Its not the symbols of religion such as crosses, fish, even the wearing a table cloth over your head that are the problems with religion. Although many of the symbols and practices show the absurdity of the 'converted' the real danger lies in the perversion of humanity that the religious seek. Throughout history religion has been the tool by which people have been controlled, using fear and ignorance the power of religion has worked to the determent of the vast majority of the human race. Today there are those that still seek that control of humanity through superstition and fear, using hatred to set one against another, these religious foster intolerance and loathing of those that dare to be different. One very tiny, tiny example, the Katter anti-homosexual add in the Queensland state election, a prime example where a religious Katter sets out to use division in society to gain political control. There are far greater examples than Katter where by religion is doing untold damage to humanity throughout the world.

Dear Paul,

The fact that people call themselves "religious" doesn't make them religious in fact.

Religion is not about controlling others - I can't see how possibly controlling others through fear and hatred can get one closer to God.

In short, no wonder you have such hateful views on religion because your idea of religion has nothing to do with religion and much to do with humans abusing the name of religion for their own perverse desires.

Why
Why ban the cross or the series of letters that make up the fish symbol?
Would the head dress of Islamic followers be banned too.
Any one want to tell me?

Yuyutsu, I just do not understand the logic behind what you say. Let me re-write what you said with the word religion replaced with the words national socialism. What is your view on this

In short, no wonder you have such hateful views on national socialism because your idea of national socialism has nothing to do with national socialism and much to do with humans abusing the name of national socialism for their own perverse desires.

I'm the first to admit the basic teachings of some religions can not be seen in any other light that good, that 'love thy neighbor' stuff, any reasonable person would find that acceptable. The vast majority of religious devotes are followers rather than leaders. The leadership of most religions, certainly the main stream ones, use their position to manipulate the minds of the followers. There is never any kind of democracy, no room for free thought or action. Religion is all about control. No matter how we try to divorce church from state, the church continually tries to pervert the state, and there in the secular thinking of its citizens.

Dear Paul,

"Religion is all about control."

No. Religion, by definition, from the Latin "Re-ligare", to re-bind [with God], is anything that brings us closer to God. What brings us closer to God is religion and what doesn't is not. I fail to see a case where controlling others can bring one closer to God.

You (and unfortunately many others) are mixing up organizations that were found for the purpose of promoting religion (such as churches) with religion itself.

Religion itself has no teachings, no organization and no leaders - but there are teachings, organizations and leaders that inspire religion. I am not here to defend such teachings, organizations and leaders that claim to do so, but do not.

Now the next sentence I find so funny:

"the church continually tries to pervert the state"

Well good luck, they can try, but if anyone is able to pervert the state any more than it already is, then they deserve a nobel-prize for their ingenuity!

No sir - it is the state which continually tries to pervert the church!

I am also in favour of total separation between church and state, at least as you are - because I hate seeing the churches being polluted and infected by the filth of the state. Any true church should serve God alone and that is not possible when one is indebted to the state even in subtle ways.

"Any true church should serve God alone and that is not possible when one is indebted to the state even in subtle ways."
Yuyutsu can you point out any mainstream church that "serves god alone" regardless of being indebted to the state or not or have they all failed? We can see the results of attempts to form a state based totally on religion, Iran and Jamestown.
You say "Religion, by definition,is anything that brings us closer to God." How can one tell they are doing something that god approves of, or disapproves of, how does god communicate his approval or disapproval?
Do you support the notion that believers (those that believe in god) should bond themselves to a church, or should they worship in total isolation. As soon as two believers come together to worship there will be an exchange of beliefs and there and then a church is formed.
If two homosexual christian men were to bring up a child in a loving family environment, their notion of family, would that not qualify as a religious act, that is by definition an act that is brings them closer to god. Why do so many so called Christians oppose such an act, are they being misguide?