Dawkins and his followers think they have proven that God doesn't exist. They are the deluided ones. I don't know any religious people who think the existence of God is a scientific question. There are very few scientists who believe it either. Dawkins is on a mission and he won't let anything stand in his way.

The CIA has listed several animal libber organisations as terrorist groups. They have started blowing things up. Not on the scale of 9/11, but it's only a matter of time.

Also, check out which groups in the EU conduct the most terrorist acts:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1183184822/34#34

They are second only to separatists. They are the most recent terrorist type on the scene and they are growing rapidly.

Philo, you may not be aware of it but plenty of children have as a functional parent someone who is not their biological parent. Is an adopted child entitled to refer to the people who have adopted them as parents?

Parenting can be about the contribution of genetic material, it may also be about the love and sacrifice given to and for children by the adults responsible for their care.

Not all that difficult really.

R0bert

Um, the poster who gave a Webster's Dictionary definition of religion didn't actually quote Webster's. Here's it's real definition:

Religion:
1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 (archaic) : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

The last might include humanism, but the common definition is clearly contained in one and two. It seems to me pretty obviously disingenuous to claim humanism as a religion.

Australia has freedom of religion and worship within a secular state. I couldn't care less how religious people worship or which bits of their silly books they quote (I think it's terribly sad that they suffer their children to listen to it all, but that's what freedom of religion means), but they can't expect to influence legislation. That's secular - beyond religion. It's not a competition between the two. Secular = government. Church = well, church.

If two men fall in love, if a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, what's it to do with you? I know you may believe these things are wrong. But I believe that Boazy is wrong to teach his young son to be a bigot. Nevertheless, because of the freedoms enshrined in our legislation, neither the Christian nor the humanist is able to enforce these beliefs on the other.

Talking of the two daddies, Boazy, you never answered the question someone asked – what will you do if your son turns out to be gay?

"but they can't expect to influence legislation

Everyone can expect to influence legislation regardless of their religion. That's what freedom of religion is all about.

"Nevertheless, because of the freedoms enshrined in our legislation, neither the Christian nor the humanist is able to enforce these beliefs on the other.

Wrong, both are able to, via our democracy.

BD, there may be no specific commandment to take more than 1 wife, but there are several example of it being entirely acceptable.

2 Samuel 5:13
2 Chronicles 11:21

Solomon and David, two of the most righteous kings are noted as having several wives and concubines.

Dont be so hasty to jump into the ring!

Robert.. *oops*..... I got the wrong verse.. give me a moment.
Deut 17:17 not '7'.

Interestingly, the Mishnah interprets this to mean 'not more than 18 wives'... I don't know where they get that figure from, but I feel they are going beyond the text.

Its the closest I can find to anything resembling a 'command' about limits to numbers of wives.

CG.. Solomon is an example of NOT following Deut 17:17 because exactly what it predicted ....DID happen to him.. his many wives (married for political purposes) indeed turned his heart away.

David ? well we know what trouble he got into. and Psalm 51 is also clear about how he felt about his track record "Lord.. against you only have I sinned, my sin is ever before me"

I can still go a round or 2 :)

BOTHERSOME... myyyy goodness your head needs some heavy duty de-brainwashing mate :) where in the WORLD do you get this:

>>but they can't expect to influence legislation. That's secular - beyond religion.<<

Absolutely NO..not..nyet... nada.. not a chance mate. In the same way YOU seek to influence legislation in terms of 'your' values.. no matter how whacky or immoral we may consider them to be, we will too.
I'm not going to argue it.. its a simple democratic fact of life.

Your values are indicated by 'If 2 men fall in love' ? Great SCOTT.... do you actually hear yourself ? Taking that line, you simply cannot..canNOT stop the line at '2 men'... you have to be quite open to 'man and dog'... woman and horse.... woman and many men, man with many women. and so it goes on.

The major problem with you secular lot is you don't 'seeeee' the implications of your lack of a moral anchor.
Same goes for CJ. (but there is hope.. prays on :)