While I have watched Pericles and David butt heads over this issue, I have been considering the Atheists foundation proposal.

There have been a number of points from various posters raised:

1. There is no separation of church and state in Australia
2. Religion gets special exemptions not only fiscally by being exempted from tax, but also in terms of fair criticism - the church is far from perfect.
3. People have as much right not to believe in a deity as those who do. And there are compelling and solid reasons for not believing in a deity.

One of the problems with orthodox religion is its complete lack of humour. Thankfully Foxy has demonstrated that one can be both religious, tolerant and still possess a keen wit.

I have, on a previous thread, criticised David for not becoming more involved with the many atheists on this forum - he only ever contributes to his own topics. Nothing has changed here. I would've appreciated his POV on many discussions. Pericles does have a point.
As Dawkins said: "organising atheists is like herding cats." We are a questioning and independent mob - we wouldn't be atheists if we didn't look critically at all sides of an issue.

Religion is handed a level of respect that other organisations have to earn. When we do dare to criticise we are told that we are immoral, materialistic and far worse.

In conclusion, therefore, I believe that it is time for religion to be held to account. Whether by a slogan on a bus, critical examination of the appropriateness of the Lords Prayer in parliament, review of tax exemptions or impact on education of our children and so on, I vote in favour of the slogan - we have to start somewhere.

Good Luck David - I really would like to hear from you some more.

Fractelle,

I thought your post was great, sometimes we get so bogged down with side issues that we can't see the wood For the trees.

The points you raised, are to me, the issues we need to be seriously addressing. If only atheists had the funding of the churches, we could educate the public about their government and the churches/charities we are funding as taxpayers.

1. "There is no separation of church and state in Australia"

Most people in the community actually think that there is a separation of church and state in Australia and that it is enshrined in the constitution. Why are the public educators/speakers and media so silent on this issue?

2. "Religion gets special exemptions not only fiscally by being exempted from tax, but also in terms of fair criticism - the church is far from perfect."

Yet anytime someone dares to do something about it - I recall Bob Brown and his fight with a fundy cult the Exclusive Brethren - Brown was not supported by either side in parliament and the PM at the time (Howard) actually came out and publically supported this incestuous, oppressive group and the exemptions he had sneakily given them through law. There should have been a public outcry!

3. "People have as much right not to believe in a deity as those who do..."

Not according to the government who want Judeo-Christian belief recognised in citizenship.

The right to not believe, is not being represented or upheld in our democracy by the people who are elected on our behalf, which IMO is why these religion based issues should not be allowed a conscience vote by politicians eg abortion, stem cells, gay marriage etc. Pollies should be open and up front about their religious beliefs in all electioneering. We don't need the religious to mind and decide our collective morals, ethics and social behaviour, especially as their own are often found to be lacking. The catholic church won't genuinely address the compensation and victimisation of people sexually assaulted by clergy - the church is allowed to get away with it.

People,

The word hectic does not do justice to life now because of the slogan campaign. Consequently, I thought I had explained something on this forum but reading back I see I have not. In South Australia at least, signage is strictly regulated. The Minister of Transport ostensibly can at subjective whim, have public transport signs removed with no recompense to the advertiser.

See this site for a short explanation: http://ozatheist.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/atheist-bus-campaign-aussie-style/

Most of the slogans by C J Morgan if not all, for instance, even though I agree with the sentiments and the wording is very clever, would not be permitted. I did not mean to be dismissive concerning them as I thought I had explained the censorship problems. My sincere apologies.

Likewise, with the suggestions by Foxy. All very pertinent, amusing and necessary, in my opinion, but they would meet the scalpel very quickly.

By the way, the present wording is still being scrutinized by the authorities and has not yet been approved. It must be remembered that these signs are under the auspices of a Minister of transport in each state. Choosing the sign has been most difficult in trying to please 6 state Ministers and bus companies whilst representing the thoughts of Atheists as well as placing a message in the public arena to create discussion and thinking.

There are two problems with the London slogan. The ‘God’ word may not be acceptable to the authorities and the slogan does not accurately reflect the AFA stance.

