There have been quite a few articles about attacks on
religion recently and I know it's ill-advised
to discuss either politics or religion in
public forums. However, I thought it may
prove interesting because I feel that a
person's political views and/or religious
beliefs should not exist in a bubble where
they're protected from criticism or scrutiny.

Beliefs can be irrational, unfounded and even dangerous
at times. There are those who want religion to fall
into the same category as one's sexual orientation,
biological sex, and race, and have the same protections.

However, people don't choose their race, sex orientation,
or biological sex. They do however choose whether or not
they want to adhere to a believe in particular
religious narratives.

Your thoughts please.

They do however choose whether or not
they want to adhere to a believe in particular
religious narratives.
Foxy,
Well, we must not dismiss the power of indoctrination on the vulnerable young.
My view is that religion should remain within the walls of the home !
I would not criticise religion as such however, when it is abundantly clear that religion is hijacked for political & other power-related manipulation then the manipulators need to be criticised & exposed !

Hi Foxy,
We can't discriminate against people for their religious beliefs,
But that doesn't mean that religions themselves cant be criticised.

Freedom of speech means that everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
- But it doesn't mean that people are free from being offended by other peoples opinions.

So religions can be criticised without any issue on a basis of their own merits;

If what you're saying is an extension of what you truly believe,
- then there's no limitations upon your right to hold an opinion and speak your mind.
- At least not as far as I'm concerned anyway.

I think religions and the beliefs associated with them should be challenged
- Against ethics.

I think that to try to prevent criticism of
religion is virtually impossible. Ironically it
seems to unleash greater intolerance and
discrimination. However I do support laws that
are meant to protect individuals from
discrimination and religious institutions from
being attacked.

Having said that however, I also believe that
religious institutions should comply with the laws
of the land. They receive government funding and
are supported by the state.

However, Religious schools for example,
should be able to teach their core values.
The state should not interpret what's in the
Bible or the Koran. Religious institutions should
not discriminate against students or teachers
because of their sexual orientation. There are
respectful ways of dealing with problems that
may arise.

A distinction should also be made between hate speech
which amounts to an attack on a religious group that is
sufficiently hateful or extreme and may incite
violence on the group's beliefs. Of course to
criticise a group's beliefs that are irrational
and dangerous must be allowed to be criticised.
For example:

" I believe anybody who denies my God should be
put to death..." incites violebce.

Criticism of religion is a complex issue.
Hopefully in this discussion critical comments will
help us to understand and think about different views
on the issues.

But it's not easy - where to draw the line. If the
criticism is too general - all members of a
particular faith community may be thought of in the
same negative way. And that would not be fair.

It's not only right to criticise ANYTHING, it is essential to do so for democracy to survive.

My main criticism of many Christians (I won't blame the religion for what some of its adherents do) is that they have allowed their beliefs to be tainted by Marxism; even the Catholic denomination. And for the critics of Christianity I say: stop the 'far-right-Christian' nonsense. There might be some far right Christians, but the influential ones are of predominately on the Left.

Other religions? Mumbo jumbo, cruel and ignorant.

Dear Foxy,

It is indeed wrong to criticise others.
I am not saying that it should be banned by law, but it is wrong, it wastes one's time and energy, creates bad vibrations and never achieves anything.

«Having said that however, I also believe that
religious institutions should comply with the laws
of the land. They receive government funding and
are supported by the state.»

Fair enough, those who accept hand-outs from Caesar should also follow his whims - but what about the others?

People have every right to practice their religious
convictions in private and the rest of us have
every right to reject, mock, and criticize, these
beliefs. There is no such thing as freedom from
religious offense. If you live in the West, you
should not accept that your religious views
are sacrosant to those who do not share your faith.

Foxy,

Just a small modification of your previous post:

"People have every right to practise their sexual preferences in private and the rest of us have every right to reject, mock, and criticize, these preferences. There is no such thing as freedom from gender offence. If you live in the West, you should not assume that your sexual preferences are sacrosanct to those who do not share them."

The left whingers on this forum intend that they should have the right to criticise Christians but get up in arms if this is applied to other faiths such as Islam or gays, trans, races etc.

You can't have it both ways.

Shadow Minister,

Such is the beauty of religion. It seeks
maximal protection for its narrative whilst
openly discriminating against others in
endless ways.

cont'd ...

As we know religiously founded institutions are
afforded legal protection (varies by state) to
discriminate against those of other faiths,
or those possessing no faith, and LGBTIQ students
and teachers. The following link gives more:

http://www.theconversation.com/theres-no-argument-or-support-for-allowing-schools-to-discriminate-against-lgbtiq-teachers-104765

Religious schools should not be able to discriminate
against student (or teachers) on the basis of their sexual
orientation or gender identity. But religious schools
should remain free to teach their doctrines respectfully.
And the law should make that quite clear.

People may want (or not want) to send their children to such
schools but they should have a realistic choice.

Society is the better when everyone has that choice and
when everyone knows what is involved in making that
choice.

Here is another link with more information on the
subject of religiously founded institutions being
afforded legal protection to discriminate:

http://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2018/10/23/explainer-religious/discrimination-in-schools

Here's another link

http://www.hrlc.org.au/religious-discrimination-law-explainer

My first link does not appear to be working
unfortunately. My apologies. I'm sure you can
find it on the web. Anyway. here's the second link
again:

http://www.hrlc.org.au/religious-discrimination-laws-explainer

If we believe in freedom of expression of ideas, then ideas must be evaluated for the social and family good of society. Things that demean or destroy the structure of family must be challenged. There should be no sacred cows that cannot be killed if they are destructive. However opposition must be gracious and encouraging otherwise opposition then becomes destructive.

The traditional family structure is no longer a
realistic social standard. Increases in divorce and
re-marriage has created households that incorporate
step-parents, step-children, step-siblings. Unwed
mothers are raising children in single households.

As the stigma of same-sex relationships diminishes
it's becoming more common for them to have children.

However, the family remains fundamentally important
to people throughout their life. It's that today
we different forms of family.

Foxy,

Such is the beauty of LGBT, race, Islam etc. It seeks maximal protection for its narrative whilst openly discriminating against others in endless ways.

My rights don't begin where yours end.

I don't believe that gay entryism should be allowed to subvert religion- ie. no gay teachers in schools with philosophies that believe that gayness is wrong. Gay people can create their own schools if they desire- however personally I'm concerned about sexualizing children and believe it is abuse.

Some philosophies are mutually incompatible. This is why people need to be able to control what is acceptable in their communities- of course some level of wisdom is required here.

The entryism of gays into schools is classic communist entryism tactics- everyone wants more power but is it valid and proportional- sometimes groups need to stay on their own side of the fence.

There are no perfect solutions- we should encourage people to fit in for peace and stability- if they can't do that at least don't subvert everyone else. Everyone has things they don't talk about in mixed company.

Sometimes I think that Foxy hides behind the claimed Communist attacks on her ancestors so she can promote Communist Propaganda. Maybe it's my imagination.

.

I was interested by ttbn's reference to Marxism on this thread.

As Marx rightly pointed out, religion has been encouraged and developed by political leaders as a powerful tool of mind control of the masses, subjugating and pacifying them at will. It also incites the faithful to sacrifice their lives for the promise of eternal bliss in heaven.

Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie for his book The Satanic Verses, published in 1989.

As a result, the book was outlawed in several counties. The publishers and translaters were threatened and Rushdie's freedom was limited.

He spent 13 years in hiding, under police protection.

.

I will critique Foxy's accepted world view of family. My wife and I have recently moved and we have had to downsize including our photo albums five albums of 135 foster children cared for in the 1980 -90's -the result of divorce, drugs, criminal activity and family violence. All of these children would have been better of if the family had, had loving and caring parents; they were damaged by their parents behaviors and were taken into temporary foster care. Try telling these children they are better off than having a stable family.

A person's political views and/or religious beliefs
should not exist in an impenetrable and inviolable
bubble where they are protected from criticism or
scrutiny. Beliefs as we've seen can be irrational,
unfounded and downright dangerous.

We should support laws that are meant to protect
individuals from discrimination and harm.

A distinction should be made between hate speech - which
amounts to an attack on a religious or political group
that is sufficiently hateful or extreme and may incite
violence and an attack on the group's believes which
should be permitted under freedom of expression.

One's religion or political beliefs should not fall
into the same category as one's sexual orientation, biological
sex, or race. People don't choose their race, sexual
orientation, or biological sex. They do choose whether or
not they want to adhere to and believe in particular
political or religious narratives. Therefore others have
every right to reject, and criticize these beliefs.

As stated earlier there's no such thing as freedom from
religious offense. If you live in the West, you should
accept that your religious or political views are not
sacrosant to those who do not share your faith or
beliefs.

We have laws that protect against calls for violence against
groups or individuals - "" I believe anybody who denies my
God should be put to death" or " Kill Jews, they are
the enemies of God," and so on. On the other hand, to
criticize religious beliefs should never be construed
as illegal hate speech - unless we give up our
fundamental human rights such as freed0m of conscience
( which includes freedom from religion) and freedom of
speech.

People have every right to practice their religious
and political convictions as long as they don't harm others and
the rest of us have every right to reject, and criticize these
beliefs.

There are very few things on which I agree with Foxy in word and spirit. There has been violence towards and from all groups seeking to change the perceived power structure- the purpose of democracy seems to be to allow sub-cultures to discuss their views freely to resolve their subjugation peacefully. The alternative is to resolve it by force. Force is often the result of force. Gays force gay priests the religious community forces back. If you can somehow claim and frame that you hold "the status of the innocent in the face of a violent tyrant" you can use the anvil of the tyranny of the Locke Liberal State to crush your opponents community. This is not a live and let live peaceful strategy.

George Pell recently faced this.

You don't look to 'rule of law' in the courts for justice or principle.

This is why communities need to manage themselves in terms of their own interest.

Balance between change and tradition, between repression and stability- a corollary of the human condition- perhaps only a human perspicacity. Over time my opponents will come to see my reality as superior or not- my results will prove my theory- and reality will change them- rather than myself- I take the risk for walking through the snow for the rich rewards- this perhaps is in the spirit of Liberalism in a sense- I'm sure that Liberalism itself will break itself on the laws of physics- while it seeks to break others. Ayn Rand had a fair bit to say on the Death Cults of Communist and Liberal Peoples Fronts and States- chaining life giving groups to the dead only creates death. And the Communists create more death than anyone.

Any community that fails to take steps to protect itself from the raging chaos outside will quickly die. There are those that attack everyone in the name of peace.

If we see a group (like the church) not our own that breeds considerate members and keeps to itself- and we see it under attack- good samaritans should step up and protect it

Thanks Josephus for your good example.

Communism has killed about 100 Million people in the name of peace and love.

