But if your level of proof is that they need to turn water into wine in your presence, or raise the dead, then your level of proof is wrong.

But the atheist community accepts all sorts of things that aren't proven but are nonetheless accepted as true without proof. Big Bang; evolution; dark matter; dark energy; life from non-life etc. Their explanation for the origin of everything is no more proven or provable than is the theists explanation, but accepted without question. Indeed not only accepted but used as a cudgel to beat those who don't accept it.

The universe being created by an immortal being is no more provable than the universe being created by an unexplained explosion. Man being the result of a bazillion random mutations is no more provable than man being created by a superior intellect.

Treating one as fact and the other as flights of fantasy to be ridiculed is clearly wrong but oh so very modern and elitist.

You say people asserting a deity need to prove it (to your satisfaction). Well someone asserting that everything came from nothing and evolved by mere chance need to prove that.

Oh, you can't? Well then, each are equally valid, or more exactly each one of us is open to choosing which of the unproven and unprovable stories best fits their understanding of reality.

I'm one of those who says a prayer daily. I also talk
to God. However, for me it's a personal and private
matter, and I don't want to convert anybody. There are lots
of things that science can't explain - such as the meaning
of life. And, for that reason religion will be around for
some time yet. As it's always been.

mhaze,

<<But the atheist community accepts all sorts of things that aren't proven but are nonetheless accepted as true without proof....>>

In principle there I agree and I am very supportive of science, facts, evidence and research. Each person and what they put out though should be subject to be critical analysis and this is perfectly fair and reasonable.

There is an excellent book review of "A Universe from Nothing", the book written by Laurence Krauss, a physicist I believe from the United States and critical of religion. The review goes on to say the following:

"On closer examination, to have the makings of protons and neutrons and tables and chairs and planets and solar systems and galaxies and universes in it, then it wasn’t nothing, and it couldn’t have been nothing, in the first place. And the history of science — if we understand it correctly — gives us no hint of how it might be possible to imagine otherwise. On closer examination, to have the makings of protons and neutrons and tables and chairs and planets and solar systems and galaxies and universes in it, then it wasn’t nothing, and it couldn’t have been nothing, in the first place. And the history of science — if we understand it correctly — gives us no hint of how it might be possible to imagine otherwise."

It goes on to say:

"The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields... they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story."

As per the above, I do think the public deserve better than what we have been fed and I do believe we will discover/learn more over time - interesting times ahead.

The existence or otherwise of God is a complete red herring.

If anyone here claims that religion does not exist, then we could argue that - but God?

Why should God exist in the first place?
And why should it matter?
Only objects can exist, yet God is not an object.
This whole question of "existence" is a modern fashion - the ancients were never concerned about such silly amusements.

If anyone thinks that religion does not exist, then let us discuss that.
Or if anyone thinks that religion does exist but that those who practice it are unworthy of respect and freedom, then let us discuss that.

- But let us not divert that much from the topic.

"However, for me it's a personal and private
matter, and I don't want to convert anybody."

Hey hang on a minute, did we just find an issue where Foxy and ttbns beliefs on a single issue are aligned?
- Heaven forbid. Lol

"Only objects can exist, ...."

Well that's it for that gravity thingy!!

I wonder if these IDF patches are real?
And if so, do they not openly advertise genocide for land theft?
http://x.com/realstewpeters/status/1863083365047390656

Dear Mhaze,

«Well that's it for that gravity thingy!!»

Gravity is an object - we make objective observations to detect and measure it.

I am constantly being surprised by the things "religious" people want to believe. Some of the absurd beliefs, borderline crazy, by what I assume are intelligent people, are simply mind blowing. If you were to say; "I have unseen fairies living at the bottom of my garden" they would tell you; "That's ridiculous, are you crazy?". Then they would go on to tell you they have an unseen Gradian Angle perched on their right shoulder, and tell you that's true...the Bible said so". Whose the crazy ones?

.

Dear NathanJ ,

.

I understand where you’re coming from.

Nothing in this world is perfect, NathanJ. As nature proceeds by trial and error it has long outgrown its teething problems, and subsequent errors appear to be relatively minor and short-lived.

We humans could be its greatest error as we seem to be bent on destroying the whole show, lock, stock and barrel.
.

Dear mhaze,

You wrote :

1. « Its the standard argument … that God must be proven. But why? … I know many a Christian who talks to their God daily. For them he's real and requires no proof »

I think the answer to that, mhaze, is that their belief that there is a God is part of the culture they inherited. As I indicated in one of my previous posts, it is extremely rare that people choose their religion freely.
.

2. « The universe being created by an immortal being is no more provable than the universe being created by an unexplained explosion. Man being the result of a bazillion random mutations is no more provable than man being created by a superior intellect. »

Given the numerous inroads made by science throughout history, mhaze, on previous erroneous religious explanations of nature and natural phenomena, I think there is greater probability of science coming up with the correct explanations one of these days, than that carved in stone for eternity by religious dogma.
.

Dear Foxy,

I think life is a clean slate. We can write something on it if we like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUo4b4PPSLU

.

Banjo wrote "Given the numerous inroads made by science throughout history, mhaze, on previous erroneous religious explanations of nature and natural phenomena, I think...."

Yes you think. But can't prove. Yet you demand proof from the theists. Big Bang, Dark matter, Dark energy, evolution are all just unproven theories that make sense to a section of the community just as the deity is an unproven 'theory' that makes sense to a different section. Although not always different - its possible to believe both and there are plenty of people who do.



BTW, are you aware that the Web Telescope and the information it is unearthing (!) is currently in the process of unravelling a lot of what people like you imagined was settled science. Things like Big Bang and dark matter are under significant stress as a result of these knew discoveries. It seems that the more we learn the more we realise how little we know

What constitutes a religion? The Incas and Aztecs like many ancient religions performed human scarifies to appease the gods. There is no doubt modern Christianity had its roots in religions that did the same.

Some will say like Communism and Fascisms, Trumpism is a Pseudo-religion, it has many of the treats of a religion. It has its messiahs, who they say the "Romans" tried to crucify, but he rose again. Thrumpism has its band of fanatical true believers. The Donald preaches of a better tomorrow, which only he can deliver.

p/s I do believe mhaze is a elder within the Church Of Donald.

Dear Paul,

«What constitutes a religion?»

Whatever practices bring one closer to God.

«The Incas and Aztecs like many ancient religions performed human scarifies to appease the gods.»

They certainly had traditions - that does not necessarily made their practices a religion.

«There is no doubt modern Christianity had its roots in religions that did the same.»

But there is a doubt whether Christianity is a religion, ditto for its root traditions.
For some Christians, Christianity does seem to serve as a religion, for others it does not.

This is why I earlier explained, that since it is extremely difficult for an observer to distinguish between religious and non-religious practices of other people, and since religious freedom is paramount because returning to God is the ultimate purpose of life, then people ought to always be free, if nothing else then in order to allow them the benefit of the doubt that their actions could be religious.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for the link. Frankie Lane brings back so many
memories - growing up. His voice and songs still
give me goosebumps today.

Religion and faith is such a personal matter. My father
was brought up by the Jesuits. I grew up with the Rituals
of the Catholic Church. I love the rituals but I'm probably
not a very good Catholic. I see the man-made faults within
the Church.

I hope that we humans will be able to one day realize what is
the point of saving humanity and the planet from a possible
environmental disaster if we are going to keep killing
each other in the name of different prophets of the same god?

Hi Yuyutsu,

Can you please give me your explanation of what God is?

Dear Paul,

«Can you please give me your explanation of what God is?»

God cannot be truly explained because God is beyond words and the human mind, still let me try to point you in the direction:

There is nothing but God, no-thing in the world (or in any other universe) has an independent existence of its own - all depend on God for existence, yet God is not a thing and does not depend on anything.

You too (and me and everyone else for that matter), while you appear to be an independent person, what you truly are, is God.

This is difficult to understand, so let me bring an example, an analogy (though no analogy can be perfect):

In a cinema, they show different genres of movies - comedies, tragedies, thrillers, romance, documentaries, mysteries, etc.
When you go to the cinema, you seem to watch all the different characters and events, all pretty convincing and attention-absorbing, but what is it that you actually see?
- THE SCREEN!
In reality you only see a sheet of cloth.
All genres, all characters, all stories, they all depend on that one cloth for existence, they do not have an independent existence without that cloth, yet the cloth does not depend in any way on them, the screen is not affected by any drama, the screen does not laugh or cry, the screen even remains there when no film is screened, the screen is beyond them all.

To come closer to God, is like to awake from being absorbed in the movies, detach from the drama on the screen and instead notice the screen itself, that unborn, unchanging, unlimited and undying which supports everything, that which is not a movie, that which we truly are.

Hi Yuyutsu,

"God is beyond words and the human mind, still let me try to point you in the direction"

If God is beyond your capacity of understanding, then you can't possibly point me in any direction, right or wrong. That's ridiculous.

If I said to you astrophysics is totally beyond my capacity of understanding and comprehension, but let me explain it to you. I could say anything I like that comes into my head to explain something I admit I have no knowledge of.

You said; "There is nothing but God, no-thing in the world (or in any other universe) has an independent existence of its own - all depend on God for existence, yet God is not a thing and does not depend on anything."

That might sound good to some, but its just made up gobbledegook, a figment of your imagination. No more plausible than if I said the whole universe is controlled by the Giant Sloth, which defies all human understanding.

"I do believe mhaze is a elder within the Church Of Donald.",

Not so. Impossible since I'm already ordained in the church of Dudeism...http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudeism

The Donald might rule but the Dude abides.

G'day Trumpster,

You need to get serious if you want to release your hunger for salivation, dump your false devotion to Dudeism and Trumpism and join the one true faith, The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Pastafarianism ... Within 3 trisepts the Flying Spaghetti Monster is destined to return to Earth from his great astro journey to the outer reaches of the cosmos. On his return the omnipotent one who hath gathered total pasta and sauce from whence he hath been, will spread among his devotees (that's you and me and one or two others) much spag bol and tomato sauce. Don't you want to be part of this great feasting? I think Yuyutsu will be coming along, he knows a good religion when he sees one. I do believe everyone likes nothing better than a decent feed of spag bol and tomato sauce. Does that make sense to you?

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

« BTW, are you aware that the Web Telescope and the information it is unearthing (!) is currently in the process of unravelling a lot of what people like you imagined was settled science ».
.

There is no such thing as “settled science”, mahaze. Einstein and Karl Popper taught us that there is only “unsettled science”, that scientific knowledge is simply the best explanation of something at a particular point in time.

That is why I consider that there is a greater probability of the falsifiable empirical sciences coming up with the correct explanations of how the universe and mankind came into being than the unfalsifiable, all-purpose explanation carved in stone for eternity by religious dogma.

As I indicated in my previous post, the numerous inroads made by science throughout history on previous erroneous religious explanations of nature and natural phenomena testify to this.

.

Reading the posts of this discussion is interesting.
It shows that the importance (or not) of religion is
a personal matter and there's no right or wrong answer.

Many find religion a source of comfort and meaning.
Others don't. Religion can provide a sense of
belonging and support, it can shape communities,
and even influence legal systems.

Religion and related social and cultural structures have
played an important part in human history. As mental structures
religions have influenced the world around us and the values
we accept or reject. And as social structures religions
provide supporting networks and a sense of belonging.

I was taught that God is the creator of the universe.
A supreme being - greater than ourselves - infinite (unlimited
in nature) - and diverse within himself (Father, son, and
holy spirit). I also believed he was personal - that I could
talk to him and get to know him. That when I prayed - he would
hear me.

You can call all of that simplistic. However, it has brought
me a great deal of comfort over the years aand I dare say
will continue to do so.

But, as I said earlier and many times on this forum. This is
personal. I'm not out to convert anyone. And what each of us
believes is up to us.

Israel firster MP Julian Leeser has no respect for democracy.
http://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/liberal-mp-julian-leeser-demands-richard-marles-mark-dreyfus-resign-after-labors-un-vote-for-palestinian-statehood/news-story/bf051d946f6d4ece844e482ee4c0523d

"Mr Leeser doubled down on his point before claiming Labor's foreign policy was driven by securing votes in Australia."
- How dumb could you be to say that?

Israel firsters think that by putting Israel first, they are also putting Australia first, but it's not true.

We need to oust all these traitors, and get back to doing what's in Australia's best interests, not the interests of a genocidal apartheid state run by psychopathic religious fanatics, hell-bent on ethnic cleansing for land theft.
These people do not even have dual-loyalties, their loyalty resides with Israel against the rest of the countries best interests.

Man cannot serve two masters.
Either put Australia first, or you are a traitor and a foreign agent.
MP Julian Leeser should himself resign.

Religious freedom and 'anti-semitism' are a recipe to subvert nations for Jewish interests.

Julian Leeser: "We cannot have our foreign policy being dictated to by base political interests and one political party deciding they will sell out our values in order to appeal to green voters in the city and Islamists in other parts of the country."

'values'?

Judeo-Christian values?
- Same tired old violin BS.

Does anyone here want to argue that genocide and land theft and the killing of innocent women and kids is a Christian value?
Jews hate Christians, blame them for things that happened 2000 years ago and the destruction of the second temple.
Christians are routinely spat on in Israel.

What values exactly?
Does anyone wish to tell me just exactly where Judeo and Christian values align?

People that actually hold real Christian values and what Jesus taught, do not support any of what we see going on in Israel.

Enough is enough, I'm sick of all this.

Hi Foxy,

"I (Foxy) was taught that God is the creator of the universe. A supreme being"

You were taught by people who I believe didn't have a clue themselves. The religious mask their ignorance of true reality with the word "FAITH" which covers just about everything you want to believe. In my mind God exists, and doesn't exist, that would seem a contradiction. There is no God the being, the almighty one, the creator of heaven and earth. That simply tries to explain God in human terms which is easy to understand but wrong. God, for want of a better word, exists in each one of us in an abstract spiritual sense. The first person to get God right in my opinion was Siddhartha Gautama, better known as The Buddha, he explained God as spiritual enlightenment which is far more complex to understand than some heavenly being floating around the cosmos.

Hi Paul,

As far as I know - no one has argued anyone into believing.

What we choose to believe is entirely subjective.

To a believer a God is simply there. To a non-believer
a God may be many other things. But most of
all to a non-believer a God is simply not there.

I'm still a work in progress. But it's difficult to turn
one's back on the way one was raised. And the values and
beliefs one was taught.

cont'd ...

Hi Paul,

Our beliefs - what we choose to believe - shapes how we
think and act. It is important to have something to
believe in because as I learned recently, it can be a
source of strength and courage during difficult times
and it can help to stay focused and motivated.

It can also add meaning to our lives. It provides a
sense of purpose and a connection to something greater
than ourselves.

Dear Foxy,

«I was taught that God is the creator of the universe.
A supreme being - greater than ourselves - infinite (unlimited
in nature)...

You can call all of that simplistic.»

It is simplistic, theologically speaking, but there is nothing wrong about being simplistic.
For sophisticated, highly intellectual people there are more sophisticated descriptions,
nonetheless, either way the human mind, even the sharpest, cannot grasp God, only limited ideas ABOUT God.

One could think of God as the creator of the universe,
that would not be wrong,
that would be true in a sense, in a simplistic sense, which is perfectly good enough for many.

If you read Genesis 1:1 untranslated, where English translations say
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth",
the word 'created' there, 'bara' in Hebrew (2nd word), doesn't mean it the way humans create new things: it literally means "carved out space" (the same word that is used when clearing a forest to make room for a settlement). Since all is God, where can there be space for a world - where possibly can there be heaven and earth? So God had to carve that space for them both out of Himself.

That is an intermediate explanation - and there are even more sophisticated explanations, but ultimately no words can describe God, so if your concept of God is simplistic, if you just label God as "Creator" and leave it at that, then this too is as good as it gets, so long as it encourages you to live your life in the spirit of God.