David

The first paragraph of Australia's Constitution:

"Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:"

Our Constitution recognises God, although it doesn't define God.

This was found at:

http://australianpolitics.com/articles/constitution/preamble

I also find it intereting that this version does not recognise Western Australia, while other versions recognise New Zealand, however all versions recognise God.

Polycarp wrote: “I then chose an extreme example of those who believed they have THE truth.. such as_Calvin_in_Geneva... because to my knowledge that was the only Christian 'Theocracy' in history apart from ancient Israel.”

David f wrote: The above is inaccurate on two counts. Israel was not a Christian theocracy. The Vatican is a Christian theocracy.

Polycarp wrote: Servetus was under death sentence from Spanish and French Catholics. He was executed under Calvin not so much because he held different beliefs, but that he propogated them aggresivly and at that time, it would have undermined society in the same way that a 'witch' would undermine ancient Israel. Servetus was not content to 'hold' beliefs.. he was insistent in propogating them far and wide and in so doing, he was attacking the state…..

David f wrote: If propagating one’s belief aggressively is criminal when are you going to stop your life of crime? The ancient Hebrews and Calvin’s Christians were superstitious so they murdered those they thought was a threat. People have a right to propagate their beliefs.

Polycarp wrote: The bottom line is,... your simplistic 'If they differ, murder them' is very dangerous and is clear rabble_rousing..fostering anti Christian sentiment by irresponsibly overstating the situation dramatically.

David f wrote: Christians have produced great mounds of corpses. It is neither simplistic nor overstating anything to point it out.

Polycarp wrote: It is certainly not based on the New Testament, and that makes you as dangerous as Servetus in one sense. If you published books expressing those sentiments "The Holocaust was applied Christianity" that would make you and Servetus almost brothers.

David f wrote: Servetus and I are not dangerous although an intolerant Christianity which cannot abide dissent sees us so.

Servetus discovered the pulmonary circulation of the blood. Access http://www.latter-rain.com/eccles/servetus.htm, a Christian site, and read what a great man Servetus was. I would be proud to be his full brother. Only an intolerant and murderous Christianity would see either Servetus or me as a threat.

The evil, intolerant Calvin murdered the intelligent, questioning Servetus and you justify that evil deed.

continued

Polycarp: You commented on the ‘beautiful’ prayer of the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary. Did you actually read it? Part of it went:

“Instead of being united in love for God, we as Christians have sinned grievously against God's covenant people. Two thousand years of Church history have left a trail of blood: contempt, hatred, hostility, persecution and wholesale slaughter.

Time and again the Jewish people have suffered at the hands of Christians. They have been humiliated, deprived of their rights, accused of murdering God and blamed for every imaginable calamity. During the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms and, most horrific of all, the Holocaust, millions of Jews have suffered flagrant injustice.

At the beginning of the third millennium we can only confess this terrible guilt in deep shame before God and the Jewish people, deploring the involvement of many Christians. We seek His forgiveness for all the anguish that Israel, His chosen people, have suffered. By the grace of God we resolve to turn from these ways.

We commit ourselves to pray for His people, to oppose antisemitism in all its forms, and to ensure that respect and goodwill will mark our relations as Christians with the Jewish people in future.”

They admitted the Christian nature of the Holocaust as have other Christians of goodwill.

The Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary pointed out one kind of crime committed by Christianity. Christians with the support of the church have murdered or imprisoned scientists such as Servetus and Galileo, heretics in the Inquisition, other Christians in the Wars of the Reformation, Jews, Muslims, Orthodox Christians, Lithuanians, Albigensians, pagan Gauls, pagan Norse and many others.

It is not rabblerousing to characterize the Holocaust as applied Christianity.

Christians of good will such as the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary, Bishop Spong who you call a heretic, Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, leaders of the Catholic Church that you are not fond of and others have recognized the bloody nature of the Christian past. With that recognition Christians and others can have a better future. With denial such as yours Christianity will repeat its murderous past.