Josephus,

I did say that family remains fundamentally important
to people throughout their life.

I pointed out
that today the reality is that there are different
family structures that exist.

Children need atability,
love, and care, so before we critique the current
family structures it is also wise to
remember that even in traditional families not all of
them were stable, and not all children received the care
that they should have. Domestic violence, child abuse,
alcoholic parents, drugs, are not a recent invention. Neither is
homelessness - (children running away from home). And the list
goes on.

All beliefs are open to and should be critiqued - religious, quasi-religious, atheist. Any and all.

All beliefs - the belief that one doesn't choose their sexual orientation, the belief there are more than two sexes, the belief that all races are the same, the belief that race is important in determining the nature of the individual.

The belief in CAGW, the belief in evolution.

The belief that there is such a thing as hate speech. The belief that hate speech should or could be suppressed.

The belief that life starts are conception or 20 weeks or 41 weeks.

Critique everything. Question everything. Never just believe what those you trust say or what you are told to believe.

Question whether it really is easier to just go along with the majority.

Many people have different interpretations.

Robin Williams said:

"No matter what people tell you - words and
ideas can change the world."

It is hard walking the line between those who
would prefer to close down discussion around these issues
and those who would happily use the debate about religion
to further their illiberal and racist agendas.

I believe in a twin commitment to freedom of belief and
the right to criticize belief.

The two may at times conflict, but they could not
exist without each other.

Nothing gained or learned here. Same predictable responses to a question that never needed to be asked - apart from giving the questioner the opportunity to post more times than the half dozen respondents did in total.

There is no right or wrong. If you want to criticise someone's religion you will, as you are entitled to. If you don't want to criticise, you won't, as you are entitled to.

To me, even thinking and asking if it's wrong to criticise someone's religion smacks of narrow-minded totalitarianism.

Not asking is it wrong to criticize someone's
religion - as a discussion topic on a forum of
social and political debate can be viewed as
a form of intellectual cowardice. An exchange of
ideas and thoughts contributes to our learning and
growth as human beings. But as someone said -
"The capacity ot learn is a gift, the ability to
learn is a skill, the willingness to learn is a
choice."

And some prefer the safety of their own rigid ideologies
and feel threatened when the views of others don't agree
with their own.

Of course they can always stay away from discussions they
don't approve of.

Intellectual or just plain old garden variety cowardice is inherent in posters who ask people to state their beliefs before they give own, then hand out a lot of "links". Posters with courage state their case first.

I bet none of us knew that we needed to have
our discussion topics not only approved by
ttbn, but that we had to follow his advice in
the style of how we should post.

And wasn't it he who said that we could not
learn anything from this discussion?

I've just learned a great deal. (lol).

Better check with Graham first though.

Keep up the good work ttbn. Thanks. It's interesting that some people say that they want to talk about something to clarify their understanding and then tell you what to think. Sealions- more fish

You are either stupid or being deliberately obtuse now. Nobody is telling you what to post; it's the way you go about it, and I can't tell you how to do that either. But I can comment and express my opinion. You pretend to be asking a question, but you are setting people up to blast them with ABC loopy left propaganda and other Marxist junk. In this post, you lectured people with 14 posts to their 12 between 6 people. It's all about you. Get a life. Have your say, but stop thinking that you have to keep nagging everyone who disagrees with you until they can't take any more or are bored stiff with your egomanical raving. You are not going to make any difference to anything, just like the rest of us who take ourselves less seriously, who also get just the the one vote every 3 or 4 years. Get yourself elected if you want influence.

Canem Malum,

Thanks for that. She is one of three posters I cannot stand. There are probably more people here who disagree with me than do. But they at least have their say without going on, and on, and on, as if they have been ordained to 're-educate" everyone. Working for Bejiing, maybe?

"You will never reach your destination if you stop
and throw stones at every dog that barks."

(Winston Churchill).

ttbn said-

Canem Malum,

Thanks for that. She is one of three posters I cannot stand. There are probably more people here who disagree with me than do. But they at least have their say without going on, and on, and on, as if they have been ordained to 're-educate" everyone. Working for Bejiing, maybe?

Answer-

I think that more people agree with you than you think. I value your contributions- and find myself mostly agreeing with you. But what does that mean? Sometimes I don't even agree with myself- so two people will never agree on everything. Actor Chuck Norris now cancelled as a racist- strange- (I believe that Harrison Ford, Sean Connery, and Great Australian Dick Smith may be in the same position) says that we should focus on the positive- but there is the view that if you don't object you agree- at least that's the way it works in some circles- so one feels obliged to object even though the poster has brought up the same point numerous times. As you've said this strategy is commonly used as part of communist tactics.

Sometimes I just talk around these people because it's pointless appealing to their better nature as they don't have one.

Sometimes I stop for a few hours and think about my reply. It's usually not a good idea to reply while angry. I can reply at my leisure and they can wait rocking back and forth and frothing at their mouths- and cursing "the fascists" under their breath.

I think that you are, like myself, also somewhat Traditionalist in your outlook- though how it's embodied may be differently focused.

" I would like to take you guys seriously
but to do so would affront your intelligence."

"You claim to want to give a hearing to other
views, but then are shocked and offended to
discover that there are other views."

"You should both be adamant about the need for the
appearance of Judeo-Christianity in the
public square."

"Although I profoundly believe that it takes a
lot of practice to become a moral slob."

All these were quotes said by - William F. Buckley, Jr.
which I thought were appropriate - given the
circumstances to which your diversion of my discussion
has stooped.

Start your own discussion on me instead of trying to divert
this one of mine on religion. I'd be quite flattered.

Hi Foxy,

Good topic, I haven't checked my E-mails for the ttbn approval as required by the grand wizard himself, but here's what I think.

Often we tend to criticize the institutions of religion, rather than the teachings of the religion itself. As with the criticism of the Catholic Church and its response to child sexual abuse within the organisation, nothing to do with the religious teachings as such, but more the actions of clerics given charge to "do Gods work" on behalf of the institution.

The other line of criticism comes when the religious enter the debate on a moral issue in the public arena, example the gay marriage debate. It was reasonable for the religious to oppose gay marriage, they had a right to do so, but when they tried to strength their argument by referencing religious text, then that text become fair game for those that opposed their view.

CM,

Freedom of speech is the main thing, and there will always be disagreement. But I feel that people are too frightened to say what they think these days - for obvious reasons, and that’s why we will eventually lose the right to speak freely. We all need to remember that the threat comes from a crank minority, and that Western society is dangerously into minorities because of the absurd guilt complex those minorities have given them via constant carping, half truths and downright lies. Minorities have rights, too, but no more than anyone else. And, before we take against minorities, we need to realise that the cranks are a minority of the minorities. Most people who have some connection to long gone aboriginals just want to live their lives and be left alone. The same applies to all other minorities, religious, cultural and ethnic, in Australia.

Minorities, like the rest of us, are being used by Marxists, as a way of dividing an conquering; and it's working because of most people's unwillingness to speak up.

See that you-know-who is draping her words with quotation marks this morning. Who is she quoting? She doesn't say. Perhaps she is quoting herself, which points to a serious problem. She could of course be using a tablet because her internet is down:). That's been one of her excuses in the past.

Out of respect for the Three Stooges, I have decided to think of her and her two sidekicks as the Three Cranks.

Whoops. I have to retract, so predictable is she, and so boring, I just skimmed what she said. She is quoting William F Buckley - a CONSERVATIVE, which shows how desperate she is. I think Buckley might just have been referring to people like her, not his fellow conservatives.

Dear Paul,

We need to keep in mind there are internet trolls out
there today (used to be called ferals and deranged,
in the past) looking for the next victim. These people
like to stir things up hiding behind their keyboards.
In the past people like these would pick fights in
pubs - today - they're on social media. Best to scroll
past their rants. Though it's not always easy.

Most people avoid expressing deliberately offensive
opinions and name calling and most posters do fact-check
before posting and do give links to back up their claims.
Most posters try to be nice - not nasty. But it all
depends on one's upbringing and culture. Not all are
fortunate in those areas.

It is difficult walking the line between those who
would prefer to close down discussions around
issues that they don't approve of and those who would
happily use the debate about religion to further their
illiberal and racist agendas.

Personally I believe in a twin commitment to freedom of
belief and the right to criticize belief. The two may
at times conflict, but they could not exist without
each other.

I was raised as a Catholic. My religion to me is a private
matter. I would not try to convert anybody else. However
I do seek the problems that the church has, especially
with child abuse and other issues. I can still remember
when Cardinal Pell was in charge in Sydney at St. Mary's
Cathedral - denying communion to gay people. That I found
to be a sinful act and not worthy of a follower of Christ.
But I certainly did not blame the religion for this man's
actions.

Foxy holds the current family structures as satisfactory for a good functioning society. I do not. She rather than deal with the destructive forces that injure children and their identity and security, just passes them off to other structures as acceptable.
[my figures were short we actually fostered not 135 but rather 153 from three weeks to 12 years.] Any child not living with its birth mother and father and placed into other structures suffers from the behaviors of parents and the disruption of identity.

There is something wrong in human behaviors and society that needs change - The Values System.

Josephus,

You are entitled to your opinion.
What You are not entitled
to try to enforce it on others.

You can practice your beliefs
in private as long as they don't harm anybody else.
But there are laws that we all have to abide by -
whether we like them or not. That applies to us all,
and to religious institutions as well. However such is
the beauty of religion. It seeks maximal protection
for its narrative whilst openly discriminating against
others in endless ways. That's one of the reasons
perhaps why so many are leaving churches in droves
seeking solace elsewhere. And that's why cults to some
are becoming more and more attractive (unfortunately).

We can only hope and trust that things will eventually
improve and change for the better. That the true teachings
of Christ will eventually be practiced - as they currently
are by a few religious teachers and churches.

Josephus- You don't need to enforce it on others- such as Foxy would- take care mate.

Josephus,

The criticism of religious beliefs should never
be construed as forcing one's beliefs of others
or as illegal hate speech unless we give up our
most fundamental human rights - freedom of conscience
(which includes freedom from religion) and freedom
of speech.

There's no such thing as freedom from religious
offense. If you live in the West, you should
accept that your religious views are not
sacrosant to those who do not share your faith.

The only society that works is one of sacrifices self in the service to others - as taught by Jesus. That society will not abuse the other but will lovingly serve. They will not wish damage or failure on another but good fortune, forgiveness and reconciliation. That principle works from family to Nation. Our entertainment media promotes violence, and crime as normal behaviors, rather than productive and loving relationships. Unless there the hero is a villain their story has no appeal. We need character stories of people who make a difference for good. Religion is about development and discipline of character in service. It will be about the thoughts we are in private, the thoughts we have of others how we can better their lives.

