Graham,

Another unasked question is.."why is being divisive bad". I'm not agreeing that religion is divisive (see above) but even if it was, why would that be bad.

Elsewhere in these pages, I've argued that not only is being divisive not a negative, but that its very much a positive and that democracy both relies on it and is partially designed to handle it.

But for the left, 'divisive' is one of those words used to close down debate. It's undefined but inherently bad. No argument needed. "oh you're divisive" to the left means discussion over - you loose.

For the left, unity around an idea (THEIR idea) is desirable, even required. So, as per above, calling people who fail to agree with them 'divisive' is a no-brainer and makes perfect sense to the totalitarian-lite mind-set.

Unfortunately, many religious leaders and institutions, have caved to the onslaught and compromised on this or that principle in the hope of being given a pass. But paying the dane-geld never, ever works.

Just as the real racists are those who see racism everywhere, the real dividers are those who treat the accusation of divisiveness as a weapon.

A very long time ago GY you told us you had a thread on hand that concerned you
You, without telling us what is was about asked our advice
It got posted, it was from our dumpster diving One Under God
Rough diamond doing it hard, and was his view of evolution
Mate I like you, know completely we sit far apart on almost every issue, your task managing us is no easy job
But why are some threads so wrong, should not be posted
OH SOME ARE once not here, saw a pedophil post things that never ever should have been
They tell us about a third in this country have no religion, maybe right or wrong,
Find myself with Paul here, history is full of pure evil done by faiths Jonestown the Spanish Inquisition, long list

Belly: history is full of pure evil done by faiths Jonestown the Spanish Inquisition, long list.

Yes, you are right, Hugonaughts, Various Baptists, Lutherans, New Geneva Presbyterians, Wesleyans, etc, they were all into it 400 years ago. Not just the Catholics.

Personally I think if people of faith in Australia only give 10 per cent of what they earn then their faith is tenous at best. You find the more a church relies on Government handouts the more compromised it becomes. The church should never end up like the Greens and regressives who are champions at spending other peoples money. Whether a person gives to a minsitry, the poor or some other worthy cause can be left to the individual. The average Aussie is very rich. Jesus spoke on the issue of money more than even what most church goers are comfortable with. If people are not willing to give to what they believe in then their belief must be of little value.

GY is a true Christian, it is his right to be so, in my past life here and again after my return I said these words
If you are in trouble *it will be a true Christian first to help*
I see nothing wrong with the thread, and fail to see Paul acting out of bounds
I a no believer ask that in the current reforms about to be put before the house my views be respected
And Warned in thread about this that bill could be divisive, like it or not MINORITIES IN EVERY FAITH ARE DIVISIVE
Islamic radicals first put on that list
If we can not talk about this we are in fact selecting what free speech we will ,alowe

Jayb,

John Wesley died in 1791, when he died he was a Methodist and Wesleyanism did not come into being until the 1800s, hardly 400 years ago and I can find no record of the Weslians persecuting anyone.