Dear David,

<<I agree with you that the state should not reign supreme. However, that need not have anything to do with religious belief.>>

In an 'ideal world', religion (not necessarily 'religious belief') should reign supreme, seconded by the dictates of a righteous, enlightened and benevolent king (or queen) on mundane matters, who loves the people as his/her children.

But we do not have an ideal world, or anything close to it, nor can we expect such for 1000's of years to come (for an ideal world to possibly exist, human population and its economic activity must be reduced by several orders of magnitude). What we have is a secular government that does not even recognise God, let alone guide people to walk in His ways. They are after profit and power and 'Righteousness' is not even in their dictionary (heard any politician lately mentioning this word?).

Rehctub has a point when he states: "Yuyutsu, many laws are introduced with the intent to teach young ones": yes, there are some in society who do need guidance - but when a government is totally blind and has no tools whatsoever to distinguish between those who require guidance and those who do not; and when even if they tried to make such a distinction they would be surrounded by booing 'discrimination! it's not politically-correct! Apartheid!' and would back off, there is no way they can guide some without causing greater harm to others, hence they better do nothing. Let the blind not lead the blind!

<<If one feels that a law is unjust and the injustice is not a trivial matter then one should disobey the law.>>

Certainly, that's one's duty, except that I would also base this path on wisdom, not just on feelings.

<<One's conscience may or may not be influenced by religion.>>

One's conscience is always influenced by religion - one's conscience grows with religion, so if you find a man of conscience, a sense of right and wrong, then you probably also found a man of religion, regardless whether or not they hold any beliefs in the supernatural.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "In an 'ideal world', religion (not necessarily 'religious belief') should reign supreme, seconded by the dictates of a righteous, enlightened and benevolent king (or queen) on mundane matters, who loves the people as his/her children."

Such a world would not be ideal for me. I do not want to be ruled by either religion or royalty. Such a world would in my opinion be far worse than what we have now. I regard your ideal world with fear and horror.

Lexi my sweet you I'm sure you don't describe the attack my son suffered, by a bunch of 4 "Lebs" while walking home from the railway station, in broad daylight as exciting. I think he would describe the 2 operations he had to undergo to correct his 4 skull fractures, as something other than exciting, too.

This is becoming common in many areas, & is simply racially motivated.

We have recently brought a quite large number of very nasty people, from very nasty cultures to Oz, & if you can't or haven't seen this, you are a very lucky lady.

All too many ladies have found this to be cold hard fact, much to their detriment.

Many people, not just ladies, will no longer ride a train after dark, in much of our cities.

We have ethnic wars going on in some areas of major cities, & there are definitely areas which have become no go areas for law enforcement, unless in platoon strength.

Drive by shootings are becoming comon in some ethnic areas.

So sorry sweety, not only is multiculturalism a major failure, it is a major catastrophe that we will pay for in strife, & blood for many generations.

This is a fact, & there is no nice way to put it.

Dear David,

I am not surprised that you don't want to be ruled by either religion or royalty, given that the examples we had over the last millennia were miserable indeed, as we had corrupt clergy disgracefully abusing the name of God for personal gain and kings who were only interested in their own pleasures and treating their subjects like vermin.

Don't worry, we are not going to have an ideal world (or a 'new-age') any time soon, but it may help to understand that this rule of religion and enlightened monarchs cannot be seen in isolation and imposed on current society: it is part of a bigger whole.

Other characteristics of an 'ideal world' include:
* Low human population.
* Peace, plenty and contentment.
* A pure and simple lifestyle.
* Kings consider ruling a heavy burden, a duty they accept with a heavy heart and are happy when they can relinquish it and retire around the age of 50.
* If a citizen has a complaint, the king will get out of bed in the middle of the night to listen to it.
* If even one citizen finds fault with their king, the king will immediately abdicate the throne in shame, possibly even giving up his life.
* Religious leaders are sages who live in isolation and want nothing from the world.
* Following religion is spontaneous: one has to go out of one's way not to.
* If you are generally a responsible person, intelligent and academic as you seem to be, who has no conflict with others, then the king will not interfere in your life.

Such a situation is currently infeasible. It doesn't matter whether it ever did or will exist on earth, but like the number i=sqrt(-1), which despite being imaginary can help us draw conclusions about real numbers, the absence of the above indicates why current governments/laws should not be followed.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Monarchy as an institution is corrupt in itself. Religion is a delusional system. The examples we have had in the past of rule by religion and monarchy are logical outcomes of institutions that are basically faulty. There is no reason to think that nonsense restored will be any better than past nonsense. The Enlightenment rejected rule by religion, and people over the world have gotten rid of monarchy. Unfortunately in some instances Lenins and Hitlers have replaced monarchy with their own arbitrary rule, but we can hope that people will eventually choose reason, compassion and democratic institutions. Religion and monarchy can only return us to a bloody past.

Dear David,

I was referring to an ideal rather than to our historical past, which we all know was bloody. Ideals may or may not exist, or perhaps may have existed on another planet, but they may be legitimately considered, like the imaginary number 'i', when assessing our policies in the 'real' world. Similarly, I referred to spiritual enlightenment, rather than the so-called 'enlightenment' period in Western history (1700-1800). I certainly am not wishing for a repeat of the rule of historical monarchs and historical corrupt churches.

As a political system, I certainly prefer a wise, loving, enlightened king (or queen) over democracy - the rule of the mob, which can be mediocre at best. The problem of course, is that the king may not turn out as wise, enlightened and benevolent as we assumed. Ideally we would have a prophet to choose and anoint the king (and sack him as well when necessary), but in this sceptical day and age, how many of us respect the prophets and have the skills to distinguish between the true and fake ones? Do we expect the mob to recognise the true prophet(s)? Ridiculous! It becomes circular, so politics in this day and age is hopeless and in conclusion we should therefore dismantle the state, or leave as little as possible of it.

As for religion, we discussed it several times already on other threads: an organisation such as a church or a set of teachings does not automatically qualify as 'religion' just because it claimed so or because it offers a belief in the supernatural. Many such organisations, both current and historical, fall short and are religions in name only. The Western-enlightenment-movement indeed rejected the rule of such phoney organisations - and rightly so.