Dear Bronwyn,

You're welcome! I thought you'd be a good
person to raise some interesting questions
at the Conference.

Just an example:

I thought that it may be interesting to bring up
for discussion - the influence of the global
financial meltdown on religion e.g. will there now be
- less financial
support to churches and church-schools?
Will there now be - pre-
occupation of financial survival - instead of
devotion to religion? how will the global financial
crisis affect donations to church institutions?
Will profits of the Vatican bank be reduced? and so on...
Will more young people join religious orders for
economic suvival - instead of joining the work-force -
as has been the case in the past during economic crises...

It could be interesting - if there's enough interesting
questions being asked - don't you think?

You're right, Foxy, there are many questions which could be asked. A pity you'll be in Sydney and not Brisbane as you'd be the perfect person to ask them.

The trouble for me is I'd have to listen to a lot of God-speak and gobbledy-gook first, which mightn't be good for my stress levels! :)

Bronwyn, the antagonism of some to religion, particularly Christianity, never ceases to amaze me. What sort of things are we allowed to promote? We accepted sponsorship from Greenpeace recently, and most could guess what I think of them. But I'd be happy to promote a function for them if they asked. And go to one.

I'd agree that a lot of Christians and what they believe, are irrational, and that religion is to some extent non-rational, but so are lots of other schools of belief. Why should Christians be a special group that you can't promote, but it's OK to discuss Freudianism, or global warming millenarianism?

When it comes down to it, atheism is in my view just as irrational, or non-rational, as theism, with agnosticism the most rational option, but no-one complains when we give atheists a pulpit.

Brony,

Call me cynical but lets put this into perspective.

Going to a lecture billed by a committed Lib given by Lib party appointee to an electorally failed Lib politically ideological romp.
A talk from a Liberal and 'non predictive' science (sic) (economics) perspective on the GFC and link it with a religious topic, Christianity. Wow!

It would be worth going to observe the convoluted and contorted reasoning necessary to link two totally unrelated topics.
Although, I do wonder at the point of discussing how this shot gun match is relevant to a functionally secular electorate.

I wonder if the wider group is a group of right wing religiously inclined LNP acolytes?

Sadly, I suspect my anti PARTY political and secular (separationist) overtones have just disqualified myself.

(sigh) I know I know, the naughty corner for me again (sigh) :-(

GY
I read your post after I posted mine.
I've read Brony's post several time and fail to see the hostility you refer to.

I'm not defending her that is for her to do if she feels the need.

I am however making a general note that your observation about not examining/critical of atheists is simply not true.

A number of posters have also reject proselytizing by atheists too which have been posted on OLO in numerous discussions.

Your response has concerned me ...Goodness know what you will make of my post.

Neither post said that you can't/shouldn't 'promote' those views even putting your ownership aside. Your previous relatively non intervention editorial policy draws varied responses in both directions

In that light I wonder what your last post signals.

examinator

Yep, I'd say we're both off to the naughty corner for sure. :)

And it might be hands-on-your-head as well for you I'd say!