Hi Joe, interesting distinctions. But I don't think they change the basic argument. On whatever reading of the landscape and animals they have, inanimate objects can't have rights. It's a kind of category confusion, in that the rights we are talking about only apply to sentient and self-aware organisms. By definition it doesn't cover objects, or religious artefacts, and to apply it to them degrades the concept of rights.

I understand why people might do it - they want to be empathetic. But empathy, without allowing for any other factors, is a very dangerous emotion.

David, the thing with my religion is that while it claims an exclusive understanding of what is true, it allows individuals free will. It doesn't insist that you believe.

I think that is superior - don't you? And my religion has created the modern world which gives us all so many benefits. When you have a clash between philosophies, and where it is on an issue where the views being contended are mutually exclusive, then only one can win. So we have to assess claims of superiority.

Dear Graham,

Your religion did not create the modern world. Your religion created the Dark Ages which interrupted the progress from superstition that was being made by the classical world. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment were movements from the Dark Ages sparked by questioning Christianity. In the modern world most accept freedom of religion. No religion has to give way any more than any other religion.

Hi Graham,
You said "I (GY) thought you (Paul1405) were one of those who are highly critical of Christianity on this forum."

I am not over critical of Christianity as such, generally its basic tenets seem reasonable. What I do take exception to is the institutions and some within those institutions that claim to represent Christianity, particularly the Catholic Church, its past history and the impact it has had on society, some has been for the good, I cannot deny that, but some of the influence of the Church has been to the determent of mankind.

Can I assume that without institutions and the associated structure, a religion cannot exists? If this is the case, then there is no pagan style religion as such associated with Maori, and the Whanganui River, only cultural belief. Marae are not religious places or places of worship,. nor are there any "priests" and alike, that I know of, associated with any Maori pagan religion.

Interesting, the number of laws that have been passed in Australia that favor religions, taxation laws freeing them of that impost, laws providing finance to religious schools etc. Politicians invoking god and attending religious institutions (church service) while representing the people.

david f,
The dark ages were not as you assume them to be. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

Dear Aidan,

I went to the article. There is nothing in the article that contradicts what I assume about the Dark Ages. I assume the beginning of the Dark Ages were coincident with the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire and were a product of that event. The article does not challenge that assumption.

"it allows individuals free will. It doesn't insist that you believe." Graham I find that interesting, my own experience with the Catholic religion was somewhat different, there was an insistence that one believes without question, for example you could not question the existence of God, unless one was prepared for eternal damnation. If one was to inform the priest that you are now an atheist. would he allow you to continue as a member of his church. I recall in the past where homosexual Christians were told to leave the church. The Pope is considered infallible on religious matters, there is no room to question the doctrine of the Pope. Of course the beliefs of Christians are as varied as there are denominations.