I have no desire, or intention, of impugning the characters of Foxy and Examinator, but George has used them as examples of the 'tolerant' that should be listened to, while those who point out the folly of faith-over-reason are to be shunned, and neither heard nor listened to as a serious counterweight.

Religion may well be 'the commonsense' view across the world, but that does not mean, at all, that it is 'correct'.

Raising the 'tolerant' up to exalted status, leads to this sort of absolute, total, dangerous rubbish:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/03/who-president-obama-seeks-out-for-spiritual-advice/1

I do urge you all to read this USA Today and then ponder the notions of 'tolerance' we have been talking about.

I understand that others may not see the dangers in this news clip, and actually believe that it is a display of 'tolerance' and very welcome, but it is just this sort of highlevel acceptance of the Truth of 'religion' that keeps promoting it well beyond any reasonable claims it makes to being a 'good force'.

Obama should distance himself from these ill-advised displays of tolerance, and just get on with his job of leading a second rate nation run by greedy and ignorant oafs who believe their particular brand of god has destined them to lead us all to a golden future (but not in a GM car anymore, eh?)

Now, in our part of the world, Rudd is advised by the ACL, supports Hillsong, panders to Pell and seems to be a follower of Jensen. He abuses Scientology, but backs off the Brethren and has said not a word about Catch The Fire, and he totally ignores the existence of non-religious people beyond saying he 'respects' their views....a bad fibber.

But he declined an invite to speak at the Atheists Convention.

TBC an interesting point of agreement here - not many of those it seems. I agree : Too much "tolerance talk" is enough to make any thinking man really sick .
Political woosiness is often a symbol of hiding your head in the sand and avoiding the issue. Predjudice and fear of conflict should not prevent conflict over words and ideas - thats one very effective tested way to fight extremism .Good on you OLO .
The West has been great for intellectual freedom and conflict resolution because it promotes attacking/listening to the idea/experience, but definitely not focusing on the man . (One reason why there are 66 books, and not just one in the good book? )
To NOT take the chance to attack the idea is to make the mistake that Chamberlain made - he didn't warn the people. If you don't talk to the issue , good ideas are moved by more vocal members of the congregation to the extremes ( right in my sketch)the "religion" gets the passion power that rightly frightens all of from time to time .
The problem has always been the same in our history ( ask Solzenitzen - he says the same in his country) - the majority don't listen to church people until the sore which the believers etc saw coming festers ( like now with our "notalk" but hidden worries over the "power of islam" - why attack the label?)
Bonhoeffer the Pastor was on taken off the air by Hilter 8 years before the war started . He visited England early but came home to to fight the enemy directly.
Like some of the people identified as "subversive christains" in aust , in some posts he would , I feel sure be honored, to think he had that much power.
A question: Could Ruddy could do with a pastoral visit right now - his veneration of Bonhoeffer might turn into more practical politics to deal with the evils of the day. Don't be "shocked" AJP- identify the electricity source and switch it off /or on ?.

Dear Severin,

I'm glad you liked the link.
I found it fairly predictable as well.

I totally agree with you - a moment's contemplation
prior to the start of Parliament -
would be the most appropriate in our diverse society today.
Perhaps that will happen one day - when we
get away from the restrictions of religion, gender, race,
et cetera, when a person's individual human qualities will
be considered the primary measure of a person's worth
and achievement. But now I'm babbling ... I think you
know what I mean because we've discussed this topic many
times in the past.

Dear TBC,

It is widely believed that our Constitution builds
a "wall of separation" between church and state,
but as I've written in the past this view is largely
a myth. I think that if we were to examine what it
actually implies is that the state, out of respect
for the principle of freedom of religion, may not
favour or penalize one belief relative to another.
However, although the state may not become involved
in religion, there is absolutely no prohibition
against religion participation in the affairs of the
state.

In practice, civic affairs and religion have long been
closely intertwined . Religion is an element in oaths,
court-room procedures, even the Boy Scouts give a "God
and Country" pledge, a phrase that implies to say
the least, a compatibility between the two. Such
sentiments are not allied to any specific faith or
political program; they're sufficiently broad to
be acceptable to almost anyone.

Anyway, it's when specific religious doctrine or
government policies are at stake, the relationship
between church and state can be antagonistic.

My personal philosophy is - live and let live.
Believe whatever you want as long as you're not
hurting anyone. What I believe doesn't mean it's
"right" for other people - it's simply right for me.
I have no wish to convert or condemn anyone

Hanrahan... the question is, who would provide your 'pastoral visit' to Rudd? Bonhoffer? He's not here. Read Rudd's speech to the ACL in Nov., he supports fundies, he is a fundie, and he would only listen to a fundie.