We currently have the "Me, Me" generation. No longer the worship of the Holy and highest and the unconditional care for the other. It appears Foxy accepts family failures and religious failures are OK with her.

cont'd ...

To try to prevent criticism of religion or
religious offense is virtually impossible as
I've stated previously. Ironically, it only
serves to unleash greater intolerance and
discrimination against those who have created
the offense. The recent shootings in mosques,
and other places of worship, the recent deaths,
the damaged embassies, the storming of Capital buildings,
the burning of flags, are ample evidence of that.

Criticism of a religion can be restricted to what is believed but
what is the situation when "God" reuires certain actions that other
people consider a crime;
From the Koran;

Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax. (9:29)

Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticise Islam. (5:33)

Terrorise and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran. (8:12)

Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood. (9:123)

Just a quick selection. There are dozens more especially about Jews.
Also there are verses that justify the rape of infidel women as used
by the Rotherham rape gang in the UK.

Do you think that a religion that promotes these beliefs deserves criticism ?
In the UK you can be imprisoned for criticising Islam. Moslems want
the same laws here, it is called Islamophobia.
Just remember this is not about ancient practices, it is current
practice in many countries.
It has been practiced in Australia and used to justify acts that
ended in imprisonment in the Goulburn Super Mosque.

Bazz, you only have to evaluate the behaviors and motives of the author to realize he does not speak for God and the best for society. A religion based in fear, self indulgence and rituals does not bring out the best in humanity.

Josephus,

I take it from your posts that your religion is a
missionary one. That for you it is not enough to
worship one God; it must be the right one and in
the right way. Well, you are not alone in thinking
this. But religions should not compete.

And for your information No. I do not accept either
family or religious failures. On the contrary, I
pray for both with all my heart. Perhaps you should
do the same instead of judging?

Bazz,

We do have hate speech laws which protect against calls
for violence against groups or individuals. A distinction
should be made between hate-speech - which amounts to
an attack on a religious group that is sufficiently
hateful or extreme and may incite violence, and an
attack on the group's beliefs - which should be permitted
under freedom of expression.

But here we need to exercise discretion and common sense.
The criticism should not be in the form of sweeping
generalisations inferring that all members of a
particular faith community follow their religion in
exactly the same way or that a particular faith community
should be thought of in the same negative way.

That unleashes greater intolerance and discrimination
and does not allow for individual differences and may
even incite violence.

You brought up the Islamic religion. The Islamic
religion is the world's second largest religion with
approx. 1.9 billion followers in 51 countries.
The religion is not practiced in exactly the same way
in each country or faith community. They have
different cultures, different languages - and
different customs. They can't all be placed into the
one box. As neither can other faiths.

We can't lump them all together. Even Christian
communities - depending on the community, the pastor,
the people, their practices and beliefs will vary.

Well Josephus, actually the author is said to be Allah but Mohammad
is said to have had it dictated to him by Gabriel.
One problem is that there is no evidence that Mohammad even existed
in the early 600s. He might be a fictional figure generated many
years later. Possibly he was modeled after another prominent person.
I don't know much about that part of the puzzle but it
appears some historians are studying that angle.
One article I read said that the grammar was more like the grammar of the Syrians.
Someone studying in that area might need a good life insurance policy.

This whole thread is predicated on the notion that religions are seeking protection from criticism. But no evidence of that has been offered.

Apart Mohammedanism, I don't think religions are indeed seeking protection from criticism. They are simply seeking the right to practice their religion free of outside interference.

The entire thread is based on a false assertion.

Foxy, it is easy to say that all moslems do not follow the demands of
the Koran, because they do not. Otherwise there would not be movements
that are trying to have the Koran revised.
However the highest authorities in Islam state that anyone advocating
such changes are apostates and deserve death.
The Koran is the word of Allah and cannot be changed.
I agree that Islam is different to other religions otherwise Martin Luther
would not be the well known figure of history that he occupies.
In the UK Islamophobic remarks are considered hate speech and an offense.

Mhaze, the Organisation of Islamic States has moved in the UN to get
the General Assembly to change the Human Rights to make Islamophobia
a criminal offense in member country's legislation.
It was moved by Pakistan if I remember correctly.
They have a majority assent but I think it is stalled somewhere.
Perhaps it needs a 2/3 majority.

Bazz, there are hundreds of documents claimed to be from God / Allah including the Book of Mormon another religion. However The Christian Cannon of 39 OT and 27 NT Scriptures has been selected writings from known sources of thousands of scripts written by Scribes, prophets and eye witnesses followers of Jesus. The Hebrew Torah of Judaism only contains 5 books written by scribes during the life and journey of Moses. There is no dispute about the history of Mohamed who was a murderer and polygamist and in civilized culture a pedophile, and to his followers a hero.

This article is current.
http://blog.canberradeclaration.org.au/2021/06/18/family-creates-freedom-which-is-why-soviet-russia-tried-to-abolish-it/?fbclid=IwAR1yOKXtVYT3sBbfrhUgc8PtIP9nrK1CG35dqKl4mAob92GgCpv-eU2EnSs

Quote,"Very few people talk of freedom and its relationship to responsibility. Over the centuries, family has revealed itself to be this kind of freedom; one that takes dedication, commitment and self-sacrifice. Family takes responsibility and even a level of self-restraint to hold back your own pleasures for the sake of others. This is what it means to be a loving father and mother. Yet what the family unit receives in return is an even greater freedom.

Our culture today that celebrates ‘free love’, denies this wisdom. Freedom becomes enslavement to wanton lusts, selfish ambition and emotional gratifications. In this way, freedom can become its own form of tyranny. Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, wrote:

“But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils: for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.”

Freedom requires wisdom and is built on virtue. Folly, vice and madness without restraint is tyranny in disguise. True freedom is found in the family unit. Nowhere has this been displayed with greater potency than in the Soviet Union."

Josephus,
I couldn't agree more !

mhaze,

Religious institutions are seeking protection
from attack. There's plenty on the web egarding
these issues which prompted my choice of subject
for this discussion - as I explained in my opening
post.

Our own forum has articles on the subject
(Articles section).

1) Recent attacks on the Christian Foundations of
Australia by Augusto Zimmermann.

2) What happens if we lose religious freedom?
Here's what few people realise - by Akos Balogh.

And - here's just one link as an example:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-religious-discrimination-debate-is-not-about-christians/11472040

Bazz,

You have to realize that the Old and New Testaments and
the Quran are neither the only literature in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam, nor do they constitute the sum
of these religions' teachings and protocols.

Samuel Osborne did an analysis and found that violence
is more common in the Bible than Quran. His text analysis
revealed. Here's the link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/violence-more-common-bible-quran-text-analysis-reveals-a6863381.html

Josephus,

I don't understand your attack of Muhammed.
So what if he committed sins. Didn't Jesus forgive sinners
if they repented? Besides wasn't Muhammad just the
messenger of God? In any case - I believe that the
Canberra Declaration is supposed to tolerate different
opinions and you're not supposed to be intolerant and
bigots against anybody - even Muhammad?

Oh Foxy, that is an old one !
Of course there are many stories of murder etc in the Bible.
The Koran and the Hadith and Sunna tell a lot more.
It is not so much of reports of history but the commands for the
believers to obey today.
ISIS justifies their actions on the Koran.
As do the ones that are gaoled on the thousands of cases in modern times.
Look what is happening in Nigeria and neighboring countries.

There is no other religion that is campaigning against Jews,
Christians and Zoroastrians. Where are all the Christians that used to
live in the Middle East.
There is just no comparison, Islam is the only religion that wants
you to convert or die. In some European countries they are already
seeing that starting. Even the police are afraid to enter ghettos.

Bazz,

Extremists and fundamentalists exist in every religion.
But continuing to make negative statements and singling
out just one is irrational. We've covered this territory
many times in the past and I really don't want to continue
this conversation with you because I realise that your
mind is made up. For me - there's enough hatred in the world
I have no desire to add to it.

If you want to continue to spread your rants against Islam
could you please start your own discussion. Thank You.

Foxy wrote:"Religious institutions are seeking protection
from attack. "

And then provides a series of articles or allusions to articles which specifically DON'T show religious institutions seeking protection from attack.

I sometimes wonder whether Foxy realises this and just tries to fudge it through or if subtlety is too subtle for her.

Take the link she offers. It's about the proposed "Religious Discrimination Bill". This is aimed at making "it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of a person’s ‘religious beliefs or activity’.”

Nowhere does it say it'll be illegal to criticise religion, just illegal to discriminate based on religion. So you can't have signs saying "No Muslims Allowed" or force Jews to wear yellow stars.

I doubt Foxy understands it, but making it illegal to discriminate based on religious belief ISN'T the same as banning criticise if said religion.

So again, the entie thread is based on a misreading of the facts.

mhaze,

I can't be held responsible for your interpretation
of the facts. But if you think it's "cool" to name call
people and it makes you feel superior - and your
self esteem needs propping up - that's fair enough.
Just remember to be perfect yourself - which for most people
is not so easy. Also, if you don't like my choices in
discussion topics, well as I've told some other objectors -
you guys are under no obligation to contribute.

Foxy,

I'm more than happy to take part in the discussion. My contribution is to bring the facts to the table. The fact is that religion, contra what you claim, are not generally seeking a situation "where they're protected from criticism or scrutiny."

You just think that because, ultimately you are, as has been amply shown, opposed to organised churches.
Organised religion (and here I excluding Mohammedanism)isn't seeking special privilege. They aren't seeking anything other than being left alone by the anti-Christian activists that invest or woke institutions these days.

Its a shame you don't see that.

I think Foxy's probably going to argue;
(and forgive me for speaking on your behalf Foxy if I'm wrong)
- That these Church run institutions (schools) still receive public money.

And because they receive public money, they can't discriminate based on religion;
Think - issues regarding gays etc.
They have to tow the secular line.
- And she'd have a fair point.

All I can say is that maybe some kind of rule changes or compromise has to be made, I don't know.

- But there are fair arguments on either side.

Dear AC,

Thank You for understanding.
You deserve a hug.

As Jesu8it priest Fr. Frank Brennan has made quite
clear - "religious freedom requires better protection
at a commonwealth level" for religious institutions.
He points out that "since the same-sex plebiscite
the challenge has been (for religious institutions)
balancing the right for religious educators - with the
right to non-discrimination for teachers and students."

Fr Brennan was a member of the "Religious Freedom Review,"
chaired by Philip Ruddock. Which was seeking pragmatic
solutions.

Foxy,

If protection against being offended is extended to gender and race issues, why is religion any different?

Note that I don't believe that causing offence should be criminalised.

Shadow Minister,

I tried to explain this in an earlier post.

One's religion does not fall into the same category
as one's sexual orientation, biological sex, or race
because people don't choose their race, sexual
orientation or biological sex. However they choose to
adhere to and believe in particular religious narratives.

