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.

.