"As far as I know - no one has argued anyone into believing."
- Are you sure about that?

Part 1.

Nice Lady: "Do you believe in Jesus?"
Young boy: "I don't know"
Nice Lady: "Well you don't want to go to hell do you?;
If you don't want to go to hell you must believe in Jesus;
So do you believe in Jesus?"
Young Boy: "I guess so"

Part 2. 'Scripture phase'...

Something for the 'proud' Australians to comment on !

https://youtu.be/eLqoWYrzBYw?si=NOApzRLO99iJydv-

Hi Indy,
China knows the U.S. can block their Sea Lines Of Communication (SLOC) at the Malacca Strait and other straits in the Java Sea, and destroy their economy, they rely on oil shipments from Iran amongst other things.
- Probably the reason why China started the Belt and Road initiative.
China lacks the military power to protect their shipping.

As for Thailand, the U.S. will just overthrow the country if they have to and put a stop to it.

There's a 2006 policy paper entitled
String Of Pearls: Meeting The Challenge Of China's Rising Power Across The Asian Littoral
http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep11277?seq=1

Did you see the other trade route through Pakistan?
That's the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)
The U.S is sponsoring terrorists from Baluchistan to hamper it.

http://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/pakistan-dangerous-reality-working-china-s-megaprojects

Even when you think the world is at peace, the U.S. is still quietly causing conflict with it's adversaries and it uses this conflict to justify more actions.

They say things like "We don't want conflict", but what they're really saying is their wouldn't be conflict if these other nations just bent the knee and subordinated themselves to U.S. interests.

The U.S. policy is based around the Wolfowitz doctrine, they wish to prevent the re-emergence of Russia as a global power and prevent China from becoming a global power.

U.S. Strategy Plan Calls For Insuring No Rivals Develop
http://fridayeveryday.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/wolf-doctrine-737x1024.png

Peter Dutton claims Australia’s UN vote for Palestinian state a threat to ‘civilisation itself’
http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/opposition-warns-australiaisrael-relationship-at-lowest-ebb-in-decades/news-story/8d2609a15286ab63fd4d7092a63b85b0
The Opposition Leader attacked Australia’s shift to support a UN motion calling for a peaceful settlement of Palestine, claiming it is a threat to “civilisation itself”.

What the hell is this nutjob talking about exactly?

>>“And it’s not just about the Jewish community, not just about Israel. It’s about civilisation itself,” he said.

“And it’s about the values that we have as Westerners and as a culture that’s worth protecting and defending.”<<

Again, what values?
What values are you talking about Dutton?
Can anyone explain to me what these values are exactly?

Why on earth can't Israel just state it's borders?
(Answer - Because it's not satisfied with the current ones - derr)
- And why can't anyone of standing JUST BLOODY WELL SAY IT?

Are we not getting sick of the elephant in the room
That everyone just pretends isn't there?

.

It should be recalled that religion originated as a strategy for survival of our early ancestors. It does not necessarily depend on the existence of a god or gods but, it definitely depends on the belief that there is a god or gods.

I think there is a lot of truth in the opinion attributed to Saul of Tarsus as expressed in Ephesians 2:8-9 :

« 8. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9. not by works, so that no one can boast »

Religion continues to serve mankind as a strategy of survival in times of woe and extreme distress. There are frequent examples of this during natural disasters when people are found miraculously alive and well, trapped under tons of concrete and rubble, long after rescue operations are officially abandoned, and all hope is lost. Many victims, saved in extremis, attribute their remarkable survival and ultimate rescue to their unwavering faith in a god or gods, the Virgin Mary, or some other supernatural being.

It is their faith that helps them to wait patiently in the assurance that somehow, they will be saved. It protects them from panic, stress, fear, anguish, despair and depression. It gives them strength to resist pain, discomfort, heat, cold, claustrophobia, isolation, thirst and hunger. It helps them support their dirty, suffocating prisons, for extremely long periods, never knowing if it is day or night.

It is their faith that helps them to survive, not necessarily some supernatural being. It is their family or friends with the help of a team of trained and experienced rescue operators, not religion, who finally manage to locate and extract them from under tons of concrete and rubble.

Miracles do occur.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«It should be recalled that religion originated as a strategy for survival of our early ancestors.»

What do you mean by "recalled"?
Have you been there at the time?

This statement is just a figment of your imagination, a baseless assumption.

And anyway, what kind of a "strategy for survival" could religion be when 100% of our early ancestors, including all religious ones, did not survive?!

«It does not necessarily depend on the existence of a god or gods but, it definitely depends on the belief that there is a god or gods.»

Religion does not depend on any belief.
While certain beliefs can be incorporated into one's religion as a bonus, that is not mandatory.

The reason religion seems to depend on belief in your eyes, is your own prior expectation for it to be there, so when you observe religious people who do not hold to a particular belief, you fail to recognise and count them as religious.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « It should be recalled that religion originated as a strategy for survival of our early ancestors.
What do you mean by "recalled"? »
.

I was referring to what I wrote to mhaze on page 8 of this thread on Tuesday, 3 December 2024 8:02:19 AM. Here is the link :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10517#366107
.

2. « This statement is just a figment of your imagination, a baseless assumption. »
.

Not exactly, Yuyutsu. It is based on what the English anthropologist, Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, in his work Primitive Culture (1871), termed animism.

Tylor argued that Darwin’s ideas of evolution could be applied to human societies; he classified religions according to their level of development.

He defined Animism as a belief in souls: the existence of human souls after death, but also the belief that entities Western perspectives deemed inanimate, like mountains, rivers, and trees, had souls.

Animism was, in Tylor’s view, the first stage in the evolution of religion, which developed from Animism to polytheism and then to monotheism, which was the most “civilized” form of religion. From this perspective, Animism was the most primitive kind of religion, while European, Protestant Christianity was seen as the most evolved of all religions.

But Tylor was not the first to make this argument. Scottish philosopher David Hume, for example, made a very similar argument in the “Natural History of Religion” in 1757. Tylor was, however, the first to use the term Animism and the classification scheme as part of what was then the nascent field of anthropology, the scientific study of human society.

It’s very interesting reading. I thoroughly recommend it.
.

3. « Religion does not depend on any belief. While certain beliefs can be incorporated into one's religion as a bonus, that is not mandatory. »
.

The OED defines religion as follows, Yuyutsu :

« Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and … »

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Here is the link to Sir Edward Burnett Tylor’s book “Primitive Culture” (1871) :

http://books.google.fr/books?id=AucLAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false

And here is an excerpt from David Hume’s book, “A Natural History of Religion” (1757) :

« There is an universal tendency amongst mankind to conceive all beings like themselves, and to transfer to every object those qualities with which they are familiarly acquainted, and of which they are intimately conscious. We find human faces in the moon, armies in
the clouds; and by a natural propensity, if not corrected by experience and reflection, ascribe malice and good will to everything that hurts or pleases us. Hence … each grove or field is represented as possessed of a particular genius or invisible power, which inhabits or protects it. Nay, philosophers cannot entirely exempt themselves from this natural frailty; but have oft ascribed to inanimate matter the horror of a vacuum, sympathies, antipathies, and other affections of human nature. The absurdity is not less, while we cast our eyes upwards; and transferring, as is too usual, human passions and infirmities to the deity, represent him as jealous and revengeful, capricious and partial, and, in short, a wicked and foolish man, in every respect but his superior power and authority. No wonder, then, that mankind, being placed in such an absolute ignorance of causes, and being at the same time so anxious concerning their future fortunes, should immediately acknowledge a dependence on invisible powers possessed of sentiment and intelligence. The unknown causes, which continually employ their thought, appearing always in the same aspect, are all apprehended to be of the same kind or species. Nor is it long before we ascribe to them thought, and reason, and passion, and sometimes even the limbs and figures of men, in order to bring them nearer to a resemblance with ourselves.

[Note : I have copied (and slightly abridged) this from paragraph 2, page 18, section III entitled “Origin Of Polytheism”]

.

Hi Foxy,

Your belief and my belief in God may differ but one is as valid as the other.

You say; "To a believer a God is simply there. To a non-believer
a God may be many other things. But most of
all to a non-believer a God is simply not there."

I agree when you say "there" as in a physical space, yes I don't believe God exists in a physical sense, but in a spiritual sense.

In a child's mind there may exists a belief in a physical Santa Clause, but over time reality sets in and the truth becomes evident that there is no physical Santa Clause. At one time the belief to the child was as real as any belief adults have today, including the belief in the existence of a physical God, existing somewhere in the cosmos.

Man thought firstly why are we here, then man attempted to explain the unexplainable, reasons for his own existence, believing there must be a purpose in life, that's where the myths of an all seeing, all doing greater deity (gods) became the reality. Over time man extrapolated all sorts of things from that original idea of a god the creator. That's where we are today full of all kinds of fanciful religious beliefs.

Dear Banjo,

So you seem to shake off personal responsibility for that poor statement about the presumed origins of religion, placing it instead squarely on the lap of some Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, David Hume and the Oxford dictionary:

Well while these sources may be very knowledgeable in their own fields, such as anthropology, science and technology, they have no clue about religion: at best they are just ignorant, or otherwise they were deliberately smearing that which they do not like.

No doubt ancient people were fearful of nature.
No doubt they attempted to mitigate their physical dangers in various ways, including by believing in various superstitions, including polytheism and monotheism.
These are facts, but religion has nothing to do with fear and worldly survival.
The religious themselves were never a party to such derogatory anti-religious definitions.

Dear Paul,

To me God transcends the physical.

For me, my beliefs have provided hope.
They've provided a certain sense and connection to
something greater than myself. I was raised to believe
in following rules and the law, because it's the right
thing to do.

Believing in something or someone supports hope.
Hope is on which human life
exists. We believe there is a tomorrow so we go to
sleep with the hope of living.

I'm not a theologian. And I can only speak for myself.
Perhaps my views are simplistic. But they're mine.
And of course as I said earlier - our views are subjective.
They shape how we think and act.

If only we could all learn to live and let live.

cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

My husband has just walked in our study and told me that
the Adass Israel Synagogue has been torched here in
Melbourne. It will have devastating effects on the Jewish
community. Luckily, no one was seriously injured. However,
this act will undoubtedly create fear in the community.
A great deal of religious material was destroyed.

What a vile act. Police have yet to find out the motivations
behind this act. Whether they were religious or politically
motivated.

Whatever, the reasons. They are plainly wrong. And, it's
always the innocent who suffer.

Re " Flying Spaghetti Monster".

I've been an ordained priest in the Church of the Latter-Day Dude since 2010, which, among other things, gives me the right to preform legal marriages in 5 US states - funny but apparently true. Thus for 15 years I've been a devoted follower of the Dude's philosophy having read and analysed books on the thinking of the Dude and his followers like "The Dude De Ching " and "The Tao of the Dude".

Why on earth would I drop this entirely appropriate belief system in favour of a mere post-modern scam like the the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Get real,

PS....grin.

PPS....always remember - The Dude Abides.

PPS.... As the Dude says life is “Strikes and gutters, ups and downs.” Now that's an ethos!

Banjo wrote " I consider that there is a greater probability of the falsifiable empirical sciences coming up with the correct explanations of how the universe and mankind came into being"

Well that bought a smile. You know, I have Christian friends who also believe that their religion doesn't provide all the answers right now because the deity is unknowable, but that in the fullness of time all will be revealed.

So two different world views, each with faith (yes FAITH) that theirs will eventually provide all the answers.

But treating one as complete fantasy while the other is totally rational is, shall we say, a tad disingenuous.

Melbourne Synagogue fire.
Some people are claiming it's an Anti-Semitic attack.
I call it a simple case of 'cause and effect'
'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.'
I could care less about the building, but I hope no Jews, firefighters or other individuals were harmed in the incident.

As long as Israel are committing war crimes, there will be a reaction.
Jews would be good to pay attention to Newtons Laws.

My bet if they had a huge banner out the front saying 'We vehemently oppose the unnecessary harm of innocents', the place would not have gone up in flames, not that I am specifically condoning it.

Dear Critic,

What connection has your last post with the topic?
All I can think of, is that it calls to deny Australian Jews their religious freedom and instead asks them to leave this Christian country for their own Jewish country, Israel.

You have just proven yourself a good Christian boy and a true Zionist, not a great scientist though...

According to Newton, "If object A exerts a force on object B, object B also exerts an equal and opposite force on object A." - not on object C!

AC,

Elsewhere you are trying to assert that the Georgian protestors adopting violence invalidates their cause.

Yet here someone adopting violence is justified by their cause.

Is probably nice to have such flexible views, but it really shows that you have no actual moral standards. Just the view that violence is acceptable when my side is doing it.

Hi Yuyutsu,
"What connection has your last post with the topic?"
- Well it's all to do with 'religion' isn't it.
"All I can think of, is that it calls to deny Australian Jews their religious freedom and instead asks them to leave this Christian country for their own Jewish country, Israel."
- I wasn't implying to deny Jews their religious freedoms in Australia, nor was I saying religious Jews should go back to Israel.
- Nor was I condoning violence towards Jews themselves.

Moreso it was about the concept of 'blowback'.
Pointing that out, doesn't mean I condone what happened.
Do you think that Synagogue would've been targeted if not for the current war?
I say 'doubtful'.

Where I said 'not that I am specifically condoning it'.
* 'specifically' meaning
I don't support the harming of innocents, but I'm not entirely opposed to 'a little bit of pressure' that says 'We're displeased with Israels is currently doing'.
Maybe if Jews worldwide would speak out and say 'We're copping heat for what happens over there', Israel might stop the killings.

You think I care about one building? No.
I've seen Israel level hundreds of them that actually were full of people over the last 14 months, and the human cost.

Hi mhaze,
I never condoned it.
I defended the innocent as I should, and as we all should, but I don't have to care about a building.

What have you got to say about the U.S and Israeli sponsored Jihadists attacking Syrian Christians?
How many were beheaded today?

The Israelis want to remove Assad, because if Syria falls, so do the Palestinians.
Nasrallah stated so, and he protected Christians and Churches from the U.S sponsored Syrian rebels who have the open support of several branches of Al Qaeda.
I can show you photos of the Syrian rebel leader standing next to an ISIS flag, if you want.

- Not only that it serves another purpose, to overextend Russia

You want me to support woke nutjobs in Georgia, and Jihadists lunatics in Syria.
Where's your standards?

http://x.com/AryJeay/status/1627063153619275776
Did you forget every single U.S. politician is bought off by the Israel lobby, and they will primary any candidate that does not pledge their allegiance?

Erdogan is an Israeli shill, despite his rhetoric.
I think he may have seen sense in supporting Israel back in 2016, when the U.S. tried to overthrow Turkiye and murder him.

Judeo - Christian values....

Syrian Christians in ‘grave danger’ as Islamist militias take over Aleppo
http://www.christianpost.com/news/syrian-christians-in-grave-danger-militias-seize-aleppo.html

Israel is happy to see the 'Christians' dead for their own 'Judeo' values...

There's your Judeo-Christian values, isn't religion great?

Haven't I told you all I support 'ethics' over 'religions' too?

I haven't changed my principles, and I don't find myself wrapped up in hypocrisies because of bias.

I don't support sanctions and overthrows, I don't support harm to innocents, and I support diplomacy, dialogue, negotiations and compromise to conflict.

Haven't you all heard my violin enough times yet?

What the hell do you all want from me?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« So, you seem to shake off personal responsibility for that poor statement about the presumed origins of religion, placing it instead squarely on the lap of some Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, David Hume and the Oxford dictionary:

Well while these sources may be very knowledgeable in their own fields, such as anthropology, science and technology, they have no clue about religion: at best they are just ignorant, or otherwise they were deliberately smearing that which they do not like. »
.

