I think you may protest too much, Philo.

>>Pericles, You continually try to equate me as a murderer<<

Not at all, Philo. Although I am starting to detect an uneasy conscience... why else would you consider a short, generalized history lesson to be a personal accusation? Creepy.

>>the only answer is love your enemy<<

On that basis, all those poor deluded saps who went to fight the Saracens believing that God was on their side, were not Christians. That would have been a bit of a surprise to the Popes and Kings who blessed them on their way, eh?

>>Those that murder innocent people are not following Christ's teaching<<

"Murder" is an interesting, and somewhat flexible concept, wouldn't you agree? It tends to be bandied around whenever abortion comes into the conversation, but disappears the moment you ask about civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Had you noticed that?

I can't understand people who claim
to be "pro-life," yet they support
the death penalty...

Or who claim to be religious -
yet they preach hatred...

And what's wrong with being an atheist anyway?
As far as I know - "atheism is the acceptance that
there is no credible scientific or factually reliable
evidence for the existence of a god, gods, or the
supernatural." (As given on the Australian Atheist
Foundation's website).

Live and let live - is not a bad ethos - as long as
you're not hurting anyone. What you believe is your
own business - a private matter. Religion should be kept
out of politics in a secular country like Australia.

Quite right Foxy... "Religion should be kept out of politics in a secular country like Australia", but sadly, Australia is not a secular country.

It is true that people generally believe it is, but look at the monies that flow to prop religion up, to the tune of billions of dollars a year, even more than the Rudd dole-out that Abbott is upset about.

The High Court has already decided that Australia is not secular but we don't see Abbott or Rudd complaining do we?

In fact, they both fall over their feet to ensure Australia gets less secular by the bucket-load of dosh hurled at religions...and the state premiers are not far behind.

But none of the states have a constitution that requires anything faintly resembling a 'wall of separation', so they are allowed to buy religion off as much as they want- see the NSW ALP buying it's mate from the Vatican a few days at the races in 2008, and Victoria shovelling tax monies at the world parliament of churches, but not paying a cracker to the atheist do next week.

Not a very 'secular' world view at all.

Hanrahan,
I take it as a compliment that you don't deign to engage with my post, directed directly to your initial polemic. You appear to be a dancer, dear chap, glancing dextrously off arguments you can't contend with. But since you initiated this confrontation, your role is not to choriograph, but to defend the position you've taken. I await your devastating rejoinder with reverential awe.

Dear TBC,

What I was actually referring to was the
fact that Australians are free to follow any
religion they choose so long as its practices
don't break any Australian law. That we're also
free not to follow a religion. That we do have a
secular government and no official or state
religion. That relgious laws have no legal
status in Australia. That religious or cultural
practices, such as bigamy for example, are
illegal and so forth.

Funding of schools is a separate issue. All schools
receive Government funding.

Foxy and TBC

Foxy, we both agree with the live and let live philosophy while being different about our personal beliefs. Clearly I'm correct and you're well....less correct :-) (joke)

The problem I have with the back and forth with TBC is that both you are aguing extreme ends of the continuoum.
Australia doesn't have a national religion i.e. Eire and Israel,Iran et al. neither is Australia totally secular, free of religious interference, for the examples given.

I would suggest we are neither fish nor fowl. Hence in my earlier post, which few read.

The flaw in the Atheist mantra/definition is it assumes (superiority?). Yet they can't prove (to their standard) that god doesn't exist.( one can't prove something doesn't absolutely exist, merely that with current understanding it seems unlikely.)

Therefore, to make the next leap to proselytize their views vigorously, as they have done, they are trying to explain the unknowable, the realms of faith. Consequently, I describe(d) them as just another zealotic proselytizers (quasi religion)
i.e. my religion is better than your's. Same syndrome (superiority lack of tolerance) different label syndrome.

The non combative (tolerant) conclusion is inevitably "live and let live" and focus on the misapplications in government.

I further posit should should be as near logical, objective as *humanly possible* (my humanist "escape clause")

Ok too late in the day for this.......(sigh) I'll go to my corner, hands on head.