There's no such thing as freedom from religious offense.
If you live in the West, you should accept that
your religious views are not sacrosant to those who do not
share your faith - so although you have every right to
practice your religious convictions (as long as they don't
harm others) the rest of us have every right to criticise
these beliefs.

This is a tricky thing to balance as we're seeing.
Hence the controversy

cont'd ...

Shadow Minister,

BTW: I do believe that religious schools should
not be able to discriminate against student on
the basis of their sexual orientation or gender
identity. But religious schools should remain
free to teach their doctrine respectfully. And the
law should make that quite clear.

However we all need to concede as Fr Brennan points
out that some religious teaching can be confronting
and upsetting.

This comment is really another repeat of one I've made before and is not really on topic but it is tentatively associated:

In some of the comments people are bringing up the gay gene defense again. Which is basically the argument that people are born that way so it is OK to be gay.

The problem with this is that many behaviours have a genetic element that act as precursors or prime people people to certain acts. And some of the these behaviours are considered undesirable by our society's current standards (ie: standards of the majority). For example:
1) there is a genetic component to male violence (this is a very common behaviour- it occurs in pretty much all mammalian species and it plays a major role in many mammals successfully mating- especially violence between rival males)
2) there is a common argument made that psychopaths are born that way - many psychologists/psychiatrists believe that psychopathic behaviour is so strongly genetically rooted it is simply untreatable and unavoidable
3) there are most likely genes that predispose some to pedophilia
4) there is possibly a genetic basis to homophobia. The hard evidence to this rather scant and is not as conclusive as the above three because it is a tabooed research subject in today's political climate and very few studies have been done. But the fact that it occurs in almost all societies and that it is a trait that wouldn't decrease the chances of reproduction add weight to the few scientific genetic investigations that support it.

Now if you accept solely the gay gene argument as the basis for accepting homosexual behaviours then you must accept genetic based inclinations as justification of these above example behaviours if you wish to stay logically consistent. And this is why using the gay gene argument is a terrible idea.

A better (and what I believe is the proper ethical way) to argue whether a behaviour is/isn't acceptable or is not to consider what causes the behaviour but rather what the consequences of it are.

thinkabit,

Prof. Bill Sullivan's article published in
" The Conversation" makes for interesting reading.

Prof. Sullivan makes the point that:

"Sexual behavior is widely diverse and governed by
sophisticated mechanisms throughout the animal
kingdom. As with other complex behaviors, it is not
possible to predict sexuality by gazing into a DNA
sequence as if it were a crystal ball. Such behaviors
emerge from constellations of hundreds, perhaps
thousands of genes, and how they are regulated by the
environment."

He says that:

" While there is no single "gay gene,"
there is overwhelming evidence of a biological
basis for sexual orientation that
is programmed into the brain before birth on a mix of
genetics and prenatal conditions, none of which the fetus
chooses."

cont'd ...

thinkabit,

Here's the link:

http://www.theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764

Why should gayness be sacred but religion not?

Why should children be taught in schools that being gay is normal but religion is not?

In the past parents had to give their permission for sex education.

It is inevitable in a society that allows diverse views that these views will conflict- is someones right to say something more important than someones right not to hear it.

You rights don't end where mine begin.

It seems that diversity policy is just a "tyranny of the unusual".

Thanks also for your post Josephus.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9518#321026

To Armchair Critic- I respectfully disagree here but the reasons are complex. I think your argument is based on the principle of separation of church and state. So if church and state are separate why does the state finance church schools. In a sense there seems to be some problems with the basic principle of separation of church and state- perhaps the US shouldn't have adopted it. The UK in a sense went the other way and made the head of state also the head of the church to resolve a conflict. This issue needs more untangling. In a sense gayness could be considered a philosophy broadly similar to religious philosophy. I would argue that a philosophy built on gayness however is prone to develop a malformed unstable community based on a flat structure whereas a religious community is designed with greater hierarchical stability.

I find an Existentialist perspective useful in analysing issues in European Philosophy such as Aesthetics which some see as inherently unanswerable. Belief may be existentially subjective but your senses will tend to adjust them.

Regarding Foxy's comment on the biological nature of gayness..

You perhaps could also say that belief in religion is biological.

We shouldn't be handing over our democratic rights to choose what we believe to the scientific elite- their roles is to do research and use it to inform not dictate debate- people can choose to believe it or not.

People should be careful about outsourcing thought and responsibility for their own to the scientific world.

My understanding of the current understanding of brain science with respect to sex is the study on mice. One researcher sliced mouse brain sections from males and females and placed them in sequence on film and played the film side by side and was able to clearly see a difference in the different sexes. It appears from this research that the womb testosterone "wavefunction" is relevant to brain development- but I suspect that there is much that isn't understood.

Human research in this area is more difficult due to accessibility of human brains. Over the years there have been different views within the medical community with respect to sex and brain development. The widely promoted Tabula Rasa Sex Theory was a bit of a disaster but it dealt with a difficult issue.

There is still much to understand about the brain and it's place within the community diaspora.

I suspect that depression and other psychological conditions can produce deceptive symptoms- that could be misinterpreted as so called biological gayness- especially if it's only means of diagnoses is by secondary effects.

Foxy,

Religion or religious culture is passed from parent to child, so while not genetic the assertion of free choice is tenuous.

However, you feel religion needs no protection and so anyone is free to criticise and insult Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, aboriginal spiritualists etc and they must just suck it up?

foxy I think you've missed the point of my post. Let me try again, but this time I'll use an analogy:

Imagine there are two neighbours, Tom and Bob. Tom works night shifts and goes to sleep after 1:00 in the morning, Bob is a tradie and has early starts.
Bob has started to learn drums and every morning for the past week has been banging away at daybreak. Tom has had enough of this because it keeps waking in up in the middle of this sleep, so he goes over to Bob and asks him to stop. Bob replies: "It's my property I'm playing the drums on and I'm allowed to do whatever I want on MY property- so f@#$-off!".
So Tom says to himself that he's gonna get this bastard. And goes to Bunnings to buy to most powerful spotlight that he can and installs it on the side of his house, aimed over the fence directly at Bob's bedroom window. That night when he comes home at 1:30, he flicks the light on and off continuously for half an hour. Tom wakes up very pissed off and shouts to Tom to stop it, to which Tom replies "It's my property I'm shining the light from and I'm allowed to do whatever I want on MY property- so f@#$-off!"

So, do you see the point here?: Tom is using the EXACT same justification that Bob did. So if Bob wants Tom to accept his excuse for playing the drums then to remain consistent and not be a hypocrite he must put up with Tom's spotlight.

Similarly if you use the genetic predisposition argument to justification gay behaviour (eg: gays are born that way so gay sex is acceptable) then someone who is homophobic can use it as well AND to remain consistent you MUST accept their arguemnt (eg: homophobic people are born that way so homophobic tirades are acceptable). But worse, its not just homophobic behaviour you'll have to accept but ANY that have some genetic element, eg:male violence

-- continued below --

-- from above --

Now as I said at the end of the last post: a better way to decide whether an action should be acceptable or not is to concentrate on the consequences (positive and negative) of the action and not the cause. In the case of gay sex the consequences are almost non-existent to those not involved (although there is the fact that male gays have higher rates of AIDS/HIV than the general population and this has consequences that society bares, eg: increases in health care costs. But compared to costs that society pays for some other actions, eg: violent crime, the cost is probably negligible)

I've just finished reading the recent posts
from Canem Malum, Shadow Minister and Thinkabit and I
am truly impressed. You have all raised such valid
points. Thank You so much. There's a great deal to
think about. And I am grateful for the time and effort
that you've all taken to respond here and the points
that you have raised. It's made me look at things
from different perspectives.

There's nothing more that I can say - except once again -
Thank You.

cont'd ...

I have tried to present various points of view
to the best of my ability to broaden the
discussion. From my own personal perspective -
I would not dream of criticising anyone's
religious beliefs - unless they cause harm.
And I am a member of a religious institution.
I would find my life difficult - not to be.

Anyway, Thank You once again for your thoughts.
For me this discussion has now run its course.

The homosexual community is on a cleft stick here. On the one hand that want to perpetuate the story that its all decided by genetics and they don't choose their sexual preference.

But if that's the case then clearly science will eventually find the gene or genes that cause homosexuality and then....

Well for a start those of a certain faith will be gene testing everyone to see who has got the gene/s and then doing gravity experiments off 8 story buildings with them...http://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.explicit.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Fij2OUlD5e-BRbzZQljRVwHaEL%26pid%3DApi&f=1

Whatismore, science somewhere will then develop a pre-natal test and abortions of prone fetus will become de rigeur in many (most?) parts of the world.

Personally I think the evidence for a gay gene/s is pretty low. But if there is one or a group then, once discovered, gay-ity will be eradicated pretty quickly.

So the QWERTY crowd may wish to think that they were just born that way but it may well be a case of 'careful what you wish for'.

Perhaps we shpuld have a separate discussion on the causes of
homosexuality and genetic science

It’s OK to criticise someone’s religion but it is dangerous particularly if one has a go at the Muslim religion.

Is Mise,

Not everyone would agree with you:

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/the_10_worst_examples_of_christian_or_right_terrorism_partner/

cont'd ...

Here's the link again:

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/the_10_worst_examples_of_christian_or_far_right_terrorism_partner/

Hi Foxy,

Some on here like to ignore white extremism, its not part of their narrative. Can't criticize what's yours, now can one.

A little story, out and about yesterday, yum cha and the NZ movie 'Cousins'.

There was this Aboriginal bloke sitting on a seat playing a CD (Jonny Cash), singing along with his music (badly but not that loudly), cap on ground for a few bob. Two white teenage youths, start abusing the bloke, "your singing is crap, you're a dog", stuff like like that. Stopped by the commotion like others, this white old chook says to her buddy; "People like that, should be moved on." I say to her; "You're right madam, that pair of sh!ts should be mover on" I knew exactly what she meant. She replies; "Not the boys, the black man making trouble"...I said "Where do you want him moved on to, your house?", no reply. The wife said; "Paul you're a stirrer," With that I dropped a couple of bob in his cap" "Thanks mate" he said doing no harm.

Dear Paul.

Thanks mate indeed. I'd have given you a hug if I was there!
And a big raspberry to that old bag!

Dear Paul,

Talking about bad behaviour. My husband drove to our old
house (which we've recently sold) a couple of days ago
and was horrified to see that someone had tried to break in.
They managed to climb part of the fence and spray painted
messages in black paint on our shed in the backyard.
Well - it doesn't really matter that much to us - because
the people who've bought the house are going to demolish
everything and build their own on our property.