I’m sorry, Yuyutsu, I didn’t mean to upset you.

Knowing your interest in religion, I just wanted to share my thoughts with you on the origin of religion that I was surprised to discover had already been posited by the Scottish philosopher and historian, David Hume in 1757 and by the English anthropologist, Sir Edward Burnett Tylor in 1871.

Hume was ambiguous on religion. He was highly critical of religious belief but did not rule out all concepts of deity. Sir Edward Burnett Tylor was a Quaker who considered that the fact that modern religious practitioners continued to believe in spirits showed that they were no more advanced than primitive societies.

Both Hume and Tylor studied religion seriously, both had critical minds, both were reputed to be intellectually honest and highly respected.
.

Apart from that, I see that it’s Geeta Jayanti, Wednesday next week, the day of the celebration of Srimad Bhagavad-gita when Krishna imparted Vedic knowledge to Arjuna, the Hindu archer warrior.

And I understand that, according to the Gita-mahatmya, if you follow the instructions of Bhagavad-gita, you can be freed from all miseries and anxieties in this life.

I hope it works for you, Yuyutsu.

I wish you and your family all the best and a very pleasant weekend.
.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu0GFsN8i7w&ab_channel=Dr.BhagirathS.Naganath

.

"I never condoned it.
I defended the innocent...."

Those who fire-bombed the synagogue were innocent?? Struth.

"What have you got to say about the U.S and Israeli sponsored Jihadists attacking Syrian Christians?"

I have to say you're bonkers.

"The Israelis want to remove Assad, because if Syria falls, so do the Palestinians."

If Syria falls, it falls to people just as anti-Israel as Assad. Israel has no skin in this game. But they're probably happy to see Iran's bagman, Assad, in trouble. Not that Iran is a concern to them any longer now that they've had their missile systems dismantled by the Israeli airforce.

"You want me to support woke nutjobs in Georgia, and Jihadists lunatics in Syria."

Not support those in Georgia. Just get your facts right. I don't support them but I do know fact from your fantasy. And I haven't previously mentioned Syria so why do you just fabricate my views?

"Did you forget every single U.S. politician is bought off by the Israel lobby,"

Every single one? Struth AC...the writers of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion had nothing on you.

>>"I never condoned it.
I defended the innocent...."

Those who fire-bombed the synagogue were innocent?? Struth.<<

No mhaze, here:

'I could care less about the building, but I hope no Jews, firefighters or other individuals were harmed in the incident.'

Do you not see that?
I defended the lives of innocent Jews, innocent firefighters, and any other innocent person who may have potentially been placed in harms way.

>>"What have you got to say about the U.S and Israeli sponsored Jihadists attacking Syrian Christians?"

I have to say you're bonkers.<<

Well, you don't know he world you live in.
It's no secret Syrian rebels were ex-al Qaeda and were trained and funded by the U.S.
And it's no coincidence these events in Syria began soon after Israeli / Hezbollah ceasefire.

"Every single one? Struth AC...the writers of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion had nothing on you."

OK, I'll admit that was a mistruth.
- Every single one of them except Thomas Massie, that better?

Thomas Massie Tells Tucker Carlson That Every Republican Congressman ‘Has An AIPAC Person’
http://youtu.be/2ieJkvkPU9M

As for the synagogue fire-bombing, I don't know how many times there were bomb threats on Jewish centres and Nazi symbols sprayed over synagogues and it was later found to be committed by Jews themselves, but it's a significant number.

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

« Banjo wrote " I consider that there is a greater probability of the falsifiable empirical sciences coming up with the correct explanations of how the universe and mankind came into being"

I have Christian friends who also believe that their religion doesn't provide all the answers right now because the deity is unknowable, but that in the fullness of time all will be revealed.

So, two different world views, each with faith …But treating one as complete fantasy while the other is totally rational is, shall we say, a tad disingenuous. »
.

You’re comparing apples and oranges, mhaze.

I refer to probability and you refer to your friends’ religious belief.

Probability is the branch of mathematics concerning events and numerical descriptions of how likely they are to occur. The probability of an event is a number between 0 and 1; the larger the probability, the more likely an event is to occur. A simple example is the tossing of a fair (unbiased) coin. Since the coin is fair, the two outcomes ("heads" and "tails") are both equally probable; the probability of "heads" equals the probability of "tails"; and since no other outcomes are possible, the probability of either "heads" or "tails" is 1/2 (which could also be written as 0.5 or 50%).

Religious belief is “trust or confidence in, acceptance of any received theology” (OED).

It seems to me that faith transcends probability. Faith and rationality exist in varying degrees of conflict and compatibility. Rationality is based on reason or facts. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority. Faith sometimes refers to a belief that is held in spite of or against reason or empirical evidence, or it can refer to belief based upon a degree of evidential warrant.

Here is an article that traces the historical development of thought on the interrelation of religious faith and reason :

http://iep.utm.edu/faith-re/

.

I know we've lost a few extremely intelligent forum members of the last few years.
I honestly think Banjo Patterson is probably the most intelligent and sensible thinking member of the forum currently.

"Probability is the branch of mathematics..."

Thanks for the education, but I have statistics in my degree so have a passing (/grin) understanding of probability.

To calculate the probability, you need to have a series of parameters. Complexity determines the number of parameters. The probability of a certain result from throwing a die, you need to know at a minimum how many sides the die has and if its a biased die. So two things. The probabilities of a climate outcome requires tens of thousands of parameters to be considered. And so on.

So calculating the probability that science will finally arrive at the answer to life, the universe and everything requires a bazillion parameters to be considered ie no such calculation is possible.

But you expressed confidence it would happen. And that confidence is based on faith in the processes of science to arrive at THE answer. Faith. No better, no worse than the faith shown by some theists that their understanding of the world will eventually arrive at THE answer. Or more exactly that the answer will eventually be presented in a way that even the doubters will accept.

Again I'm agnostic on this.

But faith in science and the belief that it will eventually determine the answer is misplaced. Science has been wrong as often as its been right. But it claims that being wrong is part of its process while denying the theists that option.

Its the arrogance of those who claim to be followers of the science that I find lacks self-reflection. They treat theists as naive and irrational, while holding steadfastedly to naive and irrational beliefs themselves.

As I said above, Web is currently unearthing information that brings into doubt much of what had been taught as established fact in the 20th century. This will result in a new set of 'facts' being presented in the 21st century which will be just as firmly held as unassailably true. And then in the 22nd century...?

Thinking that we know or are even close to THE answer via science is the victory of hope over observation.

Science v's Religion = 'Let's argue over the big bang'.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy

"The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), also known simply as The Washington Institute (TWI), is a pro-Israel American think tank based in Washington, D.C., focused on the foreign policy of the United States in the Near East."

New article:

How Syria’s ‘Diversity-Friendly’ Jihadists Plan on Building a State
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/how-syrias-diversity-friendly-jihadists-plan-building-state

Jihadists 'Diversity-friendly' [rolls eyes]

I suppose these jihadists support equal rights for women?
What are their pronouns? 'Behead', 'rape' and 'bomb'?

- There's your Pro-Israeli support for jihadists mhaze.
Sick of all the religious fanatics, regardless of which particular religion.

You're becoming increasingly deranged AC as the world fails to work out as you've predicted. You have this rather childlike attitude that everything is binary - people are either entirely pro-Russian or entirely anti-Russian; pro-Israel or anti-Israel. Nuisance is an alien concept for you.

This thinking leads you down the garden path. Thinking like - Assad is anti-Israel therefore those attacking Assad must be pro-Israel therefore anyone who favours Israel must favour the people attacking Assad. Its inane, insane and very childish.

The people attacking Assad are no more pro-Israel than any other moronic Islamist group. Israel has no friends in this fight. If the rebels take out Assad, Syria will remain just as much a foe of Israel as before. Why is this opaque to you?

You say its no coincidence " these events in Syria began soon after Israeli / Hezbollah ceasefire" as though that revelatory. But its clear what happened. Assad was supported by Hezbullah, Russia and Iran. His entire regime relies on these 'allies'. But Israel has made mincemeat of Hezbullah and has put Iran back in its box. And Russia has its hands full trying to get as much done in Ukraine as it can before Trump steps in. So Assad was left naked and exposed. These rebels are taking advantage of that but not at the behest of Israel. That part you've just concocted in that vivid imagination of yours.

Netanyahu said just after 7 October 2023 that the middle east would look very different once all this has played out. Hamas is basically over. Hezbullah is at the mercy of Israel and, eventually the Lebanese military, and has been forced to beg for peace. Iran is left exposed to the IDF whenever it so much as looks sideways at Israel. Assad is forever weakened. And Russia's presence in Syria is being diminished. And this is all before Trump puts his finger on the scales.

Netanyahu - a man of vision.

Netanyahu - a man of vision?

Or a man of illusion?

"Protector of Israel?" or - "Mr Security?"

Believing that Palestinian aspirations for freedom
could be hidden behind concrete barriers and ignored.
And, that any resistance could be managed through
overwhelming firepower. Believing - That Israel could do
as it pleased and suffer few consequences.

A man of vision?

The vision seems rather limited and one-sided.

'You have this rather childlike attitude that everything is binary - people are either entirely pro-Russian or entirely anti-Russian; pro-Israel or anti-Israel. '

Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes

"You're becoming increasingly deranged AC as the world fails to work out as you've predicted."
- I'm not the one desperately trying to defend a racist apartheid state run by psychopathic religious fanatics engaged in ethnic cleansing and land theft, and whose actions killing women, kids, journalists, etc. is an affront to everything the West claims to hold dear, so there's that...

"Thinking like - Assad is anti-Israel therefore those attacking Assad must be pro-Israel"
Assad facilitates weapons transfers to Hezbollah through his country so of course he has a bullseye on his back.
Hezbollah defended Syrian Christians.

People I listen to are all mostly ex-government, ex-military or ex-intelligence, and there's lot of them, no longer in government who no longer follow the governments official narrative.

Here watch: the war on terror was a war on Israels enemies;
What's the big deal?
http://x.com/toastedavocado2/status/1865174035790991871

"But Israel has made mincemeat of Hezbullah"
- I guess that's why they accepted a ceasefire after barely making it a few hundred meters into Lebanon, and were taking huge casualties.

Truthfully, Israel was rewarded for killing civilians.
Hezbollah's also a political organisation, and as such they had to accept that the killing of civilians was not in their political interests, it's Israel that's exhausted and on the ropes.
Iran hasn't been put back in it's box, they didn't want a war to begin with.
Pezeshkian was talking about trying to make peace with the west at the U.N. and Netanyahu bombed them, because he needs to be seen to be achieving something, when he's losing on all fronts, except for killing women and kids, mass starvation, depriving food, water and medical goods so that there were desperate people willing to inform on Hamas, for food... so Israel could locate the prisoners of war / hostages.

I get a fairly good main course of the truth by people who WOULD know better, all you offer is a blinkers-on view of things.

http://www.youtube.com/live/wqY0Lu_aYBw
http://www.youtube.com/live/-5S5md0JsZQ

You need only watch 5 mins of them to see your views are naive or willfully ignorant.

"Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes"

Absolutely!! </grin>

_____________________________________________________________________

"Hezbollah's also a political organisation"

Who just happened to have tens of thousands of missiles....aimed at Israel. Just your standard political organisation!!

"Iran hasn't been put back in it's box, they didn't want a war to begin with."

Yeah, so when they fired 600 rockets at Israel, unprovoked, they were trying to avoid a war? Struth AC. Do you have ANY standards?

"I guess that's why they accepted a ceasefire after barely making it a few hundred meters into Lebanon"

You are beyond explanation. Hezbullah's leadership has been destroyed, or have you already memory-holed that? Their source of resupply is cowed. They have agreed to move back to the Resolution 1701 lines and have them properly monitored this time. Israel has now got the declared right to move back into Lebanon if Hezbullah steps out of line. Hezbullah, who promised to never abandon Hamas, have abandoned Hamas.

Israel got EVERYTHING it wanted out of the war on Hezbullah. Everything.

As to your links...Pepe Escobar? Seriously. Is there no charlatan you won't fall for?

____________________________________________________________________

"Netanyahu - a man of vision?"

He predicted that the middle east would look very different at the end of this war. He's been proven right.

Yes, he saw the future and made it happen. And its not over yet. You and antisemites the world over might not like that future, but Israel doesn't care.

Netanyahu does not care?

He should.

It's his actions that have revived the centuries old
stereotypes of Jews ( as both alien and all powerful).
So the distinction between opposition to Israel's
actions and hatred of Jews becomes blurred.

"Netanyahu does not care? He should."

Why? Why should he care what the world's anti-semites think (although 'think' is probably giving it too much credit.)

Israel has seen that there are forces in the world who want it to fail, to not defend itself. Israel has ignored those forces and powered through to defeat all its immediate foes - Hamas, Hezbullah, Houthis and Iran. And each time it deals a new blow to the anti-Israel forces, the world's anti-semites whine even more.

Caring what they think would be detrimental to Israel and therefore won't happen. And now as Israel emerges victorious on all fronts, they find a friend about to take the White House and help them to achieve even more victories.

Ever heard of the Abraham Accords? You will.

"Who just happened to have tens of thousands of missiles....aimed at Israel. Just your standard political organisation!!"

Hezbollah were formed in 1982 after Israels invasion and occupation of Lebanon through to 2000, so yes Hezbollah has missiles.

"Yeah, so when they fired 600 rockets at Israel, unprovoked, they were trying to avoid a war? Struth AC. Do you have ANY standards?"
- Unprovoked? When you lie to yourself like that mhaze, do you actually believe the lies?

"You are beyond explanation. Hezbullah's leadership has been destroyed, or have you already memory-holed that?"
- You have a western mindset, taking out Hezbollahs leadership doesn't make any difference, every single Hezbollah commander has a deputy trained to take their place should they be killed, and their deputies probably have deputies too. It's organised in a way that if the leadership is taken out, another steps up to take his place, and they are compartmentalised, so that they can operate without directions from commanders if need be.

"They have agreed to move back to the Resolution 1701 lines and have them properly monitored this time."
- That's because they have the ability to strike into southern Israel anyway. Moveing back from the border doesn't mean they can't still hit the vast majority of Israel if they choose.

"Israel has now got the declared right to move back into Lebanon if Hezbullah steps out of line. Hezbullah, who promised to never abandon Hamas, have abandoned Hamas."
- Well, everyone knew that Hezbollah would use the ceasefire to re-arm itself, and that Israel would be the one to break the ceasefire themselves, everyone but you that is.

Pepe Escobars not that bad, though I prefer his commentary on BRICS than geopolitical issues, I was just showing you that I get multiple instances of information every day. Those were just the ones I saw yesterday.

[Cont.]
And finally, I had to send an email off to your good friend Cartalucci, to find an old video, because YouTube scrubs the user watch history of content creator they don't like, then I found the video myself but Brian responded pretty quick anyway.

Watch 2 mins of this and tell me U.S. isn't involved.
Go ahead, eat your words Mr. Grassroots everything.
And by the way, Dana Stroul here the one doing the talking, now works for guess who?
- The Pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy that I showed you yesterday, who put out that garbage about Syria’s ‘Diversity-Friendly’ Jihadists.
http://x.com/dstroul

More confirmation...
SYRIA IN TURMOIL: Shocking Escalation You Won’t Believe! | Larry C. Johnson & Scott Ritter
http://youtu.be/5WDb2tKhcEw
- You act like you're so smart and sure of yourself that you know better than Ex-CIA intelligence analysts, and that I'm automatically wrong about everything, but really you're just advertising how clueless you actually are.

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

1. « So, calculating the probability that science will finally arrive at the answer to life, the universe and everything requires a bazillion parameters to be considered ie no such calculation is possible. »
.

Perhaps, mhaze, but who knows what future developments in AI and computer science will enable us to do ?
.

