George,

I never said anything about eliminating religion or religious people. Your Marxist analogy is pretty poor too I’m afraid. We’re not just talking about any old world-view. Religion is in a league of its own.

I don’t know what it was like to grow-up in a Stalinist country myself, but I do know that no one goes around pronouncing or labelling their child a “Marxist” child or a “Keynesian” child. If they did they would probably be looked at as freaks or asked something along the lines of: ”How do you know what your child will grow-up to think?”

Yet we allow this with religion for no good reason.

So please don't imply that I'm some sort of intolerant bigot when the points I'm making are perfectly sound.

I'd have to agree with AJP and TBC. Oh yes tolerance is very commendable, we all have to tolerate the myriad discrepancies between our own and the views of others, but why should we have to tolerate the impositions of entire cohorts, who draw their credibility merely from their weight of numbers (including in the halls of power) rather than any plausible doctrine. Why should calcified and barbaric belief systems be tolerated, not in their passive presence, but in their aggressive and ongoing missions to infect the world, governments and places of education, converting new generations (at broadly secular tax-payer's expense!) to their fantastic other-worldly hypochondria? Just as Dawkins denied being "strident" the other night, I deny there's anything fundamentalist about wanting eccentric gangs of soothsayers to keep to themselves. I'm quite happy to tolerate all and any harmless eccentricities, I'm even fond of them, but keep them out of government and schools and let their members fund themselves; Users pay!
Neither Dawkins nor other atheists want to round religio's up or stage a grand inquisition. Yes, lets live in a tolerant society where no belief system is favoured by government, or given open slather to the people's koffers, or actively encouraged to seduce and groom emerging generations.

AJ Philips,
I agree that “dismiss” rather than “eliminate” would have been a better word to use in what I wanted to say.

Your opinion reminded me of an opinion I once had, that was all. I read your statement as making moderate Christians co-responsible for the excessive and distorted application of Christian ideas by religious zealots and fundamentalists. Well, also the Communist practice was regarded as an excessive and distorted application of Marx’s ideas, “pretty poor analogy” or not.

>>We’re not just talking about any old world-view. Religion is in a league of its own.<<
Do you mean to say that religion is a world-view? This is rather strange. For instance, religion (with its myriad of definitions), or mathematics and philosophy of science, play important roles in my world-view, but neither of them can be seen as a world-view on its own.

I certainly did not label any child Marxist or Christian; there are only children growing up in Christian, Marxist, atheist, etc families, and the right of parents to educate their children in a world-view of their choice, provided they do not contravene the law.

I did not imply anything about you, certainly not in the terms you mention. I only expressed my opinion that it is better to encourage both atheist and theist moderates, than to pour oil on fire by advocating a mirror image of the fanaticism, intolerance, sweeping accusations etc of those one rightfully disapproves of. It is up to each one of us - who agree with this maxim - to properly apply it to himself/herself.

Squeers,
If you are referring to my post, please note that I was not objecting to AJ Philips’ justified criticism (to put it mildly) of religious extremists (his “loonies”) but to his sweeping statement about religion and its adherents moderate or not. As there are all sorts of people who are (or claim to be) atheists, there are also all sorts of people who are (or claim to be) Christians or adherents of another mainstream religion.

Thanks Foxy for the link. I thought the responses from the individual parties to be quite predictable.

How offensive Prayer in Parliament is; one doesn't have to be an atheist to find this habit exclusionary, simply being Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Islamic or calathumpian - the message is clear only Christianity is acceptable in Australian politics.

AJP, TBC, Squeers your posts did a great deal to clarify to Examinator, Dawkins' position than I could. A shame that no-one was up to par for him (Dawkins) to debate on Q&A. My suggestions; Tim Costello or Peter Kennedy would've provided a more lively and intelligent debate.

George, please edify just how Marxism has anything to do with wanting separation of church and state - why even drag out this old chestnut, that if one is not religious, one must be a communist? Absurd, something I would expect Runner to opine, not you.

Foxy

I thought the Secular Party expressed the beginning of parliament the best:

"Response by Secular Party of Australia:


* The Constitution says that we shall not establish any religion or impose any religious observance.

* The Secular Party holds that opening Parliament with a prayer is anomalous and does not in any way enhance the process of rational government.

* The prayer should be replaced with a period of silent contemplation, where believers in any religion, or in none, may unite in contemplation of their own private thoughts."

Of course, none of it guarantees that the individual pollies will act with any more conscience than they already do, but at least the practice of contemplation would be inclusive.

Severin,
Please quote me, where I said anything about the relation of Marxism to the separation of church and state. And also where I stated that if one is not religious one must be a Communist? So that I know what to “edify”.