Mu husband fixed the fence and asked the agent to take down
the sold sign on the house which he did.

In the meantime my husband yesterday noticed that our
neighbours had put up a brand new fence which they had
painted in a lovely neutral colour - and low and behold -
the thugs had spray painted on their new fence as well.
In the same sort of writing and black paint as on our shed.

Our neighbours are pensioners - so this would have been
a big investment for them to build that fence. There's a
high school just down the street from us so my husband
suspects its the kids from the high school that did it.
But how do you prove anything?

So mean.

Hi Foxy,

Love 'street art' hate mindless graffiti.

While on story telling, you'll love this one, even those on the bones of their arse can have a sense of humour.

Walking to catch the train near Central Station Sydney one Saturday avo. As we approach a young Aboriginal guy and his girlfriend sitting on the pavement he says; "5 bucks for a cup of coffee"...I say what's happened to the good old dollar for a cuppa"? He says; "Inflation mate, who gets a cup of coffee for a dollars, besides I like a mug"...Being flippant I said; "Do you take Eftpos?"...."Sure do, got a machine in my pocket, got to keep up with the times". We had a good chat, missed our train, and Te gave them all the cash and coins she had on her, not a lot, but she does that. The young guy was a hoot, should have taken up a career as a comedian.

Dear Paul,

Great story.

I've got one for you as well.

I may have told this one a few years ago.

I remember the evening I was on my way to class when
I got stopped by a student in a tunnel near the railway
who came up behind me and held something in my back
that felt like a gun asking me for my money. Strangely
I wasn't scared and told him I didn't have much - but
he could have it except to leave me enough for a cup of
coffee because I had double lectures that night one
after the other.

He did leave me enough - took my money and went on his way.
Well I saw him on campus the next day carrying a huge
portfolio of art work. He did not recognise me. I
recognised him though. But of course I did nothing more.
I suspect he was zonked out the previous evening. His
eyes had been glassy. I was lucky not to have been
mugged - but it was weird that I wasn't at all scared.

Some facts about the Christian scripture.

Had the Bible been written by a single person at a single time, the sheer amount of cross-references [63,779] would be amazing. However, the reality that the Bible was written by forty human authors over the span of 1500 years on three different continents in three different languages points to the jaw-dropping reality of the Bible’s divine inspiration.

The Bible is complex, diverse, and intricate, and yet it has one unified message: God lovingly forgives, redeems, and changes all sinners who accept Jesus as their Saviour for the purpose of His glory!

Foxy
Just Google world terrorist attacks by Muslims and you’ll see that the Muslims are by far the most dangerous religious mob today.

Is Mise,

I've already done my research on that subject.
There are fundamentalists and extremists in
every religion as we all know. My religion
tells me not to judge people. I take them as I find them.

cont'd ...

The media does not help. They'll print what's newsworthy
and sells. Of course there are troubled areas in the
world - with troubled histories. These need to be taken
in the context in which they exist. We're lucky to live
in a country that does not have these problems. And
the Muslims that I've encountered here have been
lovely people. So as I said - I am in no position to
judge anyone else.

Foxy What double standard and hypocrisy, you ask is it Ok to critique another's religion, then state you will not judge another's religion. Obviously you critique everyone on this forum and their views, what a sly fox you are.

Josephus,

Not all terrorists are Muslim neither are all Muslims terrorists.
I did clarify that it is alright to criticize someone's
irrational beliefs which are dangerous and do harm to others.
And those are the beliefs of fundamentalists and extremists.
It is wrong to put all Muslims into the one box - and view them
in a negative way. To do the same thing to extremist Christians
who sexually abuse children, bomb abortion clinics and so on
would also be wrong to blame Christianity for the actions of a
few nutters.

Foxy,

Muslim’s and their politic/religion produce the worst terrorists in today’s world.

They are the world’s major terrorists just look up the numbers and they are the most dangerous to criticise. ''

Is Mise,

By all means criticize terrorists and extremists
for their irrational and dangerous beliefs.
But if the criticism is too general and sweeping
all members of a particular faith community
may be thought of in the same negative way.
That will unleash greater intolerance and
discrimination - which would not be fair.

So the only religion you will criticize are terrorist beliefs, not people who hold those views privately. Obviously you cannot critique a religion on the tenants of a religion claims to be practiced only on the people who practice its tenants. Then you do not understand religion, and the heart of its message, just people who are nominal believers.

Josephus,

I have made my views in this discussion quite clear.
Perhaps you need to re-read them in order to understand
what I am saying. You seem to be more interested in
quickly replying - then in understanding - so perhaps
continuing this conversation with you is really pointless.

Foxy can you answer, Is it wrong [a moral act] to critique another's religion? According to you; No if they are humane and yes if they are a terrorist. So you are not evaluating the written tenants of the religion just the behaviors of extremists. So the question should read: is it wrong to critique the behaviors and beliefs of terrorists.

It is wrong to mock religious beliefs as mocking is insulting and often hurtful whereas criticism, if done politely can be tolerated by those who are not extremists.

Mockery can lead to retaliation completely out of touch with ordinary values, witness Charlie Hebdo in France.

Josephus,

I've already stated my views on this discussion.
A distinction should be made between hate
speech which amounts to an attack on a
religious group that is sufficiently hateful or
extreme and may incite violence and a critique
on the group's beliefs which should be permitted
under freedom of expression.

A person's religious beliefs should not exist in an
impenetrable and inviolable bubble where they are
protected from criticism or scrutiny. Beliefs can
be irrational, unfounded and dangerous.

That's why we have hate speech laws. They protect against
calls for violence against groups or individuals.
("Lets kill Jews, they are the enemies of God")
On the other hand, to crticize religious beliefs should
never be construed as illegal hate speech unless we give
up our most fundamental human rights such as freedom
of conscience (which includes freedom from religion)
and freedom of speech.

People have every right to practice their religious convictions
as long as they don't harm anyone. and the rest of us have every
right to criticize these beliefs.

There's no such thing as freedom from religious offense.
If you live in the West, you should not accept that your
religious views are sacrosanct to those who do not share
your faith.

What I was objecting to were sweeping generalizations
about Muslims that tarred all Muslims with the same brush.
They don't all practice their religion in exactly the same
way. And the radical views belong to extremists -and
fundamentalists - who exist in all religions.

cont'd ...

To try to prevent criticism of religion is virtually
impossible. Ironically it serves to unleash greater
intolerance and discrimination.

Foxy

But is it OK to mock someone’s religion?

Is Mise,

I've stated that people have every right to practice their
religious convictions as long as they don't harm anybody.
And people also have every right to reject, mock, and
criticize these beliefs.

Personally, I would not do that and I am sure that neither
would you.

Foxy said, "And people also have every right to reject, mock, and
criticize these beliefs".

So it is a human right to reject, mock and criticize. but she denies that you might exercise your human right. She is incoherent and irrational, on what is a moral right. I do not believe she is the arbiter of truth and rights. For her everyone beliefs are true unless they are radicalized by their beliefs and become violent. She has no established world view that gives her convictions and directions.

That is why I judge her world view as non directional and lacking conviction. Like peeing into the wind and not having the sense to turn around.

Foxy
Mocking is insulting and I do not think that anyone should be insulted about their religious beliefs.

.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote :

« Foxy said, "And people also have every right to reject, mock, and criticize these beliefs".

So it is a human right to reject, mock and criticize. but she denies that you might exercise your human right. »
.

What Foxy wrote to Is Mise, Josephus was : “Personally, I would not do that, and I am sure that neither would you”.

That is not a “denial”, Josephus. Denial means : “the action of declaring something to be untrue” (OED). Nobody suggested that Is Mise “might exercise [his] human right” and “reject, mock and criticize” someone’s religion – not even Is Mise himself.

Foxy is not “denying” something. She is simply expressing her personal conviction of what Is Mise might or might not do, knowing him as she does.

I, for example, am a Christian. I have been baptised and confirmed. I was an altar boy for many years in my childhood and some of my lifetime friends are Anglican priests. One is now a retired bishop. He was my religious instruction teacher in primary school.

I studied and investigated the god hypothesis most of my life expecting that I would eventually become convinced that there really is a god, but arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion. It came as a bit of a shock to me. I finally saw the light. Everything became clear.

The overwhelming creative and destructive power, force, energy, and beauty of nature had inspired primeval man to imagine a supernatural world peopled with supernatural beings to whom they submitted themselves, offering gifts and sacrifices to placate them and obtain their favours. Successive generations subsequently embellished and reinforced the hypothesis adapting it to their circumstances and inspiration, down to present-day religious beliefs and practices.

I place an extremely high value on my fundamental human right to freedom of expression, but, like Foxy, while I have the right to “reject, mock and criticize” religion, I have neither the slightest obligation nor desire to do so.

.

Not all religious beliefs are mainstream, for example The Church of Euthanasia believes the world is over populated and humans should eat unborn babies, their slogan is; "Eat a Queer Fetus for Jesus". One can agree, disagree, or openly criticise such a belief. The Church also believes; "Save the Planet, Kill Yourself", although it appears most disciples of the religion are yet to mark that supreme sacrifice.

Should they come a knocking on your door, how would you respond?

(a) Eat a fetus when offered.
(b) Kill yourself as directed.
(c) Use language I cant type here

Dear Banjo,

Thank You.

Josephus,

Religion is considered by many people to be part
of the vast diversity and richness of human
culture. On the other hand when religious people develop a

"God is on our side," missionary complex and suddenly feel
free to start imposing their specific ideas about morality
on others generally acting like self-righteous fanatics,
it is entirely proper to have a close and indeed critical
look at their beliefs.

Hi Foxy,

"God is on our side," only when we go to war, then we can legally, and with God's grace kill women and children.

As my Old Man would say; "Son, a bloke that believes God is on his side is a very dangerous bloke, because he believes he can do no wrong." True.

Up to no good this morning, boiling a few salted Mutton Birds, Te Aroha gets them this time of the year from the Aboriginal fellas down in Bass Strait, who harvest them, a big thanks to Mutton Bird Mick down south. Not to everyone's taste, but sure beats the hell out of Rotten Corn, another on of God's gifts to the Maori people. Ah well the puha will go in shortly.

Paul,
I thought that you were joking but then I Googled and came up with the fact that you were absolutely serious. I would opt for “c”.

Back to generalities, I see mocking a persons religious beliefs as a form of intolerance. '

I see Banjo's view of god is small is the reason he failed in his search, I believe in the God of the DNA creation and the complexity of natural organic chemistry and the redemption of the human spirit.

.

Dear Josephus,

.

Naturally, I fully respect your right to believe in “the God of the DNA creation and the complexity of natural organic chemistry and the redemption of the human spirit”.