2. « But you expressed confidence it would happen. And that confidence is based on faith in the processes of science to arrive at THE answer. Faith. No better, no worse than the faith shown by some theists that their understanding of the world will eventually arrive at THE answer. Or more exactly that the answer will eventually be presented in a way that even the doubters will accept. »
.

Faith has a religious connotation, mhaze. I do not have faith in scientific endeavour. I do not see why I should have confidence in it either. I simply have good reason to consider that there is a greater probability of the falsifiable empirical sciences coming up with the correct explanations of how the universe and mankind came into being than the unfalsifiable, all-purpose explanation carved in stone for eternity by religious dogma.

It’s not a question of faith, trust, belief, or confidence. It’s my judgment, after careful consideration of the facts.

Those who place their faith in religion consider that the unfalsifiable, all-purpose explanation carved in stone for eternity by religious dogma has already correctly explained how the universe and mankind came into being. But there is no consensus on that.

Of course, science and religion both make mistakes, the difference being that science operates like nature, by trial and error, whereas religion operates according to its so-called divine revelation.

In 1633, the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo Galilei to recant his theory that the Earth moves around the Sun. It took 359 years for it to admit what, by that time, everybody already knew : Galileo was right and the “divine revelation” was wrong.

Facts like that impact negatively on my judgment.

.

We're told that "colonized people, even under the UN
Charter, have the right to struggle for their liberation,
even with an army, and the successful ending to such a
struggle lies in the creation of a democratic state that
includes all of its inhabitants".

The Palestinian people are not being treated in a humane way.

The fact that Israel feels it can carry on without any
regard for international laws - what Israel is doing is
illegal. And justification of its actions is just wrong.

However, it is lazy thinking to hate and attack Jews
because of pro-Palestinian feelings. That is not acceptable.
It's the Israeli governments persecution of Palestinians
that's wrong . One can be pro-Jewish but anti-Zionist.
As many people are.

Looks like Syria is probably going to fall.
This will not be the end, but merely just the beginning.
Seems like 'Armageddon' is now close at hand.

Banjo,

"Faith has a religious connotation, mhaze"

Yes it does, That's why I used the word to describe you attitude to the science finding THE answer.

You keep referring to one of the differences between religion and Science as being falsifiability . But religion also travels with the times, but just at a pace you find unacceptable. The Geocentric world view is one example. (But remember 'science' also took an age to come around on that as well.) Equally, the 6 day creation story - yes I know some sects still believe it, but no mainstream church. Evolution - although theists hold that evolution is guided by the deity.

But remember that science also takes an age to accept new data. Check out the whole eugenics story from early last century. Or the Continently Drift story. And myriad others.

It is said science advances one death at a time - ie the old guard needs to die off before the new ideas are accepted. Religion might move slower than that, but the direction and intent are the same.

But we will always have the divide where those who ultimately come down of the side of the deity will be considered by the others as dupes and fools. Innately people believe that anyone who doesn't think like them must be dupes or fools. But there is no validity in thinking that one world-view is rational while the other is irrational when neither is capable of being proven...or disproven. Which is where this all started.

AC,

" taking out Hezbollah's leadership doesn't make any difference,...."

Well taking out their leadership, the weapons systems, their lines of communications and their sources for rearmament. Hezbullah has been neutered, as the Syrian rebels realised and that's because Israel decided to neuter them. That you refuse to see or acknowledge it is revealing.

AC's view of Hezbullah's current mere scratch... http://tiny.cc/9qwzzz

"that I'm automatically wrong about everything, but really you're just advertising how clueless you actually are."

AC, you're not automatically wrong...I'm sure it takes real effort. I'm not sure if you reach wrong conclusions and then go looking for some video that reaches the same wrong conclusions or if you're led down the garden path by the people you beleive, but either way, you've made all sorts of assertions over the last year or so that have been utterly wrong.

Israel has been completely victorious.
Iran is defeated and its proxy empire is unravelling.
Hamas is all but wiped out - its leadership now enjoying their 70 virgins.
Ditto Hezbullah - although you've pivoted to claims that leadership is immaterial.
You told us that Odessa would soon fall to Russian troops!!
You told us that the fall of Bakhmut would led to a general Russian breakout into Ukraine's hinterland.
You told us that Ukraine was banning the Russian language.

All wrong. All provably wrong. But all fervently beleived by you at the time based on you 'impeccable' sources.

Yet you still believe those sources and still beleive that your next predictions are obviously certain to happen

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank you for your well-wishing.

«Knowing your interest in religion, I just wanted to share my thoughts with you on the origin of religion that I was surprised to discover had already been posited by the Scottish philosopher and historian, David Hume in 1757 and by the English anthropologist, Sir Edward Burnett Tylor in 1871.»

Yes, I am indeed interested in religion - but not necessarily in the history of superstitions.

I do not doubt these men's proficiency in the field of anthropology.
Their descriptions look true:
People were afraid - perfectly understandable.
People thought that natural forces are living beings - perfectly understandable.
People thought that propitiating these natural forces could benefit them - perfectly understandable.
These primitive attitudes and behaviours eventually evolved into polytheism, then monotheism, including Christianity - perfectly understandable.

So far so good, so far that is pure anthropology.

But once these two gentlemen stepped out of their field of expertise to claim that this has anything to do with religion, there they failed miserably.

Any connections between these fear-based survival strategies and God or religion, are completely incidental.

Elements of animism, Christianity and everything in between can indeed be incorporated into one's individual religion if one so chooses, and I could elabourate on that if you like, but otherwise these traditions are being maintained mainly just as the collective gluing-lore of specific belonging-groups.

Dear Critic,

«"What connection has your last post with the topic?"
- Well it's all to do with 'religion' isn't it.»

No: Netanyahu is anything but religious, neither in universal terms nor even in Jewish terms.
His Nazi partners too, use "religion" just to cover their sheer racism.

«I wasn't implying to deny Jews their religious freedoms in Australia, nor was I saying religious Jews should go back to Israel.»

You weren't saying it explicitly.

But once one synagogue burns down, Jews are afraid to visit another, or other Jewish institutes, or to place a Mezuzah on their doors, or to wear a tzitzit, etc: this particular attack didn't cost lives or limbs, but the next one could.

If Australia, where Jews are a minority, proves dangerous, if following the Jewish commandments is too risky in Australia, then the logical conclusion is to leave and go to where Jews are a majority... i.e. Israel.

«I don't support the harming of innocents, but I'm not entirely opposed to 'a little bit of pressure' that says 'We're displeased with Israels is currently doing'.»

A little bit of pressure which harms innocents!

Well Netanyahu doesn't care in the least, neither for Jews in Israel nor for Jews outside Israel, only for himself and his close family, so that doesn't apply any pressure on him or make him change any policies.

So let us suppose that Netanyahu somehow had a deep sentiment for the Australian Great Barrier Reef:
would you then support destroying the Reef, bit by bit, in order to pressure Netanyahu and tell him that we are displeased with his policies?

You know, it is this kind of indiscriminate terrorism, like this attack on a Melbourne synagogue, which historically pushed moderate Israelis into the arms of Netanyahu and his Nazi friends.

Without this terror, Netanyahu's Likud party would have remained tiny.
Without this terror there would have been a Palestinian state some 40 years ago.
Without this terror, those Gazan women and children (and men too) which you claim to care about so much, would still be alive today, prosperous and smiling.

Dear Foxy,

«
Netanyahu does not care?

He should.
»

And why?

«It's his actions that have revived the centuries old
stereotypes of Jews ( as both alien and all powerful).
So the distinction between opposition to Israel's
actions and hatred of Jews becomes blurred.»

Yes, but why should he care?

Is stereotyping Jews good or bad for Sarah [Netanyahu] - that is the question, the only question!

---

Dear Mhaze,

«"Netanyahu - a man of vision?"

He predicted that the middle east would look very different at the end of this war. He's been proven right.»

Indeed, it looks like Syria is going to become the only democracy in the Middle-East!

Why should Netanyahu care?

Because he's morally wrong.

The world just may stop doing what hasn't worked.
Instead it just may take international action to
force Israel to comply with international law.

One can only hope.

"Indeed, it looks like Syria is going to become the only democracy in the Middle-East!"

Whoa! And I thought AC was delusional. Not a single one of the various rebel groups has the slightest interest in democracy. This is all just tribal warfare on a mechanised scale. Sargon the Great would have fully understood the motivations of his descendants. (As)syria has been doing this for millennia.

Unconfirmed reports Assad dead in plane crash over Homs.

Hi Yuyutsu,
"You weren't saying it explicitly."
- I wasn't saying it at all.

If that's what I'd meant, that's what I would've said.
Do you think I don't say what I really think already, like you think I hold back?
The answer is no, I don't hold anything back I have my ethics and principles, I say what I think, and I don't have to worry about walking some arbitrary fine line scared I might step over it.

- But right now, today, I am actually pretty mad about Syria.
And if I had've gotten on here this morning it may really have been a full uncork of abuse upon all religions where I may have said every single religious text need to be burned and an actual really anti-semitic rant over this stupid greater Israel project that in my opinion gave us every single war in the middle east since 9/11, including the mass immigration that has largely destroyed western countries and their woke pandering, and which will probably bring us to WW3.

I told you all a long time ago, I'm against stupid ideas first and foremost, not necessarily the people behind them.

mhaze,
You seem pleased.
Tell me is this what you want? Be honest, it's ok.
At least we know where we're all at.
http://x.com/realstewpeters/status/1863083365047390656

AC,

More Jewish conspiracy rubbish? Is there nothing you won't fall for?

What I want is for the so-called Palestinians to recognise that they can't conquer Israel, that River-to-the-Sea is a pipedream and for them to instead start trying to create a viable homeland for their kids and their kids, concentrating on economic rather than military development within the boundaries they currently have.

I want them to once and for all sincerely accept the peace treaties the Jews have offered. But I don't expect that to happen. So instead I want the other Arabs to simply withdraw support for them and force them to come to terms with reality. Abraham Accord.

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

1. « "Faith has a religious connotation, mhaze"
Yes it does, That's why I used the word to describe you attitude to the science finding THE answer. »
.

I have no idea if science will ever come up with the correct explanations of how the universe and mankind came into being, mhaze, and I never claimed it would. I simply indicated that I have good reason to consider that there is a greater probability of the falsifiable empirical sciences coming up with the correct explanations of how the universe and mankind came into being than the unfalsifiable, all-purpose explanation carved in stone for eternity by religious dogma.

2. « But religion also travels with the times, but just at a pace you find unacceptable … »
.

Yes, philosophical criticism from both within and without the Christian community has influenced the development of its beliefs.

Thomas Aquinas wrote in his “Summa theologiae” that one cannot have knowledge and faith at the same time in relation to the same proposition; faith can only arise in the absence of knowledge.

As I indicated in my previous post, it took the Church 359 years to admit that Galileo was right and “divine revelation” was wrong.

Joan of Arc was burned on the stake for heresy in 1431 at the age of 19 and declared a saint 489 years later, in 1920. Wow, that really was a “cold case” !

“While there’s life there’s hope” observed Theocritus, the Ancient Greek (3rd century BC) poet. Catholicism has taken that a step further : “Even when you’re dead there’s still hope” !

As knowledge advances, faith recedes.

But, not to worry, mhaze, faith is almost unlimited.
.

3. « … those who ultimately come down of the side of the deity [are] considered by the others as dupes and fools … »

That’s a condescending Trumpian attitude, mhaze : accusing others of their (Trumpians') own defects, incapabilities, and crimes.

I don't !

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Any connections between these fear-based survival strategies and God or religion, are completely incidental »
.

That primeval man conceived of spirits animating nature as an explanation of lightning, thunder, floods, bushfires, volcanoes, earthquakes, droughts, and the occasional meteorite seems plausible to me.

In fact, had I been there in those days, I might well have reacted the same way myself.

And I should not have been surprised if, seeing the force and majesty of such natural phenomena, they instinctively reacted by submitting themselves to what they perceived as such powerful superhuman spirits.

I see that as the most likely explanation for the birth of religion until somebody comes up with a better explanation.

But that is religion, Yuyutsu. What you seem to be referring to in your last post to me is not religion but spirituality.

I understand that Hinduism has no traditional ecclesiastical order, no centralized religious authorities, no governing body, no prophets, nor any binding holy book, and that spirituality is an individual experience, one's journey towards awareness of self, the discovery of higher truths, ultimate reality, and a consciousness that is liberated and content.

But please correct me if I am wrong.

.

Dutton announces antisemitism taskforce
- Great... They'll be coming for me to drag me before the court before long.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Hinduism recognises that different people are in different places or stages in their lives and therefore require different religious methods, practices and even beliefs.

The example given is of a circle, where we all stand in different spots along its circumference - to reach the centre, that same centre, we may therefore need to travel in different directions, in theory sometimes even in opposite directions (though humans as such tend to have much in common, thus are not completely apart along the whole circumference, so some general religious principles are universally common).

Hinduism traditionally comprises of six different philosophical systems, all recognising the authenticity of the ancient Vedas, but placing different emphasis on different parts of its text. Each of the six has its own historical main figure of authority.

«I see that as the most likely explanation for the birth of religion until somebody comes up with a better explanation.»

As I see it, religion had no beginning, or if you prefer you could say that religion was born with the Big-Bang, like gravity which already functions at the moment a particle exists, similarly all strives to return to its source, to God.

«What you seem to be referring to in your last post to me is not religion but spirituality.»

Spirituality could be referred to as the inner part of religion, or allegorically the last/final segment of travel towards the circle's centre, though there is no clear border where material-religion ends and spirituality starts. Material evolution has to come first, initially unconsciously followed by conscious use of will-power in attempt to improve one's life, seeking security and pleasures - only when these are sufficiently gained, one naturally and gradually turns to seek righteousness and eventually reunion with God, yet both material and spiritual development, are parts or stages of the same grand journey.

This again demonstrates why religious freedom is paramount,
but also freedom in general, because since our individual paths to God are different,
one cannot tell for sure and be too careful whether or not someone else's actions are religious or otherwise.

Hi mhaze,
"More Jewish conspiracy rubbish? Is there nothing you won't fall for?"
So Netanyahu didn't hold up maps showing Israels territorial ambitions at the UN?
Stop trying to gaslight me you fool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atag74u01AM

Saudi Arabia and Israel are sister states.
Founded by the same people, and apart from Israeli territorial ambitions and Western global influence using terrorists as their proxies to cause sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia, it's about oil pipelines.

How many people have to die for this lunacy exactly?
http://x.com/KeithWoodsYT/status/1865823767592861837

Blame me for pointing it out.
Blame me for being 'anti-semitic'
Blame me to shut down the discussion.
Blame me, so you can all avoid the uncomfortable ugly truth.

"So Netanyahu didn't hold up maps showing Israels territorial ambitions at the UN?"

Now I know this is going to be too hard for you to understand AC but that's wrong. The map he held had nothing to do with territorial ambitions and most certainly nothing to do with the bogus maps you linked to yesterday. You just fall for this stuff all the time and then spend days trying to find a way to extricate yourself from your idiocy.

There's every chance that Israel will eventually take back the Gaza since its clear that there is no other authority capable of running it. But that years down the road, if ever.

But the map you showed yesterday, which you're now trying to hide from, showed Israel extending into Egypt and Turkey and Jordan and Syria and Iraq and Saudi Arabia. And only someone as delusional as our AC could think that makes any sort of sense.

" using terrorists as their proxies to cause sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia"

The Sunni-Shia battle has been going on for over a millennium and now its somehow all Israel's fault. What a berk! Delusional isn't a strong enough word

Well, I suppose I should congratulate you mhaze.
- In the true gentlemanly fashion.

I offer you my most gracious defeat..

