Philo, I was brought up with religion, so I 'grasp' what it means. I was taught that those of the other religion, in the same community, were the enemy, even though all our ancestors had been there centuries or more ago. That's what religion does. Same name, same face - the beatiful Celtic race. But hating each other.

Atheism does not equal anarchy. What naivity! I live to harm no-one who does not threaten to harm me. I brought up a family. I served my country. What have you done?

'Australian soldiers are primarily trained to minister peace not killing.' - is that why they changed from the SLR to the Steyr? What comics have you been reading?

'Christian friends who were aggressors against Australian soldiers' = traitors.

Will you guys start speaking the same language so your dialogue has purpose.

Philo,

I'd be grateful if you would email.

Jack the Lad,

I believe Philo is playing intellectual games. What he is saying might make more sense if you view it like that. I believe he is emphasising the dictionary definition of religion rather than the common usage.

Are you sure that celts from the other religion were hated because of the religions? Is it possible that it might have related to the war with England a long time before that led to the division of Northern and Southern Ireland? Is it possible that it might have related to those who were more partial to England going off to fight for her and returning to find that their jobs were filled by people who were less partial to England? Is it possible that those who were less partial to England were resentful of having English soldiers who weren't always nice to them in their home towns? Could it be that two groups that had a series of ongoing sources of grudges had those religions because those who embraced Anglican England became Anglican and those who rejected England stayed Catholic?

In other words is it possible that the religion is more the marker of the group that is in conflict rather than the reason for the conflict?

mjpb,
You are correct. If we are talking about religion then define it. If we are talking about politics then define it. If we are talking about Theism then define what we mean. Theism is the antithesis of atheism [belief in God] not religion.

As I have said before Buddahists do not have in their religion a belief in gods / god. They uphold a set of values they believe give life meaning and harmony.

Jack's view of religion as with his experience of God is merely reactionary more than an intelligent search for meaning and spiritual relationship. There are many views of Theism in the world it is just that he has not found a real answer. There are very few real atheists. Most often atheism is a form of rebellion to others quaint beliefs and practises, and there are many of those

Religion is a classification of a formalised union of people who share the same taboo's and rituals and idol fetishising. God is a psychological projection based on the notion that the individual that believes is the centre of the universe. Faith is superstition and although people report as having a common faith , like praying to Jesus will make them immortal or smashing a mirror will bring seven years bad luck , I can say I have never met two people who believe in the same God. Every mind believes in a different god.

Not being superstitious allows me to see the forest and the trees. I can have no doubt that God is the self worshipping the self and thus fantasising an over importance of the self in the fact that one exists ( a quirk of physics). For I have never come accross a religious person who will listen to another human or see another human. Hence the vile crimes caused by the belief in god since the invention of god.

Futher to it no god has ever declared his/her/its existence and it follows no god could ever have then declared itself as head of any religion or belief. This is the price the believer pays for creating an illiterate god.

It stands as long as god is claimed only by humans and held as a convieniantly elusive and enigmatic creature that exists only on the premise of magic that something so dubious as a god is not healthy and is indeed a disease in a democratic government which must be based in free and true information. The opposite to religion which requires deception to exist.

Philo I must also reply to you. You claim John Howard as good for the single reason he believes in an invisible magician. so therefore you say being stained by the Bible which itself holds no good values and no decent morals he Howard is a good sort , even though Howards diety as claimed in the Bible is himeslf anevil monster , Howard is good?

I put it to you that your loyalty to your superstition colours your political view. I judge Howard on the effects of his policies on the Australian people and its future generation and how when he becomes aware of his mistakes he had countered his ill effects. For that alone Howard was the worst Prime Minister in Australian History and the destruction he brought upon Australian people and the environment which sustains life , by his contempt for Australia , the man is in my opinion rotten to the core and led an immoral life through his actions. Having said that I realise he was not in his right mind at the time , because he was a slave to superstition and could not control his addiction to occul;t beliefs, the belief in god.

Needless to say I was never surprised having known the contents of the Bible.

Although religion is a universal social institution, it takes a multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods, ancestors, or totems; they may practice solitary meditation, frenzied rituals, or solemn prayer. The great variety of religious behaviour and belief makes it difficult to say exactly what "religion" is. Many definitions have been offered in the past, but most of the ones we are familiar with have been biased by ethnocentric Judeo-Christian ideas about religion.

It is widely believed that there is a "wall of separation" between church and state, but this view is largely a myth. The implication is that the state, out of respect for the principle of freedom of religion, may not favour or penalize one belief relative to another.

In practice, civic affairs and religion have long been closely intertwined. We all think of Australians for example as a 'godly people.' Religion is an element in oaths of office, court-room procedures, and indeed all formal public occasions. Even the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides give a "God and country" oath,a phrase that implies, to say the least, a compatability of interest between the two.

John F. Kennedy's inaugural speech, for example, captures the idea that America's social order and historical mission are specifically sanctioned by God:

"With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own..."

Such sentiments are not allied to any specific faith or political program; they are sufficiently broad to be acceptable to almost everyone.

As far as supporting private schools from the public purse. I don't have a problem with that. People who choose a private school are entitled to government support. They pay taxes same as the rest of us who work. And private tuition involves much more than the government subsidies that are granted.