They do not provide 'pastoral care', they only evangelise and proselytise seeking to 'connect' with the 'unchurched'.

What Rudd does need though, is a visit from his caucus with a clear message to smarten up or 'roll yer swag'.

Rudd's caucus (the intelligent ones anyway) fears his entanglement with religion, but are so meek and mild (tolerant?) they dare not say boo!.

Anyway, since when did gods seek 'pastoral care' from mortals?

Foxy, yes, indeed the wall of separation is a myth, having been tested in the High Court and found to be 'not there'.

The 'state' (Commonwealth) is indeed involved in religion, with its dole-out of monies direct to religion, and all the tax breaks religion get, forcing all of us to be supporters of religion even when we have no interest in supporting them. And the 'states', as in each and every state and territory, have no such vague notion of any separation, so can indeed establish a state religion of they so choose, as Qld has done with Christianity in its public school system. They can also freely fund religion, as Beattie did with chaplains before Howard followed his poor example.

Note how the US, even though it has a pretty gormless view of the world, does not fund religious schools, or allow prayers in public schools, or any overt demonstration of support for any religion in the public areas of government...there are some failures of this I do acknowledge.

I think your live-and-let-live attitude actually encourages problems to arise, and is far too 'generous'.

1/2

We're now getting to the nub of reality, ABSOLUTES are currently a matter of Faith,
logically that goes both ways.

TBC religion/spirituality is an integrally human characteristic therefore a little of Biology and a little Psychology, It is decidedly not A or B alone. There has been some research that has shown that there is a CORRELATION between brain function and 'spiritualisation/religious' propensity. One set of researchers has *suggested* a link with a n expression of genes. Therefore, we're back into the argument about nature V nurture... where absolute simply don't fit.

If Dawkins stuck to his area of expertise Biology then I would have no problem with him at all. He is wandering into a less clear ' humanities', philosophy. In that area his views are no more valid than any number of folk.

Man unfortunately is more than the sum of his bits .i.e. genes. I believe he's correct in his original assertion in the 'Selfish Gene' because he is talking about the highly logical/predictable.

He make valid points that Religion/spiritualism (the the *precise, objective* cause of which is still speculation) has no sensible role in driving Government/Education. Beyond that it's both a matter of DEGREE and OPINION not science.

I would remind you again IMO proselytising is merely a power thing ”My faith is more reasonable than yours therefore you must follow it” a wholey dubious and debatable, extreme black or white assumptions. The logical extension of Dawkins view is no religion/spirituality , Decided an un-Human state of being.

AJP you are clearly defending your idol not engaging in the principals/the human reality.

BTW human existence is full of brutality (extreme and systemic) for non religious causes Nationalism, National pride come to mind Conquest etc. Are you suggesting the US actions in innumerable wars are religious based?

Your 'rebuttal' (such as it is) , involves the reductionist mentality of a bias ….my argument is *more* than the semantic sum of the words.

Because of the complexity and interrelatedness of the topic I have to assume an appreciation of the other factors

George,

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

I don’t think “dismiss” would be a much better way to put my overall view of how religion needs to be dealt with either.

In my opinion, religion simply needs to take more of a back seat in society as it has been far too big for its boots for far too long now. I also think that religion needs to lose the taboo, no-go-zone status that it still retains from days of old.

<<Well, also the Communist practice was regarded as an excessive and distorted application of Marx’s ideas...>>

I realise this, but my point wasn’t that radical fundamentalists are an “excessive and distorted application” of the moderates, but that the moderates need to share some of the responsibility (albeit a very small part of the responsibility) for the radicals because of the unwillingness of the 99.9% of moderates to actively speak-out against them, and the passive support they provide as a powerbase.

It was in response to Examinator’s assertion that Dawkins et al argue as though everyone was a fundamentalist.

Most moderates keep quite and allow the radicals to run amok because they’re either too embarrassed to openly acknowledge them and want to pretend they don’t exist, or they quietly sympathise with them since the radicals still - at the end of the day - believe in the same religion and God as they do.

I think my point still stands.

<<Do you mean to say that religion is a world-view? This is rather strange.>>

No, but “world-view” is the term I often see you use when you’re discussing Theistic and Atheistic view-points. Such as: “Therefore it should be in our interest - whatever our own world-view - to encourage these moderates on both sides.”

Continued...