You said that the M/E would look a whole lot different and you're indeed correct.
The Axis of Resistance is broken
Syria has been wiped off the chessboard
(Now a failed state, in line with US policy)
Hezbollah will become more isolated
Hamas is diminished

And there is nothing standing in between Israel and total genocide or removal of the Palestinians, and the expansion of their territories.

In Syria, ISIS / Al-Qaeda have won.

We shall continue.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Many thanks for that interesting explanation of the Hinduist concept of religion and spirituality. I appreciate it.

It is simple, clear, and easily understood. You master the subject well.

I have copied it for future reference.

I just have one more question : I have seen it written that many people today have become dissatisfied with traditional religion and turn to spirituality without religion and, possibly, without belief in God and other supernatural beings.

You indicate that in Hinduism, “spirituality could be referred to as the inner part of religion …” but could spirituality stand alone, without religion, and, even without faith ?

.

It's happening already mhaze,

SYRIAN REBELS SAY THEY WILL NOW MOVE TO CONQUER ISRAEL
http://x.com/ShaykhSulaiman/status/1866036321212576083

Look I just want a better world where nations aren't trying to dominate and rule over others and where there's endless conflict.
Ultimately it's about respect, decency and dignity.
We're supposed to want a better world, and to try and leave it a better place when we're gone.
Why are we here, why do we all post in the forum?
I was thinking about it yesterday, thought to myself, you know what, we all argue over different things, but what's the bet we all essentially want the same thing, but maybe we disagree slightly on what that 'thing' actually is, and how we're supposed to get there.

I post plenty of stuff, more often than not I add links to back up the things I put forward, and many of those people are in better positions to know than us, and you won't catch me out advocating violence because I have ethics and principles.

If this thread is about religion, why does it only have to be about the good aspects, aren't the bad aspects just as equally important, if not more important?

Yes I know it's the wrong map, doesn't include Syria
http://x.com/realstewpeters/status/1863083365047390656

Let's consider things hypothetically.
How are they going to achieve Greater Israel?
First they are going to have to surround themselves with enemies, and then fight a war in self-defense which they pre-emptively start.
Then they will have to create conditions in foreign countries so bad from a radical Muslim threat (Jews being slaughtered in the streets) that all Jews will return to Israel.

It's not just me saying this, it's what some Muslims and Jews say themselves.
I could give links as well but right now, I think I've pushed the entire issue more than I'm comfortable with, given the government plans to create Anti-Semitic lynching squads.

I'm not against people per se, I'm against stupid ideas.
Stupid ideas being the principle problem, and people behind them a secondary issue.
All religions are flawed, they all have pros and cons.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

The answer to your question is in general terms in the affirmative - spirituality can exist without a materialist component and without any formal structure, but there are caveats.

People do not typically just get up one morning and say "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity [Ecclesiastes 1:2] - I am no longer interested in the world, neither its riches nor its pleasures nor any name and fame interest me, I no longer care whether I experience pleasure or pain, fame or notoriety, sickness or health, nor even whether I live or die, I only love God, I now want God alone...".

This may be the last mile of a 500-mile journey, but one cannot walk the last mile without first walking the first 499.

Before genuinely starting on the inner path, one would typically progress in early life using some formal outer forms of religion, performing good and unselfish works of service and refraining from what is wrong or unethical.

But then there are those who, so to speak, have already done their homework in previous lives/incarnations, who are therefore born ready for the last mile without even hearing about formal religion, traditions or theology and without a verbal faith to proclaim.

Otherwise, many turn to spirituality directly and try to give it a go for a while, but only few persevere. Without faith, it is hard to keep going when things get tough and significant sacrifices are required, but when one is already prepared, faith is replaced by knowledge and so is no longer required.

I hope this answers your question, please do not hesitate if there is more you like to ask.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Previously you said "religious freedom is paramount", meaning it's above all others. I don't agree, if it is a religious belief that human sacrifice is necessary, then does that surpass a persons right to life?

Dear Paul,

«if it is a religious belief that human sacrifice is necessary, then does that surpass a persons right to life?»

Forget about "belief" - believe what you may, but can human sacrifice [of another] be a religious action? Does God actually like it? Can it in fact possibly bring one closer to God?

I don't think so - do you?

AC write: "Yes I know it's the wrong map, doesn't include Syria"

This after he'd snidely commented that I didn't know what I was talking about as regards Netanyahu holding up maps showing Israel conquering Syria.

This is AC's way of admitting error without actually acknowledging he's been caught out fabricating for the umpteenth time. Its like trying to hold rancid custard in your fingers - it keeps pouring through because it has no substance.

Meanwhile the news just keeps getting worse for the so-called Axis of Resistance and better for Israel as the full extent of the losses Iran has suffered becomes more apparent.

As Netanyahu foresaw, the Middle East is today a very different place from what it was on 7 October last year. Its now just a matter of time before the Lebanese army takes it courage in its hands and finally purges Hezbullah from its polity. Jordan is also becoming an issue. The strange thing is that the Hashemite kingdom may end up relying on Netanyahu to save its bacon. I wonder what price Israel would extract for that service?

One final observation that some are making. On previous occasions when Assad was threatened, Putin had been able to save his regime by throwing massive forces at the rebels. But this time, all Putin could do was a day or two of desultory bombing followed by a rapid retreat. Clearly Russia is stretched to their limits in dealing with Ukraine and have no other forces available for any other purposes. I wonder if China is watching?

"It's happening already mhaze,

SYRIAN REBELS SAY THEY WILL NOW MOVE TO CONQUER ISRAEL"

It was one bloke AC. Not the rebels' but one blowhard. Why do you keep falling for this rubbish?

Meanwhile al-Jolani..."We are open to friendship with everyone in the region - including Israel. We don't have enemies other than Assad, Hezbullah and Iran. what Israel did against Hezbullah in Lebanon helped us a great deal. We are now taking care of the rest".

It would be folly to take any Islamist at his word, but, who knows, maybe this guy just wants to make a better Syria for his people rather than fight against the great Satan. We should assume that's the case until we see differently.

Trumpster, Happy festive season, etc etc.

But one blowhard. Why do you keep falling for this rubbish? Why do you keep falling for Donald's fake news my little Trumpy mate, like; The Haitians are eating all the dogs and cats, and probably the guinea pigs as well. Don't laugh, in some parts of South America guinea pig is considered a real delicacy, I believe they fricassee it like chicken. Just like you consider a feed of roasted wombat with goanna sauce a delicacy, they think the same about guinea pigs. My South American d-in-l told me so, and she should know, being for those parts, although born in Australia. But don't tell your man Donald, he'll want to kicker her back to Mexico.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

« I hope this answers your question, please do not hesitate if there is more you like to ask. »
.

Yes, thanks Yuyutsu. It does.

Very interesting. I appreciate it

.

"Tis the Season"

Last night I watched "Travel Guides". This time they went
to Finland.

With Christmas just around the corner - it made for great
viewing.

Caroline Keys Australian Christmas card illustrator tells
us that it's hard to get excited about snow, reindeers, and
steamed puddings, when you're celebrating Christmas in the
Southern Hemisphere enjoying long hot days and feasting on
seafood and wonderful summer fruit.

Yet there's one tradition that most of us can all share -
either with our families, friends, and those that matter to
us. Or remembering those who aren't with us. As well
as making donations to those that need it to brighten their
day.

Christmas is about more than just food and gift-giving. It's
about sharing and doing our best towards a better tomorrow
for everyone. About love and peace and hope and a better tomorrow.

With that thought - May the blessings and joy this Christmas
Season be with you throughout the coming year 2025.
National unity - not division - please?

We have to congratulate Paul on his most recent post. It was complete rubbish but it didn't contain any actual errors of fact which makes it a very unusual post for Paul.

Even though his post was completely off-topic, just a couple of things:

1. Paul, did you see the story a week or so ago about a Haitian women in Ohio being arrested for killing and eating a neighbours cat. She was caught red handed - literally...the blood was still on her hands. But I know that even as you read this its disappearing down your well used memory-hole.

2. Dudeists celebrate 6 March as their foundation day. So as to not be left out of the Saturnalia joy, we also celebrate Festivus, 23 December - but without tinsel...I find it distracting

Hi Trumpster,

I was getting into the festive mood, and immediately thought of you and your Xmas dinner. BTW; What have the Syrians got to do with religious freedom? They let everyone out of prison, even the real baddies.

I think the real baddies are currently whooping it up in Moscow - and I'm not just referring to Mr and Mrs Assad.

Festive greetings my dearest Trumpster,

It is about time we returned to the topic, "religious freedom", you and I should be having a deep meaningful discussion on said topic. As we approach the festive holiday of 'Valhalla' (25th December as it is written in the Book Of Cyril) This is the time of year when you of the faith, Dorkism, enthusiastically venerate the god ZOG. Will you again be participating in the sacrificial offering by clubbing to death, one million guinea pigs, forcibly watched by 10,000 screaming children. Or do you still hanker for the good old days without political correctness imposed by a bunch of do-gooders, when 10,000 screaming children were club to death whilst being watched by one million not to unhappy guinea pigs, thanking ZOG, its the kids and not them. I say, all in a busy days sacrifice!

Huh?

I don't know what your on about.
Equally I don't know what your on.

But you need to follow the example of His Dudeness and just partake of White Russians.

But always remember..." “The Dude abides. I take comfort in that. It’s good knowin’ he’s out there, the Dude, takin’ ‘er easy for all us sinners.”

I do not believe that "god" is an entity, a being.

My uncle, an astrophysicist, an atheist, stated that he saw "god" in the beauty and perfection of a physics equation.

Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, each independently arrived at the theory of Quantum Consciousness.

Similarly, I believe that science, and science alone, will determine the nature of "god".

Unfortunately, the history of most of the major religions is drenched in blood ... particularly Christianity and Islam.

It is interesting that the founder of Christianity, Paul, never met Jesus.

Jesus and his followers were all Jews. Many historians believe that Jesus was a rabbi. He certainly had important things to say.

Hi WhiteMouse,

I often argue with other "Christians" about the concept of God, even with Anglican priests. I believe God only exists in a spiritual sense, and not as a physical being existing in a physical realm, The; "God the Father in Heaven", that belief and all it entails is most certainly untrue, its a concept for those who require no thinking on the subject, as it sits well with children, and those with a child like mentality when it comes to religion. It is very difficult to discuss with "believers" the concept of God and religion, they simply have a panacea for it all, they call it "faith". Faith is well and good for those who require no real thinking on the subject. To give you an analogy, you don't have to understand the complexities of the internal combustion engine to receive the benefits of the motor car God is a bit like that. All you need to know is, turn the key and the motor starts, (hopefully), and away you go. I tell my priest friend you are there for road side assistance when needed.

BTW, I also believe Saul Of Tarsus (St Paul not me), was the true founder of Christianity. Christianity like so many other sects within Judaism was heading for extinction until the great promoter St Paul came along and put it on a path of universal acceptance within the broader community. People like Christs brother James in Jerusalem, wanted Christianity kept as a reforming sect within the Jewish religion. The James sect failed, and Paul's sect took over completely.

Jesus might have been Hebrew in a sense. Some say that Jesus was adapted to Roman culture as in his depiction in imperial robes. And also George Washington was English. Asian culture has been trying to colonize European culture for thousands of years. But I consider subsidiarity superior to the rotating officials model- feel free to call this white superiority if you like- but I consider self government as superior to authoritarianism in a sense.

Asian authoritarianism in the form of Marxism seems to want to make themselves their own god, a terror worse than any "made up god".

Surely Asian's can be their better selves and come up with a better governing principle, perhaps based on familial Confucianism, which is closer to European subsidiarity.

It's interesting that the Chinese have been subverting the concept of Confucianism in the West to spread Marxism. Got to love the work of The Epoch Times and their allied entities.

Dear WhiteMouse,

«I do not believe that "god" is an entity, a being.»

Well of course: all entities and beings are limited. Would you worship a limited being?

«My uncle, an astrophysicist, an atheist, stated that he saw "god" in the beauty and perfection of a physics equation.»

Yes, you can find God in everything because there is nothing but God.

«Similarly, I believe that science, and science alone, will determine the nature of "god".»

That assumes that God has a nature.
And suppose God had a nature, then He/She/It would be limited by that nature, then "nature" would be the real god and God just another creature of nature...

Yes, science can find God, but the problem with physical science is that it looks outward.

«Unfortunately, the history of most of the major religions is drenched in blood ... particularly Christianity and Islam.»

But are the above truly religions?

They can be better described as social/national/tribal mass-movements.

«Jesus and his followers were all Jews. Many historians believe that Jesus was a rabbi. He certainly had important things to say.»

Jesus transcended Judaism, but unfortunately he had to teach difficult students who were earlier brainwashed by the Rabbis of their time and were therefore still confined to Judaic thinking, thus for them to understand he was forced to use their terminology.

---

Dear Paul,

«Christianity like so many other sects within Judaism was heading for extinction until the great promoter St Paul came along and put it on a path of universal acceptance within the broader community»

Indeed, but why? what for?
Jesus was already dead at the time (or at least not there) - would you entrust your sheep to a sign saying "Don't stray - There once was a shepherd here"?

Religions have survived for centuries. The ability of
religions to hold people together is the glue and
part of the reason for their survival as well as
there are questions that science cannot answer
like the meaning of life. Which is one of the reasons
that religions will continue top survive.

In any case beliefs are subjective, but what's the point
of saving humanity and the planet from a possible
environmental disaster if we're going to keep killing
each other in the name of different prophets of the
same god?

Beliefs are a framework that shapes how we think and
act, from believing that hard work will lead to success
to following rules and the law because it's the righ thing
to do.

It's important of have something to believe in. It can be
a source of strength and courage during difficult times
and it can help us stay focused and motivated.
It can also create meaning in our lives as it provides
us with a sense of
purpose and connection to something greater than ourselves.

Very few have ever argued anyone into believing.
To a believer a god is simply there. To a non-believer
a god may be a mystery and
many other things but most of all to a non-believer a god is
simply not there. What we choose to believe is subjective.

I know that I would find life difficult without having a god
in my life.

Anyone heard of Zoroastrianism?

Nietzsche had an interest in Zoroastrianism. The first monotheistic religion.

Britannica provides interesting information on which
religion is the oldest:

http://britannica.com/story/which-religion-is-the-oldest

The older I get I'm beginning to realize how little I know.

Hi Foxy,

You said; "t's important of have something to believe in. It can be
a source of strength and courage during difficult times
and it can help us stay focused and motivated.
It can also create meaning in our lives as it provides
us with a sense of purpose and connection to something greater than ourselves."

Buddha had an interest in that, saying one should believe in oneself, and had no need for external deities. Mans quest for "meaning" has resulted in all kinds of beliefs, none more valid than any other. Why should the Judeo-Christian god have any more reality than the countless other gods, Hinduism for example has hundreds if not thousands of greater and lesser deities/gods. Over the ages man has been inventing gods on an industrial scale. In Roman mythology, Janus is the god of doorways, passages and bridges, is Janus any less valid than Jehovah, or the Ancient Greeks paramount god Zeus? From ancient religions we get the word "mythology" and from mythology we derive the word myth; meaning... "a widely held but false belief or idea." Humm.

Dear Paul,

«Hinduism for example has hundreds if not thousands of greater and lesser deities/gods.»

They are called "Devattas", literally "The shiny ones", and better translated into English and its culture as 'Angels'.

