.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote :

« A Bill of rights might give one the right by removing the right of another. A Bill of responsibility as a citizen is more applicable. »

A Bill of Rights simply protects each citizen from abuse of power by the government. Each citizen receives exactly the same protection. Nobody’s right can be “removed” in order to “give” it to somebody else.

Every country in the world, including Australia, already has what you call a “Bill of Responsibility”. These are the existing laws of the country: both the common law (civil law and criminal law) and statute law.

We are all deemed to be “responsible” for our acts and omissions, unless we can prove otherwise, and are subject to sanctions if we fail to respect the law. If we are bad citizens and don’t pay our taxes, for example, we can be heavily fined.

Common law is an organic process, constantly evolving. If it were static perhaps we could assemble all our laws in a single bill and call it the “Bill of Responsibility”, but it’s not.
.

« Take the issues of euthanasia, adoption, foster care or abortion and similar. All have very strong religious values …»
.

That is a topic that dwarfs all others, in my view, Josephus: religious values.

Religious values served us well for over two thousand years but have now become largely obsolete - just as our understanding of how the earth and mankind were created, based on mythical narratives dating back to the Ancient Mesopotamian Religion of the 4th millennium BC, have become obsolete.

If there is one thing mankind has learned from nature it is that for anything to survive in this world, it has to adapt.

Adaptability is definitely not the forte of religion.

A good example is homosexuality which was considered to be “unnatural” behaviour. But, as Petter Boeckman, a zoologist at the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo, pointed out in 2006: “No animal species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist”.

.

Josephus,

"In my world view you post a lot of nonsense...."

Lol!....says the guy who believes that Mary mother of Jesus was impregnated by "God" - a non-human and nebulous imaginary being who employed "immaculate" means to have a human on this earth conceive of a fetus.

Who also believes that Jesus fed many thousands of people with a few fish and loaves of bread.

Who also believes that Jesus walked on water.

Who also believes that three days after Jesus died, he came to life again and interacted with others, after which he rose bodily to "Heaven".

"The matters of State are secular as envisaged by the Constitution, that does not mean atheism is the fundamental foundation of Government, which you believe it to be."

It also mans that religion/Christianity et al was deliberately excluded as a foundation to the Constitution...purposely given an extremely wide berth by the founding fathers.

"Your Quotes on views of religion do not reflect the true values of followers of Christ."

So none of which I espoused above reflect anything about Christian belief?

Pull the other one - it's got bells on it.