You should know better by now, progressive pat.

Altering what another poster says in order to try to force your point across is a sign of weakness, not strength.

Loudmouth stated:

>>It is not the business of the state to protect any religion from the realities of life in a blooming, buzzing democracy.<<

You spun this into a question...

>>...if its not "the business of the State" to stop religious persecution from happening in a society, as you say, whose role is it to protect the religious?

D'you see the difference? Loudmouth said "the realities of life". You said "religious persecution".

It was not a case of "as you say", was it? You cannot change the words, and then pretended that they were Loudmouth's. That's deceitful.

And the answer to your question "whose role is it to protect the religious?" is simple: it is the role of the police to uphold the law.

Dear Runner,

"It has not always been the case however. Most of the Western Government's in the early days assisted in setting up schools and hospitals and understanding they were accountable to God."

I'm afraid I am too young to recall any such days - perhaps Methuselah would.

Externally they build schools and hospitals, and occasionally they even pay lip-service to God, but what's in their hearts when they do so?

- buying votes.
- good jobs for their friends.
- seeking praise.
- seeking to enforce their secular values by competing with religious schools and institutes of healing.

A minority of politicians were (and an even smaller minority still is) loyal to one church or another - but that's superficial at a social level, it doesn't imply that they were loyal to what the church stands for (or in some cases, what it is supposed to stand for).

I appreciate your comment about environmentalists and warming-alarmists.

Yeah, that's what the police are for. If I feel I'm being 'crucified' - so to speak - for what I believe there's already an avenue for me to do something about it. Online, it's irrelevant, I can just choose to ignore the ravings of those who will never understand my beliefs. But at work and such I can do something about it already.

It would just become a PC wagon for the looney end of the religious fringe.

all physical things have their basis...in spirit
dont we have enough god-heads...in this world

now we got
a govt servant..overseeing the things of spirit...[lol]

thank you pope sir humphrey
lord of the over lorders

oh lord save us from them all
god is a servant..you can only find gods good
via service...not sir-vice

my advice is say no!

one power...more...
for those phycopaths...of materialistic[sic*] darkness

in spirit..it indicates the sheep sorting the goats
by licence/order..of the wolf...who issues his bill

pay in blood
here eat his flesh
drink his blood...a thiest

the trinity of 3
officially made 4

lol

a pox o lips
hoarse men

ahhhh men
mene mene

its either or

a theoist
or atheo
list

em-manuel

If there really is a God then he/she would have to be coming down heavily on all the religious hypocrites who go to church on sunday yet for the rest of the week they're out to get as much as they can in materialism.

Thank you, Pericles and Individual.

"Progressive" Pat,

You write: "You still wouldn't object if a law directly infringed upon someone's right to freedom of religion?"

Perhaps this question is a bit hypothetical in the Australian context: of course, I support the right of people to profess to whatever religion they like, provided it does not involve any infringement on the rights of other people, including that religion's adherents, in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, and the separation of church and state.

You have an interesting twist on what I wrote:

"And if its not "the business of the State" to stop religious persecution from happening in a society, as you say, whose role is it to protect the religious?"

A bit of a straw-man argument here in Australia, although of course most certainly an issue in Muslim-dominated countries, wouldn't you agree ?

Yes, I, agree that, unlike in many other countries, especially Muslim-dominated countries, under Australian law, no religion is persecuted, and nobody is persecuted for practising their religion, provided they observe the rule of law and other people's democratic rights, and the principle that the state will not interfere to support any religion over another.

But that's what this is about, isn't it ?

"Progressive" indeed.

Joe