While Zoroastrianism may be the first monotheistic religion. Christianity seems to have a more sophisticated structure. There is the comparison between Spinoza's conception of god and other types. In a sense you can read many moralities from Christian literature. In a sense Christian literature could be compared to the Taoist I Ching.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Interesting that you should mention "Angles" as I once had a discussion with a priest about these "Angles". He tried to explain them as messages (not messengers) from god, I did bring up the subject of the 7 Archangels as named, therefore being incarnate and materially existing, so should one believe. Also the subject of guardian angels arose, and the notion that every living human had a protector in the form of a watch angle. I did point out that there are more human beings alive today, that ever lived or died in the past. I wanted to know where were all these guardian angles coming from, was their a room in heaven full of spare angles waiting for the birth of the next human. I also wanted to know where they went when one dies, were they out of a job or re-assigned. I did have to ask; "Are you making this up?" and of course he fell back on the ever trusted; "Its a matter of faith". Well I said, so is Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy a matter of faith. When the reality becomes too much, just invoke FAITH as your way of explaining such nonsense.

Dear Paul,

Just a bit on the lighter side:

I recently read a bumper sticker - "Not all angels
have wings. Some have stethoscopes".

Which I have found to be true from experience.
(smile).

Dear Paul,

This question of the material existence or otherwise of angels, is better addressed to material science, of which I am not an expert.

Jordan Peterson says that religion compares the society of man with an idealized society. In a similar way Sanzio Raphael compares Aristotle with Plato and experimental truth with abstract truth in his painting The School Of Athens.

Maybe heaven is not another place but another time, where our future selves look back to us today.

And what a time it must have been.
The School of Athens - a magnificent painting
in a splendid architectural setting in which the
artist even infuses a self portrait into the
artwork.

The Vatican must surely be a place filled with
treasures, past and present. Would these treasures,
these works of art and atchitecture have existed
without religion?

I probably won't say this again, but Kudos Foxy.

Canem Malum,

No. Kudos to you. And, thank you.
You have surprised me recently.
I have learned
a great deal from you. Especially
regarding the historical continuity of
Platonic thought.

Again, Thank you.

Suspected attack at Christmas market leaves at least one dead, 50 injured after car ploughs into crowd
http://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/car-drives-into-crowd-at-german-christmas-market-in-suspected-attack-20241221-p5l03y.html

Netanyahu says our UN vote empowers terrorists?
What about his policy to use Jihadis to take over Syria?
- Let's empower the Jihadis Bibi

http://x.com/stillgray/status/1869378844454686824
German police are profiling old white ladies at Christmas markets to confiscate the knives they’re carrying for self-protection. The same profiling is not applied to illegal aliens who pose a threat to said old ladies.

http://x.com/Huberton/status/1870205496004665434
UPDATE: The German Christmas Market attacker in Magdeburg, Germany is a SAUDI ARABIAN national born in 1974. Terrorist Attack on Christians!
Pray for the victims!

http://x.com/Huberton/status/1870202740808228888
BREAKING: A vehicle drove through a large crowd of people at the German Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany. The driver was arrested. 11 died and 80 people were injured.
Terrorist Attack! The attack on Christians!

http://x.com/DefiantLs/status/1869870016591503628
WATCH: Thousands of Muslim immigrants have arrived to the Christmas festivity fair in Germany to protest against the tradition, that goes against their beliefs and Islam

http://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/1869618158870397027
No German flag - Israel Flag, Gay Flag, Ukraine flag.

Whaere did the immigrants come from?
Wars for Israel!

Do the Christians defend their own? NO.
They support Israel.

Meanwhile, it's all sweet and wholesome celebration of Friday prayers in Syria.
'He's a good Jihadi!'

You've all lost the plot.

"May God lead us from falseness to truth.
May God lead us from darkness to light."

Lucifer is the light-bearer.

I'm trying my best currently to count my blessings.
It's not easy with what's going on in our troubled
world.

I find that focusing on what I can control helps.
I also find that If I focus on trying to find
solutions instead of getting entangled in the problems
that also helps.

Reading the posts on this forum is useful. Many posters
give good explanations and advice although it can be hard
at times to stay positive.

But I shall keep trying.

With that thought in mind here's something I found on the web:

"Christmas is full of shiny things
That sparkle, gleam, and glow
These holiday pleasures dazzle us
And yet, deep down, we know
That Christmas has its special gifts
And our real joy depends
On the cherished people in our lives
Our family and our friends!"

Love, Peace, and Happiness to you one and all.

http://x.com/jerrydorris/status/1869735149694492933
The term "Judeo-Christian" doesn’t appear in Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary. Why? It didn’t exist yet. It’s a 20th-century construct designed to create a false sense of unity.

http://x.com/pepedownunder/status/1870178288867647585
Why would the IDF destroy a Cross?
Christians are you still being fooled?

http://x.com/VintageVault8/status/1870181466828632221
This is the cross that Israeli forces destroyed on top of Mount Hermon. Every year on August 5th, Christian pilgrims ascend Mount Hermon to commemorate when Jesus (Pbuh) took his disciples Peter, James, and John to the summit, where he transformed before them.

Meanwhile in Australia...
http://x.com/pepedownunder/status/1869927295957512551
This is getting beyond a joke now….

Andrew Charlton, MP for Paramatta NSW, called on Parliament to declare January, ‘Tamil Heritage Month’…
How about f off, and keep f'ing off, and when you get there, f right off even more…
This is AUSTRALIA WE CELEBRATE AUSTRALIA’S HERITAGE NOT F'ing SOUTH INDIA !
Are there any foreign country’s that have heritage month celebrations for Australia or White Anglo Saxon’s?

http://mfa.gov.lk/tam/australian-tamil-congress-a-terrorist-front/
>>Australian Tamil Congress (ATC), LTTE’s premier front in Australia, was designated as a terrorist entity under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. The ATC is also listed as a terrorist organisation by the Terrorist Research & Analysis Consortium (TRAC). Like the previous LTTE fronts, ATC too built an Australia-wide network with chapters in South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and in Queensland. The key focus of the ATC is on lobbying Australian parliamentarians, Tamil Diaspora, and host population against Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankan government.

To advance LTTE’s goal of separatism, ATC joined other LTTE fronts to politicise, radicalise and mobilise the Tamil communities overseas. ATC focus is Australia. In addition to organizing cultural events, dinners and other fund raisers, ATC disseminated misinformation and disinformation about Sri Lanka. A hallmark of LTTE propaganda is the use of the term “genocide,” a very act the LTTE engaged in by driving out the Muslims and Sinhalese by systematically killing village after village.<<

Coming soon to you.
Chaos, Attacks on whites, Civil war, Total Chaos
But only if standing up for your country, upon which time YOU'LL be the enemy!

"Love, Peace, and Happiness to you one and all."

Same to you Foxy.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all forum members
- Or whatever one celebrates at this time of the year.

Goodwill and best wishes to all.
- May you all have an enjoyable time over the holiday period.

Armchair Critic-

I agree with your anger at the situation in Germany. Sadly the police in Germany and Australia too are trapped by the ideology of the government. The governments ideology seems to have outlawed those that disagree so it's difficult to even discuss the situation.

Merry Christmas to your family and to our family here

Hi CM,
"The governments ideology seems to have outlawed those that disagree so it's difficult to even discuss the situation."
- I'm glad I'm not the only one here who noticed.

I told everyone all these leaders would be gone, and Putin still remain, my theory is looking fairly good.
It ain't looking good for Sholtz, Macron, Starmer or Truedeau.
Many others are already gone, and Biden will be out the door in a month..
Advise of what exactly.

Putin's been there a quarter of a century.
It's our 'branch-manager-political-class who are incompetent sell-outs.
Our leaders are still wet behind the ears when they retire off to advisory roles.

Sorry if anyone here finds my 'truths' or 'opinions' offensive.

Oh BTW I didn't know we'd joined NATO
Look at the photos below.

http://x.com/pepedownunder/status/1869341965286076586
"Penny Wong posing with NATO Chief Rutte.
Why is she even there? Australia is NOT a part of NATO.
If she thinks we’re sending our Aussie sons and daughters over to fight for Ukraine….you better think twice... "

Are we all going to lie to ourselves again this New Years and tell ourselves things will get better, like we always do?
- Yes Foxy, it is very hard to remain positive in these crazy times.

Hi Foxy,

Yes, Christian art and architecture can be stunningly beautiful.

Yet, why are Jesus and his followers always depicted as blue-eyed, fair-haired Aryans? As we know Jesus and his followers were Jews of the Middle-east.

Actually, Christianity does not have the monopoly on magnificent art and architecture ... other religions produce amazing art and architecture also.

I lived in multi-racial, multi-ethnic and multi-religious society for
ten years.

We all shared our feast days and holy days.

It was lovely to be woken at dawn by the Muslim call to prayer.

Hi Whitemouse,

The
School of Athens work of art by Rennaissance artist
was what was being discussed -
that hangs in the Vatican and the question asked was
whether such art and
architecture would have existed without religion.

It wasn't meant as a slur against any other religion
or culture. I have made my position on religion and
cultures quite clear in this discussion.

I also have travelled widely and have lived and
worked amongst various cultures. I have also studied art
and architecture. And am aware of the beauty and magnificence
that is to be found around the world. If one chooses to
seek it.

As for your question why Jesus is depicted as a blue-eyed
Aryan?

There's a great deal available on the web. One explanation
given is:

"Cultures have historically imagined Jesus as looking like
them. A lot of the art that depicts Jesus comes from
Western Europe, hence much of it typically depicts him as
looking broadly European".

There's more at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus#:

http://britannica.com/topic/Christology/Jesus-in-the-visual-arts

Hi WhiteMouse,

http://re-thinkingthefuture.com/travel-and-architecture/a3693-15-famous-structures-of-uzbekistan/

Foxy,

Thank you for that wonderful wealth of information.

I'm sure others will also find it absolutely fascinating.

Thank you.

Hi WhiteMouse,

I was so pleased that you shared your information and
thoughts. I was an educator. I'm now retired, but
my grandchildren keep me busy. BTW - I used to run
Storytime Sessions, bookclubs, and educational classes
for a large municipal library system. They included,tiny-tots,
primary, and high school students from different backgrounds.
I'm also bi-lingual. And that's only a small oiece of my
background.

Thank you for your kind words.

Armchair Critic said "Hi CM, "The governments ideology seems to have outlawed those that disagree so it's difficult to even discuss the situation." - I'm glad I'm not the only one here who noticed."

Ans- Take care Armchair Critic

I prefer to experience the history of my own culture over that of another culture. Occasionally I might like to look at other cultures but I want to experience my own culture everyday. I expect people from other cultures will show a similar bias. Of course I believe that my culture is the best culture for me- especially being a Traditionalist.

Culture and its heritage reflects and shapes values,
beliefs and aspirations thereby defining a people's
national identity. Therefore it is important to
preserve our own cultural heritage, because it keeps
our integrity as a people.

My parents ensured that we learned about
our heritage, ancestry, our country's history,
language, and customs. They wanted us to be culturally aware
so that we could acknowledge our world views and heritage.

At the same time I grew up being surrounded by other
cultures. I experienced a vast and varied mix. I found
that this helped me grow as a person. It built empathy and
helped me navigate social complexities. I got a better
understanding of the differences in the cultures and
beliefs of others.

Not only Australia but the world is becoming
increasingly diverse and includes people from
many religions, languages, economic groups, and
other cultural groups. In order for us to build
communities that are successful we need to
understand and appreciate each other.

At the same time, as I posted on another
discussion we can't pretend that our cultures and
differences don't matter. We can't gloss over our
differences and pretend they don't exist- wishing
we could all be alike and that biases and
discrimination doesn't exist.

All we can do is try to remember that everyone has
an important viewpoint and role to play. We need people
to work together and to be included in decision
making processes for things to work and recognise that
cultural inclusion goes hand in hand with a just and
equitable society.

Hi WhiteMouse,

Apparently there are portraits of a black Jesus:

http://etsy.com/au/listing/1657521267/black-jesus-carrying-cross-prints-brown?

Hi NathanJ

"Losing sight of religious freedoms and the rise of aggressive secularism will only push society further down a pathway we will regret in my view, with religious freedoms being something we must defend for the benefit of all."

I think that's bs no offense.
I think religion creates more problems than it solves.
The only reason you think a rise of aggressive secularism is a danger to society is because your incapable of accepting that real values and principles can exist independent of religion.

I have family who are devout Christians
On the outside it looks fine, pull back the covers and what you find is that they are the most horrible, ignorant, arrogant, conceited sub-human people you could ever meet.

You know as I think about it...

I don't remember one person on this forum except Foxy,
Who claimed to be in any way Christian, stand up for what Jesus actually taught.

In the face of willfully killing thousands upon thousands of women and kids,
Christians stayed silent, deer in headlights, just like I said over a year ago
(Waaahh! We're all caught on a technicality here, we can't criticise Israel, what do we do? waaahhh!)

- Weak as piss -

YOU'RE ALL AS FAKE AS MCDONALDS CHEESE.

Hi AC,

I remember when I first got married and for a while
we lived with my husband's parents. They were very
conservative in their viewpoints. That was fine.
I respected their views. However it did get a bit
tiresome with their constant preaching and stressing
that they went to church every single Sunday while at
home they consistently criticised their friends and
neighbours - regarding themselves as superior folk.

I put their attitudes not so much on religion, as
their own failings. I tried not to judge and put our
differences down to an age gap.

However one day I remember when my mother-in-law again
stressed that she went to church every Sunday I made the
mistake of muttering - "Perhaps you need to?"
She overheard me, and didn't speak to me for a while.

We finally made up - and I learned that with some people
it's best
not to argue, especially with older people
who are set in their ways. Best to keep quiet and respectful.

Dear Critic,

«real values and principles can exist independent of religion.»

Those adopting real values and principles are typically religious, even while they do not officially belong to any church or a similar organisation.

«I have family who are devout Christians
On the outside it looks fine, pull back the covers and what you find is that they are the most horrible, ignorant, arrogant, conceited sub-human people you could ever meet.»

If what you describe is correct, then these family members of yours do not seem to be religious - only Christian.

«In the face of willfully killing thousands upon thousands of women and kids,
Christians stayed silent, deer in headlights, just like I said over a year ago
(Waaahh! We're all caught on a technicality here, we can't criticise Israel, what do we do? waaahhh!)»

Assuming the above is correct, criticise those responsible - not innocent Israelis.

Hi AC,

Religions have their faults of course. But they also
do a lot of good. So many charitable organisations
exist because of religion. And so many good people as
well.

I'm not out to convert anybody as I've said many times.
But as I've also said - I'd find it difficult not to have
God in my life.

I'm probably not a good Christian. I don't go to church
every Sunday. Yet I do pray. Prayer takes me to a
different realm. All I find I can do is follow my
conscience. And I try to keep my behaviour on track.

Thank you for your kind words. I don't have all the answers.
I think each of us does what is right for us

Here's what religious freedom means, and many are beyond fed up with it.
All it does it cause conflict and destroy our countries.

http://x.com/RadioGenoa/status/1870563199692800468
German police explain to Muslim women that Germans have had enough.

Hi Foxy,
I'm not denying anyone a right to believe as they choose.
I think all religions are flawed, but I'm not about to tell anyone they have no right to believe in a higher power.
I'm sick of all the conflict that comes from it, and some deliberately use it to stoke division.
It's going to destroy our countries and I think that's exactly what some people want, so if people can't play nice, they shouldn't play at all.

Saying you're Christian and want religious freedom means the non-religious are subjected to extremist ideas from the ENTIRE religious crowd - nutters and all - this whole steaming pile of crap of 'conflict' because of it.

You want Jesus? Peace and love?
You bring radical Islam upon everyone.
And Jews who think we're all goyim 'cattle'.
And the stupid dumb-arse Christians don't even stand up for what Jesus taught anyway.

It's a catch-22 that will destroying everything.
But that's ok because stupid one-eyed Christians live for Armageddon.
They say 'I just hope Jesus comes back in my lifetime!' [smiles and happy]
'All those dead Palestinian women and kids are Gods will'.

It's all selfish, ignorant, vile and disgusting.
- And probably little to do with anything righteous, good or wholesome.

SERIOUSLY sick of and tired of all it.