I think it is worth recalling here the general comment adopted by the Human Rights Committee of the CCPR (Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) in 1993. Paragraphs 1 & 2 stipule as follows :

[ 1. The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (which includes the freedom to hold beliefs) in article 18 is far-reaching and profound; it encompasses freedom of thoughts on all matters, personal conviction and the commitment to religion or belief, whether manifested individually or in community with others. The Committee draws the attention of States parties to the fact that the freedom of thought and the freedom of conscience are protected equally with the freedom of religion and belief. The fundamental character of these freedoms is also reflected in the fact that this provision cannot be derogated from, even in time of public emergency, as stated in article 4 (2) of the Covenant.

2. Article 18 protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. The terms belief and religion are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions. The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reasons, including the fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that may be the subject of hostility by a predominant religious community. ]

http://undocs.org/CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4

As it seems a bit silly to define myself by reference to belief in something that does not exist, I prefer to consider myself an ordinary person (rather than an “atheist”).

“Freethinker” might also be an acceptable term were it not for its somewhat pretentious connotations.

However, my mind remains open to any new evidence that may be forthcoming sometime in the future, Josephus.

.

Dear Banjo,

How easy it is and seemingly noble to protect thoughts and beliefs, but this is only a lip-service into the protection of religion, because religion is so much more than just thoughts and beliefs - it manifests in actions (e.g. worship and rituals) and perhaps even more importantly in the abstinence from other proscribed actions.

Now understanding this, how is it possible to truly protect religion?

Since it is very difficult, perhaps even impossible to discern which actions and abstentions are religious in nature and which are not, the only way I can see, is for the powers of the land (presently states and their governments) to err on the side of caution and never forcibly interfere in the actions of people, lest they accidentally interfere with their religion.

«it seems a bit silly to define myself by reference to belief in something that does not exist»

I would find it silly to define oneself by reference to any belief, regardless whether its object(s) exist or otherwise: beliefs can come and go as indeed occurred in your own personal history, but you (initially the believer then the unbeliever) have not changed, you are still exactly the same you!

[continued...]

[...continued]

Please allow me to present an analogous example where believing in something which does not exist is not silly at all:

Suppose you go to the cinema for the first time in your life and arrive a bit late, so when you arrive the movie is already showing. Someone once told you that the movie is being shown over a screen, but all you can see are people and houses and animals and trees and mountains, etc. etc. - there's lots of action but you cannot see a screen!

You nudge your neighbour and ask:
"where is the screen? is it in this man?"
- No.
"is it in this woman then?"
- No.
"Is it in what they wear?"
- No.
"Is it inside the house, in the furniture perhaps?"
- No.
"Is it out in the fields?"
- No.
"Perhaps it is in the mountains beyond?"
- No.
"Then it must be in the sky"
- No.
"Well, I already mentioned all possibilities, there is nothing else which means that the screen does not exist!"

Yet when the movie ends and the lights turn on, the screen's presence becomes undeniable. Even while the movie was screening, everyone saw the screen: some spectators believed in it while others did not, yet the screen was there all along and for all to see. Many movies were screened over that one screen, some comedies, some tragedies, some thrillers, some documentaries, yet without the screen none of them could be presented.

This is only an analogy of course, but the best one I know that tries to explain God.

Yuyutsu,
You leave me speechless !

Hi Yuyutsu,

A bit confused with a couple of points in your post above.

<<religion is so much more than just thoughts and beliefs - it manifests in actions>>

<<the only way I can see, is for the powers of the land (presently states and their governments) to err on the side of caution and never forcibly interfere in the actions of people, lest they accidentally interfere with their religion.>>

News has it that 'The Church Of The Holy Orgy' plans to sacrifice an infant child at 10am this morning as part of their rituals. This has been well publicised, the parents who are church members have given consent etc. Question; should the State err on the side of caution and not interfere with these peoples religion

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « How easy it is and seemingly noble to protect thoughts and beliefs, but this is only a lip-service into the protection of religion because religion is so much more than just thoughts and beliefs - it manifests in actions (e.g. worship and rituals) and perhaps even more importantly in the abstinence from other proscribed actions »
.

Freedom of religion is much more than protecting just “ thoughts and beliefs”. I suggest you read the general comment of the Human Rights Committee of the CCPR to which I posted a link in my previous post – articles 7 & 8 in particular.

The prescription for freedom of action is as large as possible – provided it is not immoral, does not encroach on the freedom of others, and causes no harm.
.

2. « …beliefs can come and go as indeed occurred in your own personal history »
.

No, Yuyutsu, belief [in the supernatural] did not “come and go” in my “personal history”. I reserved my judgment all my life until I finished studying the question. I never ceased being “an ordinary person” (or “freethinker”). It was only when I understood how the concept of the supernatural and the god hypothesis came about that I was able to conclude that there was no supernatural nor God. They were simply the best explanation of life and the universe that primeval man was capable of conceiving at the time, given his limited possibilities.

And although those primitive explanations have since been largely superseded by modern science, I realised that it would be many more generations before most people could possibly apprehend and accept that reality. The primeval beliefs had become so deeply and firmly embedded in the human psyche and culture, they represented a quasi-insurmountable existential barrier for the large majority of humanity.
.

3. God as a cinema screen …
.

I too see God as a cinema screen, Yuyutsu – regrettably, nothing more than a cinema screen – on which people project their personal faith, hope, and trust.

.

"At its spring general assembly last week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voted to move ahead on the drafting of a statement on “the Meaning of the Eucharist in the Life of the Church.” The proposed document would discuss, among other topics, the question of Eucharistic worthiness — when to restrict public figures from receiving Communion due to their disagreements with church teachings." - Washington Post.

This is squarely aimed at the Catholic president Joe Biden and his support for the 'Pro Choice' movement for women on abortion in the US. Biden is a practicing Catholic and some are concerned with this attempt by the Church hierarchy to influence political policy by withholding the important sacrament of communion from Biden. BTW The Catholic Church in America has no problem administering communion to convicted mass murders.

Hi Paul,

Well I guess that answers my question -
"Is it wrong to criticize religion."

In this case - a definite - NO!

I remember the time Cardinal Pell refused to give
communion to gays at St Marys Cathedral in Sydney.

Cringeworthy action for a supposed follower of Christ.

Paul you claim Biden is a practicing Catholic, this is false, he does not accept the tenants of the Catholic faith when he takes taxpayer money to fund 1,000 abortions each day and the use infant body parts for science. Biden justifies the murder of 365,000 innocent lives each year and hales those that perform this murder as heroes. He is worse than any ritual sacrifice of a child in the name of your religious example. Child sacrifice happens by the 1,000 each day in America. Biden does not protect the innocent.

Religion as Yuyutsu says also involves acts, it is the life lived.

What is it that Muslims do exclusively with their left hands?

US President Joe Biden rules for the entire nation
not just for the people of his faith. He therefore
has to abide and uphold the laws of the land. He
practices his faith in private. A man who attends
Mass weekly and regularly speaks of his faith.

The resolution by the US Catholic Bishops would be
non-binding and President Joe Biden's Church in
Washington, the Jesuit-run Holy Trinity seems
unlikely to heed the guidance.

The Supreme Court is poised to consider the national
legality of the procedure. It is a subject that seems
destined to become contentious. The Vatican does not
approve of the resolution.

Is Mise,

The same thing that the Christians do with both
hands.

cont'd ...

Is Mise,

And you said that to mock someone's religion
was a sign of intolerance?

What is it that Muslims do exclusively with their left hands?
is Mise,
Hold food while they cut it with the right hand ?

No, Foxy we Christians use paper.

Foxy,
Getting stuck into Pell again?

Pell refused Communion to practicing homosexuals, he didn’t have any choice under Church law.

Suggest that you educate yourself a bit before you write about religion.

Josephus,

Well, I'll take you word about your use of paper.

And talking about mockery and tolerance -

I remember the old adage - about not being
able to polish a turd. But you can cover
it in glitter.

Nice try.

Is Mise,

Actually I'm not having a go at Pell. His actions
don't need my help.

And it is not Church law.

cont'd ...

Is Mise,

Ask Fr. Brennan.

There will be a lot more criticism of a certain religion in the suburban area where a mosque has been given a court OK to start the call to prayer racket at 5am instead of 7am. Once again a minority wins. St. Gladys, now doing what all the other premiers have done with lockdowns, will probably exempt them from covid rules as well.

Who’s mocking?
Muslims fasten the cuff button on the right sleeve the same as the rest of us; get your minds up.

Is Mise,

God made a few perfect people.

The rest of them are right-handed.

Life without left-handed people wouldn't be right.

And lefties are in the their right minds.

Foxy,
When Pell refused communion to homosexuals in St Mary’s they were engaged in a protest and he quite rightly refused to play their game.
You left that little bit out.

Dear Paul,

You have every right to criticise the Church Of the Holy Orgy and so would I (though on theological grounds rather than social).

But physically interfering and preventing their practices is a different matter.

May I make the bold assumption that a group of such nature never willingly forged any so-called "social contract" with Western/Christian-based society or their State as representative? If they did then it completely changes the picture, but here I assume that they did not.

Had one of your own people been "sacrificed" then surely you should intervene in self-defense. Had the sacrificed child or his/her other parent asked for your shelter, then too you should intervene, same if God told you to save that baby, either directly or through a true prophet. But given none of these happened, you are at risk of disrupting a religion and you must not do so.

One common and inconclusive theological debate regards Abraham and his willingness to sacrifice his most beloved son, Isaac. You may take a stand, you may try to convince him otherwise, but you may not forcibly stop Abraham who, by God's instructions, left his country, family and society to walk to the place where God showed him.

Are you aware that Jews still perform a mitigated form of child-sacrifice? Even today, a Jewish father is obliged to gift his 30-day old firstborn son to a priest. In practice, the father immediately buys back his son for the equivalent of 104 grams of silver (around $115).

Your example of child-sacrifice is indeed extreme.
We better look at more benign practices and better so, at abstention from certain actions.

Suppose for example, there was a tribe where naming people was religiously proscribed. People there lived happily and peacefully without names: I can actually see the spiritual merit of that. Assuming they just lived on the land and never asked you for any favours (such as welfare to go into the bank-accounts which they obviously cannot have), won't you agree that it would then be very wrong to persecute/prosecute these people for having no valid birth-certificates?

Dear Banjo,

1.«The prescription for freedom of action is as large as possible – provided it is not immoral, does not encroach on the freedom of others, and causes no harm.»

Nice in theory, but who is to decide what is or isn't moral?
Or what does the freedom of others include (say their "freedom" to rid the world of cows, including other people's cows)?
Or what indeed is harmful (in fact, the debates are raging about male and female circumcision and about the suffering of animals under kosher/halal methods of slaughter)?

2.«…beliefs can come and go...»

