Peter, be all that as it may, none has altered the constitution, or s.116.

So, I'd say you might be barking up the wrong tree there.

Well you seem to be having "fun" while I was away, you old greeks you . I like your rebellious streaks, but disappointed that noone has pointed out what the atheists are going to do with all their worries -Its not what are they against, but what are they for thats make a difference - the last half of my original post .The pagans have had 2 thousand years to create a revival. To be effective. we rebels need to "Be for something" .

Why for example ,wasn't it the agnostics convention? My Point is however much WE worry about radicals, we prefer to them to moderates, don't we ?- who has got the projection problem here? ( picture here of Dawkins saying "I'm not vehement am I?"( ABCTV news tonight) , "Moderates" don't build schools and start revolutions with words like we try to do?
In focusing on lobby elements, we have got too excited about a problem that doesn't exist. Have you heard about "pseudoinnocence" and power ; as george says <<So I really think the Christian influence is decreasing on the whole, while showing local fluctuations,.. I agree ;The only thing you can say is thatC's punch over their weight at the moment.
Let me suggest we are NOW beyond agnosticism because its seen to be too woosy.
TBC ---what do we really know about how Chamberlain was thinking -OK - not much about his thinking processes but His/England's political mind was clearly in neutral/unaware of what evil is ( same as our island culture ?) Ripe for the pickin, no munitions , By contrast - I was saying about Bonhoeffer -that he was very vocal for 8years about need for balancing aggression with agression but like most radical( i prefer Rollo May's use of "rebel" ) followers of Christ all through history ---He was not taken seriusly even when he toured England because he happened to proudly wear the badge of being religiuos .
Maybe you think we need more machevellis TBC?

Aj Philips,
>>Yes, but it’s still considered rude or impolite to say one iota against another’s faith. … OLO and the way Dawkins was attacked on Q&A. …You’re going back the whole legal bit …<<

I did not mention the word legal in connection with blasphemies. There are many different things considered rude or impolite by different people. In the past it was a general consensus that blasphemy was close to the top of the list. Today those who think they have to demonstrate their outrage (thus giving satisfaction to the “blasphemer“) form a gradually diminishing minority (even the Church protests only seldom and formally).

As to OLO, there have been things written here offensive to atheists, as well as those offensive to Christians or Muslims, so I still do not understand the piece about hiding. As to Dawkins, people who make controversial public pronouncement - e.g. politicians, or George Pell - have to expect to be verbally attacked.

>>explain to the child that there is nothing to back the beliefs of the parents other than emotions that could very well be explained via other more rational means. Explain to the child that there is no way to apply any sort of practical knowledge and rationally come to the conclusion that the parents’ belief is justified. <<
I repeat, how would you “explain“ to a small child all these things heavily depending on abstract concepts that even professional philosophers argue about, except by presenting them as another belief - “this is what we believe, other people believe other things, namely that … etc.”

“better idea... don’t bother telling the child anything at all”
Do you mean to say that if an Atheist’s child asked “Dad, what do you think, does God (that my friend spoke of) exist?“, he should ignore the question? Well, I think the father - Atheist or Christian or what - should answer “Some people believe he does, some believe he does not, I/we believe …, for the following reasons (arguments in support of father‘s conviction adapted to a small child‘s mind).“ (ctd)

(ctd)
I find it strange (if not condescending) to assume that ALL people who converted to Christianity - and thus radically changed their outlook and life style - did so just because they were unhappy unhealthy and ill-adjusted; in case of people from the quoted list, containing many well-known names, maybe even more.

I certainly do not think this about you, although your “conversion“ went in the opposite direction. I respect that you had your reasons that only you could credibly formulate. And yes, I am aware that today the traffic of “conversions“ from Christianity to atheism or agnosticism is much heavier than the traffic in the opposite direction. May I add that I appreciate the sincere words about your personal “conversion“ and your father.

>> quote me where I “hid my beliefs behind the law” and “what real democracies accept”>> Sure thing…<<

You were perhaps right if you were referring to my belief in a fair treatment - in debates like this, by media, by politics etc - of reasonable people with different world-views, and not beliefs that are part of my world-view (last described in my response to Squeers earlier on this thread). Hence the misunderstanding: I thought you claimed I was hiding these beliefs of mine behind the law, which I would not know how to do anyhow.