Satire-
________________

Newsflash Green Watermelons propose replacing Christmas with a One Hundred Flowers Birthday Party for Chinese Hero Mao who was born on the holy sacred mountain "jiow shan" (meaning "go away mountain").

As part of the festivities there will be 100 jumping dancers in recognition of the Great Leap Forward and the revolution and modernisation of China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong's_cult_of_personality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombard_the_Headquarters

We should celebrate our beautiful red warriors that have stood and schooled the bourgeois dictatorship who had deflated the morale of the proletariat, shouldn't we be eternally and bountifully grateful to our great leader for making us wide awake?

Here are some words from our generous esteemed leader...

"China's first Marxist-Leninist big-character poster and Commentator's article on it in People's Daily are indeed superbly written! Comrades, please read them again. But in the last fifty days or so some leading comrades from the central down to the local levels have acted in a diametrically opposite way. Adopting the reactionary stand of the bourgeoisie, they have enforced a bourgeois dictatorship and struck down the surging movement of the Great Cultural Revolution of the proletariat. They have stood facts on their head and juggled black and white, encircled and suppressed revolutionaries, stifled opinions differing from their own, imposed a white terror, and felt very pleased with themselves. They have puffed up the arrogance of the bourgeoisie and deflated the morale of the proletariat. How poisonous! Viewed in connection with the Right deviation in 1962 and the wrong tendency of 1964 which was 'Left' in form but Right in essence, shouldn't this make one wide awake?"
________________

Tiny Tim said, 'A Merry Christmas to us all; God bless us, everyone!'

http://www.barcelonaconnect.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Shen-Yun-2017-InsidePeach-web-1024x737@2x.jpg

http://www.barcelonaconnect.com/event/shen-yun-means-beauty-divine-beings-dancing-returns-liceu/

Shen Yun demonstrating ironically Mao's Great Leap forward. Falun Gong and The Epoch Times do great work.

Kudos Kid,

If you are going to tell lies about the Greens, at least mark them believable. Since we are in the lying business, I do believe that far right Nazi's, masquerading in Australia as various fringe political parties, want to replace Santa in shopping centers, with men dressed up as Adolf Hitler in Nazi uniform, and have them indorenate chidden with Nazi propaganda. Kudos Kid are you a supporter of that idea?

Mao would make a great Father Christmas, he's fat, likes red, is followed around by lots of red elves, visits all the children giving them presents (especially the young girls), and is very jolly telling lots of jokes.

Kudos Kid, Merry Christmas

Political correctness has forced Santarina (new female name for a new transgender person of indeterminate sex) to slim down appreciably. No more fruit cake and eggnog its organic salad and soy latte. We've also removed any semblance of animal fur from Santarina's outfit, which is now an ensemble of recycled natural fibers, no plastics, Santarina is no longer getting around in a slay pulled by a team of oppressed reindeers, but by a team of obese male misogynistic ex-santa's who perpetuated sexist stereotyping in society by giving presents of Barbie Dolls to the immerging sisterhood, and Barbie wasn't even black! Child exploration at the North Pole has ceased, the new Elf Labor Award has brought wage justice to the Elf sisterhood, who make up almost 300% of workers in a male dominated industry, the sisterhood is now receive wage parity of 200% with the exploring class of male elves. Cop that one Pinocchio. Kid, anything else you want to know about the new Christmas correctness. May all ye (even the chauvinistic males oppressor's) enjoy a Christmas feast of a traditions lunch of organic lentils and organic mung beans, washed down with a lovely green smoothie made from organic dandelions and a handful of cloudberries, available from your organic Latvian green grocer! And for afters a delicious slice of organic Byaslag Yak Cheese (uncurdled of course) imported from Mongolia and sold in all good organic Asian fromagerie's.

Diversity is not a strength, were being marched off a cliff
http://x.com/RadioGenoa/status/1871000842285068673

"The 60 Minutes journalists went to Sweden to show us the wonderful world of diversity but were attacked and chased away by diversity itself."

http://x.com/RadioGenoa/status/1871000842285068673

Kudos Armchair Critic.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/liz-hayes-relives-terrifying-moment-60-minutes-crew-were-attacked/news-story/4f4ff8c32eb7566341fa6741ea25558f

I thought I recognised the voice... it was the Australian 60 Minutes camera crew

Hi Canem Malem,
The article made Hayes into a hero, whilst a handicapped man drove his mobility scooter into the 'immigrants' while Hayes and her crew made their escape.
They didn't mention that in the article.

We need to have a serious discussion in regards to immigration.
We also need a serious discussion about racism and religion as well.

If we don't have a serious discussion about racism and religious freedom, we'll end up being overrun by people of different races and religious persuasions, who don't care for our way of life.

Supporting Israel as the only 'democracy' in the middle east, we need to have a discussion about that as well.
These wars in the middle east for Israel are increasing existing resentments amongst Muslims, just as the governments increasing immigration numbers are helping to turn us into the UK, Germany or Sweden faster.

Supporting freedom of religion should not be a 'blank-cheque' for which we cut our noses off to spite our faces by importing people with religious beliefs that seek to undermine the existing fabric of our nation.
Same for racism, being opposed in principle to racism should not mean we import people of different races who have contempt for our country.
Same for supporting Israeli 'democracy' (what a joke) and same for high immigration numbers.

Is there even any way at all to address this issue without being beaten over the head with racism, freedom of religion, support for democracy or the government need for immigration due to skill shortages and the economy?

For starters we should stop importing the people who represent a danger to us, and start importing the existing white friendly people from these nations who are now minorities and want to escape the hell-holes their countries have become.

We need to stand with people who would respect our way of life, and stand up to the voices within our country who push woke ideology.

Remember the naive brainwashed woke women welcomed these people into their country, and are now unsafe on their own streets and targets / victims of rape.

We need some strong voices, people with some balls.

That when these pissweak leaders talk about multiculturalism, etc.
We need to say 'Is this what you want for us' and pushback hard.

Someone who is prepared to confront and smash these ideals without fear, and focus on our best interests and future as a nation, and the kind of place we wish to make for ourselves and our kids.

The longer we wait, the more impossible it will become.

I hate to say it, but we almost need a Hitler like figure, but one that acts in a more ethical manner, someone who is willing to discriminate against undesirables, but not cause any harm to them like Hitler did. Some people may need to be expelled back to a country more suited to their beliefs.

I know I'm walking an impossible line here, but if we don't do something, we most likely will end up like the others.

Failing to address these issues will lead us to outcomes we can already see happening elsewhere.

What can we do to prevent such a horrible outcome that has befallen these European countries and the problem they have with immigration by people unfriendly to their way of life?

I hope you all understand that there's no way to address this issue without being attacked by someone, I don't want conflict, but that's where we are headed, and that's what I wish to avoid.

Every time we vote, we decide the lesser evil.

So it shouldn't be so wrong to propose a question in that context.

What is the lesser evil;

The white Australia policy we had going back 20 or so years ago;
Or what has become of the UK, Germany, Sweden etc.

We need to think hard about this, it's no different to the decisions we have to make everytime we're forced to go to a polling booth.

What future do we want?
And it's people like Foxy, people who identify with an immigrant past, who think Islam is no threat to us, and that we can all live happy ever after that we need to present the argument to most of all.

What future do you want Foxy?
(and please do not be offended at my singling you out, no offense intended, but you fit a category that suits my argument.
You are the kind of person or people we need to convince that serious problems lie ahead if they're not addressed)

Hi AC,

No offfence taken. We're all from different ancestries
after-all. Some later, some sooner. Therefore we should
be able to identify with each other - no probs.

Trouble makers and extremists have always existed. Here in
Australia our governments have dealt with problems rather
well I think. We have set criteria that has to be met
before visas are issued. And permanent residency is not
all that easy to get. We have caps on immigration numbers.
We have criminal checks. We have our security intelligence
agencies who are thorough, So, I'm not sure what else can
be done.

We also have the rule of law - which we expect everyone
to abide by.

I don't think that we should compare ourselves to other
countries. Europe with its open borders and history is so
different from us. We've always been clear and we have
established clear and shared expectations.

I'll repeat what I've posted many times. We are a country
that doesn't like disturbances, valuing stability.

We are suspicious of demagoguary. We have a fondness of
long standing norms and conventions but we're comfortable when
these are challenged with merit and through due process.

We have allowed a wide diversity of people but we also
prize the arms-length distance from the world that our
geography allows. In other words- we are unique, and we do
things in our own way with our own laid-back swagger.

Also I would not worry too much. Younger generations usually
fit in rather well. They always have.

I love this country and I would not live anywhere else.
As for my taking the side of immigrants? I look at things
differently. There's good and bad in all people. But I
don't believe in a "them" and "us" division. Sooner or later
most of us all become Australians. Even those that don't want to
be without realizing it - will become different to the people
in the countries they left behind. Going back for a visit
makes that very clear.

Hi Foxy,
Thank you for not taking offense, and accepting my arguments in the spirit it was intended.
'I don't seek to cause conflict, but only to prevent it'

I think it's fair to say that these other countries probably also had the same checks and balances you speak of, but these were nonetheless ineffective in maintaining a quality of life the people there expected for themselves and their children.

The writing is on the wall, and we should keep this in mind.
To ignore what's happening in these other countries will likely consign us to the same fate.

I don't know what the answers are, but I think it would be foolish to ignore the problem and put it into the too hard basket, hoping that somehow the result will be different for our nation than it is for the others.

It's a controversial topic with controversial issues;
- But I don't think ignoring the issues to avoid initial conflict is a sensible path forward, as this only ensures there will be more and greater conflict later.

If you're driving down the road and hear a glug, glug, glug of your wheel-nuts not tightened up properly - should you ignore that problem hoping that somehow catastrophe can be miraculously averted by doing nothing?
If so, one would be a fool.
The question then is - Are we a nation of fools?

I may support the Palestinians right to live in a state of their own free from oppression, and I defend their human rights;
But this does not mean I'm willing to see Australians living under oppression either, from an ideology that would diminish our own human rights.

Hi AC,

I'm not for one minute suggesting we ignore the issues.
But I do feel that being inclusive and respectful and
getting to know others and making them feel welcomed
helps. Getting their own communities involved with us
also helps.

I feel that education of each other is key if we're going to
live in peace side by side. The success of this depends on
an understanding of each other and a wish to implement
necessary programs. Only education will provide the necessary
means.

Of course today, we might have very serious concerns with the
fundamtalist fringe in the middle east - just as we do with
the fundamentalist fringes of Christianity and Hinduism -
but we should never forget the role that these people played
1000s or so years age.

These people discovered (just as some of their Christian
counterparts did) that scholrship was possible in
religious environments.

Anyway it's unfortunate that clashes have occurred. Especially
when cultures instead of pursuing a high point of
scholarship stagnates in a mire of Old testament beliefs and
AD 700 desert culture.

Armchair Critic- You have raised some very important ideas in your posts here today. We should continue to tell the truth, as we see it.

It's a full time job and not without significant risk to ourselves, especially when our objections are often still being conceptualized, and we often don't agree completely with each other. Woke Marxist's seem to dictate public discourse, and if you ignore the signalling, you will be discredited and rejected from social structures. They appear to use shock troops in the form of loser narcissists or proxy groups to infiltrate social structures. I think that the Woke Marxist's are fully as vicious as the diverse people attacking Liz Hayes team and members of the public in the video.

What can we do...

Highlight what the Woke Marxist's are doing to shutdown the debate, building up libraries of knowledge, using corporate PR techniques of attack and defense. As Foxy said- encourage people to listen to ideas they aren't fully comfortable with. Others, such as Darren Hinch, have said, that we should let people speak, because if they are idiots they will betray themselves. But the Woke/ Marxist's are accelerating censoring and gagging the speech of their opponents, using their dominating market share in the media to achieve it. They are so effective at censorship, many in the public can't even imagine a different perspective on certain issues.

The tree that the Woke Marxist's seemingly grow from are the universities, we need to poison the poisonous tree, and replace the top of the tree with better people.

We should try and help those in other nations, in situ in their nations, within reason, to adopt better systems and processes, if they will listen, if not we may need to create barriers to prevent their problems from affecting us, and stronger methods if they are persistent in interfering with us. There is also the third nation problem in international affairs. Some resources are critical and these situations are the axels around which geopolitics rotates

As you know censorship was recently to become part of the state machinery, under the auspices of disinformation. Similar to The Voice we might find that Woke Marxist governments at other levels will force these gag policies through in spite of the rejection. The public needs to be able to recognise that whenever people talk of "disinformation" it's probably code for "censorship".

Adam Curtis talks about Hebrew American "Edward Bernays" "emotive techniques" being used to enslave the democratic public, based on Uncle Freud. George Gallop demonstrated that the people can be trusted to govern themselves and showed them how to detect bias and bigotry in the media.

We need to have strategies to embrace the paradoxes of the human experience to create more stability and freedom (whatever that means).

Ayn Rand talks about Objectivist's allowing fertile soil to develop, for nihilistic philosophies, by not participating in social debate. We the public have allowed Academic Woke Marxist Nihilistic doctrine to infiltrate societies globally, since the French Revolution of the 1790's, without resistance, and now the public will have to swallow a large bitter pill to fix it. We can teach them how. An important part of successful political and military strategy is to make the enemy feed your army. I consider myself a traditionalist not an objectivist but many of the answers are the same.

As Batman says to Gordon- "now we are two..."

Why do you think I named myself Canen Malum- "Bad Latin Dog"?

PS- It's the Woke Marxist's that are the racists in my view.

Muslims certainly have freedom of religion in this post-Christian country: they can wave terrorist flags, call for the killing of Jews, even though their behaviour is illegal.

Hi AC,

Australia pre-dominantly selects migrants who are
qualified and can easily be integrated into our society.
This is unlike Europe and the UK who fail to
select their migrants carefully. Migrants who
enter European countries have poor language skills,
qualifications, find themselves dependent on the
welfare state.

Ethnic diversity can work but only if its
accompanied by a selective migration system to
ensure that only migrants willing and able to
integrate enter the country.

Our future depends on not repeating " Come one and all"
policies of Europe and its welfare model as in Europe
and the UK.

That's why their system fails and ours works.

When I was young, I often went to La Perouse and spoke with indigenous Australians. I found them always welcoming, warm and friendly.

Unless we recognize and respect them, we are not truly Australian.

I believe that in local areas of indigenous groups, schools should teach the archaeology, social history and language of these people.

In today's Australia it is appalling that our indigenous people are ignored.

Foxy,.

This is for you. You may be interested.

Free university courses mooclab.club

Armchair Critic,

In the early days of white settlement in this country, we had Afghan Cameleers to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude. The were critically important in opening up this country.

Hi WhiteMouse,

Thank you.
Although, I've got so much on my plate at the moment.
What with my health problems, my grandchildren, a
husband who's got early dementia and other health problems.
But , I shall look into it. I appreciate your taking an
interest in me and trying to help.

I also admire your concern for our Indigenous people.

We need more like you.

__________________________________________________________

Talking about Woke Marxism?

I found this on the web:

"Right-wingers often characterize wokeism as a kind of
Marxism and left-wingers routinely dimiss the
characterisation as a cheap smear that reflects ignorance of
Marxist theory".

Who is right?

http://catholicworldreport.com/2024/04/25/what-is-the-relationship-between-wokeism-marxism-and-liberalism/

My apologies. I put the wrong date in. Here's the
link again:

http://catholicworldreport.com/2023/04/25/what-is-the-relationship-between-wokeism-marxism-and-liberalism/

I may get criticism because I used the Catholic World
Report as a source. It is characterised as a
conservative publication. However - the publication has
an excellent record for accuracy. It's veen a vocal
critic of clerical sex abuse, of corruption within the
church since early 1990s.

It's worth a read.

Wishing you all good health, peace, and happiness.