My original point was simply that, no matter how many times you (or others) change your mind (which I understand that you did at some stage in your life), you are still you, your identity never changed as a result, only your mind. Hence, since our mind is liable to change, it would be a mistake to try to define ourselves according to the beliefs in our mind.

3.«I too see God as a cinema screen, Yuyutsu – regrettably, nothing more than a cinema screen – on which people project their personal faith, hope, and trust.»

"Nothing more"? is that a small matter?

In this analogy, there is nothing real but the screen: the screen is permanent and real whereas the projected characters and their whole drama are just a fleeting display of lights.

The spectators, so identified with the movie, temporarily forget their physical bodies that sit on hard chairs in the auditorium and think of themselves as these fleeting creatures of light: the characters' faith and hopes and trusts becomes their faith and hopes and trusts, so does the characters' fears and pains temporarily become the spectators' fear and pains.

Wisdom means, to always see the screen, no matter what drama is being displayed on it.
Wisdom means, to see God in everything, no matter the circumstances of one's life and body.

call to prayer racket at 5am instead of 7am.
ttbn,
If the people there are so stupid to tolerate that then I suggest the Mosque makes the call even earlier say, 3 am ?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You ask :

« Nice in theory, but who is to decide what is or isn't moral?
Or what does the freedom of others include (say their "freedom" to rid the world of cows, including other people's cows)?
Or what indeed is harmful (in fact, the debates are raging about male and female circumcision and about the suffering of animals under kosher/halal methods of slaughter)? »
.

Democratic courts of justice settle disputes.
.

You state :

« … it would be a mistake to try to define ourselves according to the beliefs in our mind. »

I don’t see it as a mistake. I do not like labels, but the question often arises, sometimes even in casual conversation, regarding religious belief.

As I indicated in my previous post, for most of my life, I reserved my judgment on whether to believe or not in the supernatural and God until I had finished studying the question. During all those years I replied that I considered myself to be just an ordinary person.

When I finally came to the understanding that there was no God nor supernatural, I did not adopt the term atheist because I thought it was a bit silly to define myself by reference to belief in something that did not exist. I felt that “freethinker” would be more appropriate, but it sounds a bit pretentious, so I tend to continue to say that I am just an ordinary person.

I never had any religious belief, despite my very long, and intensive Christian background, and since my enlightenment, just a few years ago, I now know that there is nothing to believe.

I have not had “a change of mind” as you suggest. If anything, I have had confirmation that I was right in not believing “blindly” by putting the cart before the horse as it were. I took my time, the best part of my life, to study the question thoroughly. I felt that it was too important to take lightly.

Now that it’s settled, I can die in peace.

.

Foxy,

While all religions have extremist elements Islam has by far the most terrorist groups and murders. This combined with support for many of these groups from governments and adherents makes Islam a special case.

Their treatment of non-Muslims and minority groups is atrocious.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Re : God as a cinema screen …

Please be assured I understand your interpretation of the analogy, Yuyutsu. The problem is it is not the only possible interpretation. The interpretation I indicated is also possible.

Here is a little more about cinema screens :

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-screen1.htm

.

Shadow Minister,

Ali Rizvi writes:

"I don't believe Islam is inherently or necessarily
violent and I think a broad view of history justifies
that claim. But there is, at this moment an inordinate
amount of chaos springing out of the Muslim world.
Much of that is due to political and economic, social
and historical factors. And I'm sure some of it has to
do with specific religious doctrines."

However, as he points out - " I don't feel equipped to
assign weight to these causes and I'm about as far from
an authority on Islam as one can get, so I struggle to
say anything definitive or useful about these problems."

Perhaps we all should take a page out of his book?

There's more at the following link - explaining why we get it wrong about Islam:

http://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/7/7/15886862/islam-trump-isis-terrorism-ali-rizvi-religion-sam-harris

The ideas that occupy ones mind and the passions that produce actions and desires is one's religion, and it does not need to be theistic. Buddhism is a religion and is does not identify a being of god. Is it wrong to criticize another's religion? - religion in the general term means ones world view and what motivates one's behavior. Everyone is religious just their values are different, this results in different behaviour.

"I think that all of us have the right to believe
what we want, and we must respect that right, but that
does not necessarily mean we have to respect the
beliefs themselves." so writes Ali Rizvi in the link
I've cited.

He continues:

" As far as Islam is concerned we need to make a distinction
between Islamic ideology and Muslim identity and explore
how we can have an honest conversation about ideas and
beliefs without descending into bigotry against those who
might challenge or hold them."

The link is worth a read.

This is interesting-

Jordan B Peterson & Sam Harris Debate God

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK5M1BrQeG8

Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson - Vancouver - 1 (CC: Arabic & Spanish)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE

Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson - Vancouver - 2 (CC: Arabic & Spanish)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEf6X-FueMo

Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson & Douglas Murray - Dublin (CC: Arabic)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqpYxD71hJU

As others have said I too am a bit unsure about the integrity of Foxy's rhetorical style. She seems to ask a question then tells you what you should believe rather than trying to understand why you believe what you do and demonstrate her understanding. Others have said 'seek first to understand'.

I would argue that Christianity has pre-emminence in Australia because it is part of British culture- in just the same way that Buddhism is pre-emminant in China and Tibetan Buddhism in Tibet.

Change is always difficult- Marx came to believe that revolution was necessary to change- there is a balance between tradition and change- without tradition society wouldn't exist-

"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land, doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the only thing that lasts."

The UN believes in it's own preeminence over the entirity of human history and existence in the CCPR and otherwise- in it's attempt to manage power in the world it invalidates it's own- project creep- power justifies more power- but is it justified.

Contemporary thought is to favour the individual over the group- perhaps there should be more of a balance- should the individuals rights trump the traditions of the church? The individual and the church are both entities (for example Legal Entities). Where one entities rights end doesn't start the rights of the other.

The appeal to the individual gives an excuse for enemies to deconstruct traditions. These enemies often show their hand though their inconsistency

The appeal to freedom doesn't work either- the classic "On Liberty" (negative freedom) by John Stuart Mill questions these ideas and seems to acknowledge that "everything affects everyone" and so the idea that "you should be free to do that which doesn't harm others" doesn't hold- because everything you do affects and harms others. Some balancing appears necessary. Aristotle's view of freedom (positive freedom) was more about responsibility.

In a sense everyone has their own "religion" whether it's Christianity, Buddhism, Gayness, 'Scientific' Positivism/ Empiricism, Communism, Existentialism, Islam. Most of them believe in
proselytizing and territorial dominance and expansionism.

The way I see out of this paradox is by soft power- the demonstration that your community is more 'successful' than others- whatever that means. And by keeping your house (and community) clean and staying out of others business.

The British diaspora is the only one in which I want to live

I was reading that (after Alexander the Great) on the Silk road for hundreds of years the ancestors of the Islamic peoples killed our ancestors Roman diplomats who were trying to find a route to China.

Many years later there's a new paradox due to the conflict between oil resources and Middle East self determination- perhaps we in the west need to find an alternative to Middle East oil- but is this just another form of western tyranny in reality or perception.

Is Mise,

I've just read your comment on page 23.
No I did not forget to mention that
people were engaged in a protest. I
didn't think it necessary as Pell's
stance against homosexuality was so well
known. The man was very aggressive in his
stance and he considered homosexuality more
dangerous than smoking.

Perhaps this was a
result of the history of his own personal behaviour
that he was hiding. Who knows.

Dear Banjo,

«Democratic courts of justice settle disputes.»

Unfortunately they can only settle disputes in accordance with the state's law.
Even if they wanted, courts have no ability/skills to determine which acts are religious and which are not.

The criteria you mentioned earlier was: "provided it is not immoral, does not encroach on the freedom of others, and causes no harm"

- following God's instructions [when indeed one does!] cannot be immoral, cannot encroach on the freedom of others and cannot cause any harm.

The problem is that we have no way to tell for sure whether one follows God's instructions as opposed to their own egoistic desires and/or delusions. Churches and like institutions cannot tell us either. Sometimes we can guess with high probability but we cannot tell for sure.

«I do not like labels, but the question often arises, sometimes even in casual conversation, regarding religious belief»

Not a problem: you can always say, "MY beliefs are such-and-such", so you clearly do not label yourself as you talk about your beliefs rather than about yourself.

Better say: "my thoughts are free/independent"
rather than: "I am a freethinker".

Better say: "my views are ordinary"
rather than: "I am an ordinary person".

If you like, you could even say, "My personality is quite ordinary", because this would only be describing your personality rather than label yourself and nail you down as a person.
(mind you, I do not find your personality ordinary...)

«Please be assured I understand your interpretation of the analogy, Yuyutsu. The problem is it is not the only possible interpretation. The interpretation I indicated is also possible.»

Please clarify where can I find your interpretation to the cinema-screen analogy.

In any case, the screen is only a metaphor, nobody in their right mind would state, "God is a cinema-screen". The point was to demonstrate how at times it can be reasonable to have faith in what does not exist, just as it makes sense for a spectator to have faith in the screen despite the fact that it does not exist anywhere in the whole movie.

Hi Josephus,

I dispute whether Buddhism is truly a religion, or a set of earthly principles to live ones life by. The confusion arise as religions also have a set of such earthly principles, generally imposed by the religion itself and not determined by the individual, as in the case of Buddhism. For the monotheistic, henotheistic and polytheistic belief systems, they can truly be identified as religions as they worship a supreme being or beings. Buddhism has no supreme being(s) to pay homage to, Buddha is not recognised as a god, but more or less an imparter of knowledge. Although a Buddhist can embrace religion if one so desires, and one can be an ordinary person like Banjo as well, with or without conflict between the two belief systems. I have gone through the basics of Buddhism and there is nothing there that conflicts with any mainstream religions philosophy of life, although I only have the Christian belief system which I am truly familiar with.

My wife may not be a typical example, but she embraces the principles of Buddha in her daily life without conflict, and has no problem going to the Buddhist temple, and at the same time being a practicing Christian (church every Sunday, also involved in church activities). She also supports the Maori beliefs in deities, a prayer to Tangaroa when one is boarding an aircraft doesn't get astray.

Someone is going to point out that the military junta in Myanmar are Buddhist, sadly like religious adherents, not all Buddhist are good Buddhist.

not all Buddhist are good Buddhist.
Paul1405,
Valid point just as most do-gooders aren't doing good !

Dear Paul,

Thank you for bringing the excellent example of Buddhism.

The fact is that what is religious is being disputed, always has.
What indeed comes from God, what indeed leads to God, there will probably never be an agreement about. This is being complicated by the fact that our personal circumstances are never exactly the same, thus the same outward action can help lead one to God while leading another away from God.

This could be different if we had a live trusted prophet available to tell us in each case, but we don't.