>>Whether or not you agree with me doesn’t change the fact<<
Agreeing to disagree, as I suggested we conclude this discussion with, indeed does not change any facts; I don’t think that is the purpose of having an exchange of opinions.

So please let us leave it at that, namely to agree to disagree on views about people of good will with opposing views (on religion or other things) and on what is the best model for the coexistence (empathy is now the buzzword) of “moderate“ people with different backgrounds in a pluralistic society.

There is really no point in continuing with this if you can see my plea for fairness towards both sides only as “obfuscation”. Still, I‘m sorry I could not express myself more clearly.

In Act no 8 of 1991, atheists in Canberra by underhand and illegal sleight of hand, started saying on a Federal Act: The Parliament of Australia enacts. The brainwashing schools that turn out lawyers, had turned Australia from a Christian country into the home of Atheists. S 116 Constitution is violated. S 116 requires the Queen, as representing the Almighty God mentioned in the recitals to the Australian Constitution, to bless every Act passed by the Parliament, or we are missing out on the blessings of Almighty God.

This atheist change, effected without a referendum, has resulted in systematic abuse of civil and political rights, because the atheists which include Jewish Chief Justices, wishy washy Christian Judges, and many Magistrates, feel comfortable with the abolition of Christianity, and the installation of Atheism, or more seriously multitheism, as the State Religions of the State we now call the Australian Government. I am loath to use the word Commonwealth. Commonwealth is a Christian word, and not having Greek, I am unaware where the Atheists got citizen from the Greek, instead of Commonwealth in the Bibles used in Anglican Churches. I speak of Ephesians 2:12 where the founding fathers got the word Commonwealth. It may have been from the murderous Cromwell, who established a Commonwealth in England, and committed genocide on one third of the population of Ireland, and destroyed every beautiful Roman Catholic Church except perhaps two, in England. That was England’s flirtation with Satan and a republic which ended when he died.

Atheists cannot read. If they could read, they would know that S 79 Constitution preserves the Christian integrity of all courts. It says: the federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as Parliament prescribes. I don’t know where the processors installed in atheists came from, but my CPU says that the federal jurisdiction of any court may not be exercised by one Judge. The word judges is plural, and the plurality of Christianity, and its inclusiveness, is reflected in the plurality of judges. Atheists are selfish and exclusive, and so are their Courts

I saw the pictures of the Atheist Convention in Melbourne. Talk about punching beyond their weight. It seemed about half the seats were empty, and only about two and a half thousand people from all over the world were there. Now the ABC has not recently shown a Hillsong Conference, certainly not since Peter Costello attended, but the preachers there would be disappointed at a gathering smaller than one service at Baulkam Hills, or about one tenth the size of the Christian crowd, that takes over Acer arena at Homebush, and enthusiastically fills every seat to hear the worlds leading advocates of Christianity trot their stuff.

Punching above their weight, is an understatement. Christianity is very dear to the heart of about 65% of Australians and that is a hefty majority where I come from. There is a small and very influential minority, have taken over and dominated the profession of law in Australia. The law is very attractive to Jewish people, because Jewish boys, by the age of 14 are already lawyers in the Jewish tradition. However why have we let them instal Judges. The Holy Bible says judge not that ye be not judged. Matthew 7: 1-5. It says give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine. Judges certainly render peoples lives asunder. It also says that if you ask you shall receive, Matthew 7:7-12. Destruction awaits all who consent willingly or unwillingly, to allow one man or woman to exercise judgment over them.

The delivering of judgment is a Holy Prerogative. It was reserved to two or more gathered together, by the Gospel of Matthew, 18:20. That is the essence of Christianity, and S 79 Constitution, is supposed to guarantee it to all, Christians and Atheists alike. It is mentioned in the Gospel of John 5 :22 and 23. The Holy Prerogative of Judgment is reserved to the Holy Ghost, the supernatural awesome mystical ability of Almighty God to get it right and find the truth, where the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy. Luke 12 Verse 10 sets that out