And delicious food!

ttbn- Merry Christmas to you in Adelaide.
________________

Thanks Foxy for the report it looks better than some I've seen.

_____________________

Regarding WhiteMouse...

Unless we recognize and respect them, we are not truly Australian. I believe that in local areas of indigenous groups, schools should teach the archaeology, social history and language of these people.

Posted by WhiteMouse, Tuesday, 24 December 2024 3:21:04 PM

I believe in respecting those that show respect. I cannot respect a culture that is complicit for example- in the anal rape of 13 year old girls. If their culture believes in such practices I will minimize my interaction with it, and I will say what they do is wrong, in my society. I won't tell such a society that these practices are wrong, but I'll tell my society that accepting them means accepting their culture and practices. Such societies cannot interact and maintain their integrity.

Also respect means keeping your hands off other peoples property. There is the classic thieve's maxim- "what's your's is mine and what's mine is mine".

There are societies that have stable policies, and there are societies that are unstable, stability is not free, we must create it (the same with freedom- what ever that means).

Of course we should try to record the stories of all cultures, within reason of cost/ effort/ etc, even if it is as Balthasar Gracian says "to remember what we shouldn't do".

Interesting that WhiteMouse believes he can speak for all Australian's.

I find that Marxist's and their Academic masters try to deconstruct societies by getting them to naively interact with incompatible cultures.

As Bob Whittacker said- it's all about giving the academics the power.

As Aristotle said- academic abstraction is not the source of truth, experimentation is.

Ayn Rand seemingly agrees with Aristotle, and favoured engineers over arts graduates.

But university professors like clean offices rather than dirty laboratories.

Sometimes those with the cleanest hands have the dirtiest minds.

Hi Whitemouse,
"In the early days of white settlement in this country, we had Afghan Cameleers to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude. The were critically important in opening up this country."

I know what I said was kind of bad, especially mentioning Hitler.
I'm not saying I'm against foreigners, or that I specifically want to invade other nations, make war or discriminate against 'undesirables'
Once you start going down that path where does it end, right?

I'm simply saying 'We don't want to end up like those countries', do we?
I don't know what the answers are, I was simply throwing it out there.
- And stating that just to have that discussion, would be an ugly one that would cause a lot of controversy, because certain ideals would get stepped on.

We have a right to religion for example, but are all religions equal?
You see, that discussion is going to get messy.
But should we shy away from it?

I hope you all have a great day tomorrow.

Dear Critic,

«Every time we vote, we decide the lesser evil.»

Indeed, this is something we should remember more often:
- Decide indeed on the lesser EVIL, not the lesser unpleasant, not the lesser unprofitable, not the lesser irritating - only on the lesser evil, decide that we ourselves should be less evil!

Armchair Critic- "I know what I said was kind of bad"

Answer- I don't think you should self-censor yourself. I don't think you said anything that incites violence against anyone or was otherwise illegal. If we are too careful about political correctness and being afraid of the way that others interpret or intentionally mis-interpret what we say, we can't solve the problems that we face, and the Woke Marxist's win by controlling the narrative. I don't think we can avoid the concept of Hitler arising, even if we don't bring it up ourselves, because Marxist's and Hebrew's will bring it up. It's de rigueur for Woke Marxist's to invoke the dumb magic word "fascist" if they are losing the argument. It cuts through rationality to motivate an emotional response.

Thank you for bravely facing the problems that we face at Christmas Armchair Critic- just as Jesus Christ faced- and anyone who ever affected the world

Posted by WhiteMouse- "In the early days of white settlement in this country, we had Afghan Cameleers to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude. The were critically important in opening up this country."

Answer-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burke_and_Wills_expedition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria

Considering Burke and Wills expedition there were many factors that were important. Camels were considered as the high technology of the time for crossing desert terrain, given the scale of the challenge, I suppose it made sense to also have the most experienced experts in their use, and pay them well. The Commonwealth benefited many nations in the 1800's a lot of it during the reign of Queen Victoria, and this is one example of an international project that aimed to extend human capabilities.

I suppose WhiteMouse would equally argue that the west should let the mideast people settle into western industrialised nations because most of the oil that drives Western industrialism comes from the mideast.

Afghanistan and the West have had a historical relationship that has been mutually beneficial. Perhaps WhiteMouse is implying that Australia should allow Afghan's to have free access to settle in Australia- I wouldn't consider this a mutually beneficial arrangement.

It's helpful to consider international relationships in the context of the common-wealth, as Britain has done for hundreds of years (perhaps Rome also had a similar common-wealth).

Unfortunately the situation in our world concerning the
living together of people is very complicated and the
question is who is strong enough to stand up against
the chaotic persons in the world.

If you listen to the latest news of the whole world it
often makes you despair with helplessness. May Christmas
give us all peace and happiness.

But it hits you particularly hard when you realise that
your own brain matter is not longer quite in order. I
read the reports of a brain researcher recently
with interest. He compared the
human "thinking apparatus" to a huge cupboard with
many compartments and drawers in which our kinowledge
is stored.

It's easy to imagine. And, given my age and everything
i've experienced and been through in my life I must
learn to understand that I can't recall some episodes
as quickly as I'd like. But there is one thing I have
not yet lost. My inexaustible humour.

My answer to all man made stupidity is humour, when
you laugh in spite of it. Of course there are some
things that are too ghastly to laugh at. That's when
frustration and helplessness sets in.

I wish everyone peace and happiness at Christmas and
the coming New Year 2025.

Hi Foxy,

Peace and joy to you and your family this Christmas, and may the new year bring happiness to all. I have a wonderful story to tell.

YESTERDAY, I was in the local green grocers. At the checkout a young girl in front of me turned and said; "Is that all you have?"... I said "Yes" (I had a piece of Pumpkin and a sweet potato), thinking she was going to let me go first. She said; "Let me pay for those for you." I said; "No you don't have to do that", she insisted. Such kindness from one stranger to another, a young person to an old person. Tells me the naysayers and pessimists we have are wrong, there is light in the darkness, and let it shine!

ALSO, I ordered some tee-shirts online from Temu, for the wife for Xmas, they didn't arrive, BUT this morning one of Santa helpers turned up with a parcel, yep Xmas morning, it was the tee-shirts, who said there is no Santa Clause!

Dear Paul,

It's always great to hear stories of positivity.
It helps to share the positive and not focus
on the negative especially at Christmas. Yes,
good people do exist.

Our doctor is Persian and during our last visit
a few days ago - he'd been given quite a few gifts
by his patients. Mainly of food. Which was lovely.
However many assumed he was Muslim. And avoided
giving him alcohol. Whereas he loves his wine.
It's funny the assumptions we make and the stereotyping
that often takes place.

Hi Foxy,

I only see positives whenever I can, there are enough naysayers in this world for all of us twice over, just look at the silly old posters on this forum, and all the negativity they generate. Just done a Google review for a local business, which donated $3,000 towards our Xmas Hampers and next years food relief, for homeless and vulnerable folk in our local community. The business is run by 3 young amazing women.

Kudos Kid,

You say Afghans benefited from colonialism, dose that include the more than a million Afghans murdered by Europeans.. British, Russians, Americans, Australians, etc in European wars of invasion since the first British invasion and genocide in 1838. Those lucky Afghans, no wonder the Taliban are doing so well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Afghan_War

"The British feared that an invading Islamic army would lead to an uprising in India by the people and princely states therefore it was decided to replace Dost Mohammed Khan with a more pliant ruler."

It appears that European power plays between Russia and Britain, what became known as the "Great Game", as well as France, Prussia were also factors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate_of_Afghanistan

"The history of the Emirate was dominated by the 'Great Game' between the Russian Empire and the British Empire for supremacy in Central Asia. This period was characterized by European influence in Afghanistan. The Emirate of Afghanistan continued the Durrani Empire's war with the Sikh Empire, losing control of the former Afghan stronghold of the Valley of Peshawar at the Battle of Nowshera on 14 March 1823."

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains
And the women come out to cut up what remains
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier
Go, go, go like a soldier
Go, go, go like a soldier
Go, go, go like a soldier
So- oldier of the Queen

Rudyard Kipling, The Young British Soldier.

Ayn Rand seemed to think that civilizations such as Islam and Marxism and China were failed states of mysticism because they didn't produce anything. They didn't have the vision of mass production. In a sense Islam and Marxism and China has a common governing philosophy as indicated by Machiavelli. The mideast relied on it's position on the silk/ spice road between China and Rome to profit from the transport of goods- but they didn't seem to produce anything themselves. You could argue that the mideast isn't suitable for production because of it's climate, and the only reason it was populated was because of it's proximity to the African cradle. The mideast as the first stop out of the cradle, was occupied by those without purpose enough to find a better place to live, and the mindset evolved accordingly, those with purpose moved on. Pre-occupied with city gossip rather than life, waiting for someone else to tell them what to do, and those telling them not having enough capability and thought to teach anyone better.

Perhaps a dividing filter in intelligence

Kudos Kid,

You seem to be some kind of Googleholic, with all these inane posts of yours, do you think anyone is actually interested. You continually give new meaning to the phrase "Reds under the beds", anyone who is not some extreme right wing nut job, is a Marxists according to you. AND, to inflate your own ego you continually bestow "Kudos" to the like minded, as if you are some pompous royal arse bestowing honours on lesser mortals. Great Work Mate, Happy 2025!

Hi Paul,

I've never forgotten my roots. Nobody should.
They define you. Though they shouldn't
limit you.

I think many of us grew up with being forced to
assimilate into English culture. Integration
came much later. So the emphasis on English
culture by some here is understandable. Australia
has changed but for many, it's still
English and England that very much, still resonates.
For the older generation it probably always will.

It will be the younger generations who will define
our national identity. In any case here's a link
for those who are nostalgic about the past:

http://richardkoch.net/blog/11-in-praise-of-the-english

Merry Christmas.

I liked Rudyard Kipling's "Kim".

Hi Foxy, Happy New Year, peace and kindness be yours in 2025.

When a group loses language that's the first step in losing cultural identity. Lost of homeland identity is another factor, so to are social influences of a culture, food, dance, song, costume, socializing with others who identify as you do, all are important in maintaining a degree of cultural identity. As one loses those old cultural trappings and is exposed more and more to the dominant surrounding cultural environment then its inevitable that the old culture will be replaced with something new. Culture is not static, its dynamic, and changes within a culture brought about by outside influences are inevitable. Australian identity in 2024 is not the same as it was in 1924, cultural movement has taken place, through a multitude of influences, not the lease a change in the migrant mix, and what a great benefit that has been for the Australian ethos.

Dear Paul,

I'm trying to make sense of it all. In the past I took
so much for granted. I accepted what I was taught at school
and uni. - Untill I was older and travelled.
I hadn't realized that I had lived in
a bubble.

I wasn't even aware that Australia had a "White
Australia Policy". It didn't affect me, so I didn't question
it. One day - I was confronted by an Afro-American at work in Los
Angeles. It was after that my education broadened.

Today, Australia is far more diverse. It's part of our
lifestyle. Today for most people there's little
self-consciousness and even less tokenism expressed.

However, although we are more diverse today, there's still some
who long for the past. For the "good old days". And as
I said earlier - That is understandable. British culture was
such a strong influence in Australia's identity.

American, European, Asian, Middle-Eastern,
influences have also all played a
part. Significantly changing Australia's identity.

Especially when the government abadoned its "White Australia
Policy" and replaced it with multicultural policies.

it is important for the sake of unity and inclusion to try
to understand opposing viewpoints. I'm not suggesting condoning
discrimination and racism. What I am suggesting is recognising
and showing respect for the positive influences of the past.

Because which ever way we argue - Australia today is
unrecognizable from the Australia of the past. We should
try to understand the fears of some that the country is
becoming more Asian, less Christian, and more openly gay.
Having discussions about these concerns would be healthy.

I'm Just trying to make sense
of things and stay positive and look to the future with
optimism.

Talking about Rudyard Kipling's "Kim?"

A great read. Thought provoking.

Salman Rushdie caused a controversy with his "Satanic
Verses," I have to go back and try to read it again
one day. I found it heavy going. So I quit.

His "Midnight's Children," was more appealing.

Speaking of Marxism, here's Kamela Harris
She doesn't celebrate Christmas:
"I grew up celebrating Kwanzaa"
http://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1872314533022146810

Thanks Armchair Critic for the interesting information. Kudos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maulana_Karenga

Yes there seems to be a streak of Anti-Uncle Tom-ism running through Afro-American culture that is at war with the dominant culture- even if the dominant culture doesn't realise it.

As Gustav Le Bon said you can't change a non-western (Asian) culture into a western one (at least not easily).

Machiavelli said that Asian culture is more authoritarian than Western culture.

The way that Kamela talks about Karenga says something about her perspective on white society, and the Democrat Party in general.

According to "USA TODAY" Kamala Harris identifies
as a Baptist and attends services at the Third
Baptist Church of San Francisco.

Her father was a Christian and her mother was Hindu.
Growing up Harris attended services at both a Black
Baptist church and a Hindu temple. Her husband, Doug Emhoff
is Jewish.

Harris identifies as Baptist and celebrates both Christmas
and Hanukkah with her husband, family, and friends.

As for Kwanzaa? This is an African American cultural
holiday that has been adopted around the world, including
in Canada to celebrate African family, community, and culture.
It is specifically an African American holiday that takes
place after Christmas until New Year and Prof. Maulana
Karanga created kwanzaa in 1966 during the aftermath of
the Watts riots.

Why is there such a backlash against an American political
leader wishing people health and happiness during their
particular celebratory holidays - be they Christian, Jewish,
or African American?

Should only a select few be celebrated in a democracy like
the US?

Oh dear.

Bill Clinton was the first US president to recognize
Kwanzaa. Subsequent presidents - George W. Bush,
Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden have all
issued greetings to celebrate Kwanzaa.

Maya Angelou narrated a 2008 documentary film about
Kwanzaa, "The Black Candle".

Although Kwanzaa is primarily an African American
holiday it has also come to be celebrated outside the
United States in the Caribbean and other countries
where there are large numbers of descendents of
Africans. It began in the United Kingdom in the early
1970s.

People who celebrate Kwanzaa, which is a secular holiday,
celebrate it alongside religious festivals such as
Christmas. And it should be noted that people of any faith,
race, or ethnic background can participate.

Hi Foxy,

I don't believe Harris was/is a Marxists, but then again to an extreme right wing fanatic like the Kudos Kid, both the Pope and Mother Teresa were red devils.

Did you see how these far right fanatics attacked the old Pope for saying the mass killings in Gaza should stop. Anyone these day who calls for peace is no doubt a Communists. If that was true, then I would hope everyone in the world was a Communists!

Dear Paul,

From my experience Australia today for most of us -
is very tolerant of minority group celebrations. Of the
important cultural events of various groups. For example
currently in Adelaide, The Australian Lithuanians are
having their "Lithuanian Days". A festival of Song, and
Dance, and culture where Lithuanians from all over get
together to celebrate their culture.

And this year it's even more meaningful because for the
first time they have a premier of Lithuanian ancestry
presiding.

We've recently had Diwali - a celebration by the Indian
communities - open to all who wanted to attend. Then
there are the Chinese Dragon Festivals. We have
NAIDOC Week, there's Oktoberfest, and dare I say it
a growing celebration of Halloween, and much more.

What's great is we can celebrate all this without ever
leaving the country.

Dear Paul,

Talking about communists?

Donald Trump invites China's leader Xi Jinping to
his inauguration. Xi is expected to rebuff the offer,
as attending the event might put the Chinese president
in a subservient position.

I wonder if Putin's also been invited?

Hi Foxy,
Putin, doubtful.
Western leaders won't even attend Russia's Victory Day.
I don't think either China or Russia even care about anything the West says or does anymore.
And why would they?