My opinion is that Buddhism IS a true religion for some, but not for others (say the military junta in Myanmar). I could say the same about Christianity. In particular, belief in supreme being(s) is not a compelling indication of religiousness, this way or the other.

This being the case, I advocate freedom to all, so as to err on the safe side and never oppress religious freedom, never obstruct anybody's path to God.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « Unfortunately, they [democratic courts of justice] can only settle disputes in accordance with the state's law.

Even if they wanted, courts have no ability/skills to determine which acts are religious and which are not. »

That’s correct, Yuyutsu. Democratic courts of justice cannot possibly be experts on everything. They appoint competent experts relevant to each particular case as and when required. However, the court remains the sole judge.
.

2. « following God's instructions [when indeed one does!] cannot be immoral, cannot encroach on the freedom of others and cannot cause any harm »

I understand that that is what the Islamists think. I am surprised that you think that too, Yuyutsu. Are you some sort of terrorist ?

As I indicated previously, disputes are settled by democratic courts of justice, not by some hypothetical, so-called “divine justice”.
.

3. Thanks for your suggestions on possible substitutes for labels but I think I’ll stick to what I have always said. Most people seem to accept it.
.

4. « Please clarify where can I find your interpretation to the cinema-screen analogy. »

Here is the link :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9518#321354

.

individual,

Ali Rizvi pointed out in the link I gave
earlier that religions are a set of beliefs,
a bunch of ideas in a book. They're not human.
Whereas the followers are real, living,
breathing people, and there's a big difference
between criticizing ideas and demonizing people.

Of course the scriptures of these religions have
inspired a lot of people to do good things but they
have also inspired a lot of people to do bad things
as well.

For example as Rizvi asks - do you know Jewish people
who eat bacon? He does. But does that mean that
Judaism is suddenly okay with bacon?
There's a difference between religion and people.
When someone says that most Muslims are very peaceful and
law abiding that they would not dream of violence that
does not erase all of the violence and the calls of
martyrdom and jihad and holy war against disbelievers
in Islamic scriptures.

cont'd ...

The same goes for Christianity and the vast
problem of child sexual abuse. It's the
actions of human beings that are at fault
in this instance - not the scriptures.

Are any of us really equipped to assign weight
to these complex issues. Are any of us authorities
on religion? Can we say anything definitive or
useful about these problems?

I'm no expert. And am consistently learning things
that I did not know.

Dear Banjo,

«Democratic courts of justice cannot possibly be experts on everything. They appoint competent experts relevant to each particular case as and when required. However, the court remains the sole judge.»

And who could the courts appoint in matters of religion?
Only those experts who can tell for certain what God is asking for in each particular case, that which will lead the followers to Him.
In other words, the courts would need to appoint prophets - but where would they find any?

«I understand that that is what the Islamists think. I am surprised that you think that too, Yuyutsu. Are you some sort of terrorist ?»

I don't consider all Islmaists to be authentic: many are just violent and corrupted people who believe in nothing and hitchhike the Koran to follow the evils of their own minds.

But I do indeed agree with any authentic Islamists on this point. However, I just think that they are deluded in believing as if God instructed them to kill and terrorise others, I think that the book they follow was not written by their prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, but by impostors who lived around 120 years after his death.

Looking again at your link:
«I too see God as a cinema screen, Yuyutsu»

Not literally, I hope, I was only presenting an analogy.

«regrettably, nothing more than a cinema screen – on which people project their personal faith, hope, and trust.»

Do you know anyone who projects their personal faith, hope and trust on a cinema screen? All that is being projected there is strong light after passing through a celluloid film. But I understand that an increasing number of people today place their faith, hope and trust in the screens of their little digital gadgets - had it gone that bad?

You do understand however, I think, that the screens of both kinds are far more real and permanent than the content that is being displayed on them!

We are not merely the body of flesh, we are the imprint we make into the physical world by our living. The body of flesh we have merely borrowed from the creatures and plants as well as water, air and chemicals that were here at the beginning. Every cell in our body is exchanged every 21 years so who we are is not the body. It is spirit - the eternal imprint we have made during our living. It is the character of who we are that is the reality of our identity. This makes us all responsible for how we have lived, in the eternal structure of things

Dear Josephus,

I applaud your observations.

What you wrote is beautiful and I would not want to detract from it. This is a huge step into knowing your true nature, but please do not stop here to rest on your laurels because there is even further depth and subtlety regarding the reality of our identity.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You ask :

1. « And who could the courts appoint in matters of religion? »
.

As I indicated previously, they appoint competent experts relevant to each particular case as and when required.

If there are no experts, then they have no alternative but to use their own best judgment, depending on the circumstances of the case and the terms of the applicable law.

Also, as I indicated previously, disputes are settled by democratic courts of justice, not by some hypothetical, so-called “divine justice”.
.

2. « I don't consider all Islamists to be authentic: many are just violent and corrupted people who believe in nothing and hitchhike the Koran to follow the evils of their own minds … I just think that they are deluded in believing as if God instructed them to kill and terrorise others »
.

Though you did not specifically say so, Yuyutsu, I presume that to mean that you are not a terrorist even though you agree that « following God's instructions [when indeed one does!] cannot be immoral, cannot encroach on the freedom of others and cannot cause any harm ».
.

3. « Do you know anyone who projects their personal faith, hope, and trust on a cinema screen? »
.

I’m sorry to have to say so, Yuyutsu, but I think that everybody who believes in the supernatural and a God or Gods is simply, and unconsciously, projecting their personal faith, hope, and trust on a cinema screen – analogically speaking, of course.

Once again, I confirm that I agree with your analogy of God as a cinema screen, but I do not agree with your interpretation of it.

Allow me to repeat once again that like you, I too see God as a cinema screen, Yuyutsu – but, regrettably, nothing more than a cinema screen – on which people project their personal faith, hope, and trust – analogically speaking, of course !

.

Yuyutsu, thank you! it reflects similar as light on your screen as the analogy. As actors on the screen of time. If we could travel faster than light we could observe in light years things of the past, recorded in light. Our lives are recorded in light for eternity.

Josephus,

How can your life be recorded in light when you are against
so many things in your faith and you believe that only your
way is the right way and that only your God is the right
God? And you demonize people who don't think like you.
I think your light is not shining very brightly at all.
You can take your soap box and go preach to the converted.

Foxy I hear your criticism and I know the facts bother you, because you live with everyone truth is Ok for them. Like Biden and Polosi attend Mass several times each week - good Catholics according to you. In the scheme of things fund the murder of thousands of innocent children.

Josephus,

Facts don't bother me.

Misinformation does.

Joe Biden and Pelosi (her I didn't mention) providing
funding for the murder of thousands of innocent
children?

You're going to have to provide evidence and hard facts
for that statement.

Foxy, this is from a campaign by "Students for Life" to unseat Nancy Polosi.

"Speaker Pelosi has been a thorn in the side of pro-lifers for decades. But since seizing control of the Speaker’s chair, she’s only become more extreme, including:
>>> Blocking the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would’ve saved the lives of little boys and girls born alive during a botched abortion;

>>> Pushing for repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which would force taxpayers to pay for all abortion;

>>> Passing legislation that would force groups like Students for Life Action to disclose the personal information of our supporters, leaving them open to targeted harassment from the cancel culture mob;

>>> Dodging when asked if she believed a preborn baby at 15 weeks was human. Instead she said she’s “a big supporter of Roe v. Wade;”

These are Catholic Students risking their life for the unborn.

Josephus,

Giving me biased links from extremists doesn't do it for me.
If you're so concerned about human life - why didn't you
protest the separation of children from their parents
under Trump? Why not protest against war and the taking of
human lives in other places. Abortion for most women is
the most difficult private matter that they will ever have
to make - it is none of anybody's business. Certainly not yours.
And would you rather these women resorted to backyard
abortions where both mother and baby dies?

Give it a rest. And believe what you want - but you don't
have the right to inflict your opinions on anyone else.
Stay out of matter that don't concern you.
You're coming across as a nutter.

Dear Banjo,

«If there are no experts, then they have no alternative but to use their own best judgment, depending on the circumstances of the case and the terms of the applicable law.»

Yes I know that this is what they do, and that is why I do not support them.
Why should anyone be willing to deposit their fate, their soul and their precious connection with God in the hands of such incompetent fellows?

«disputes are settled by democratic courts of justice, not by some hypothetical, so-called “divine justice”.»

We need not concern ourselves with divine justice because it will be carried out anyway: nothing can thwart it, including human courts of some hypothetical "justice".

«Though you did not specifically say so, Yuyutsu, I presume that to mean that you are not a terrorist...»

We have been discussing religion and God, not my personal circumstances.
If God wants you to become a terrorist, then you ought to become a terrorist. However, that is completely hypothetical because He does not!

«I confirm that I agree with your analogy of God as a cinema screen, but I do not agree with your interpretation of it.

I too see God as a cinema screen, Yuyutsu – but, regrettably, nothing more than a cinema screen – on which people project their personal faith, hope, and trust»

You are entitled to your views, but this is not a different interpretation of my analogy, but rather your own completely different analogy for something else, which just happens to also include a cinema screen. State your beliefs as you will, but the word "too" is misleading.

I am happy to be called a nutter because I believe more serious moral problems exist in society to cause unwanted pregnancies. Let us get the sexual abuse and lust under control, as abortion is violence against women and the sanctity of human life. You are happy to allow this genocide to continue, I am not. The evil exists because people like you will not speak out against this gross evil. You see it as none of others business, I see it is others business to stop murder of innocent lives.

From: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-unaccompanied-children-border-custody-record-19k/

Nearly 19,000 unaccompanied children entered U.S. custody along the southern border in March, an all-time monthly high that has forced the Biden administration to house migrant teenagers in convention centers, camps for oil workers and a military base, according to preliminary government data provided to CBS News.

The historic number eclipses previous record-high migration flows of Central American teenagers and children that strained the government's border processing capacity under Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump in 2014 and 2019, respectively. The previous all-time monthly high came in May 2019, when nearly 12,000 unaccompanied children arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border.

U.S. agents along the southern border carried out approximately 170,000 total apprehensions in March — a 70% increase from the previous month. Nearly 100,000 of those taken into custody were single adults, whom U.S. border officials have continued to swiftly expel to Mexico or their home countries under a public health authority first invoked by the Trump administration.

What is Biden doing with Children?

Josephus,

President Biden has done quite a lot. The following
link explains:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56255613

Did you know that in Trump's America a uterus was more
heavily regulated than an assault weapon?

Until the state or Church takes full responsibility for
a newborn, no bible is qualified to even offer a
suggestion on a woman's right to abortion.

Worse than abortion is birthing in instability.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« If God wants you to become a terrorist, then you ought to become a terrorist. However, that is completely hypothetical because He does not! »
.

Perhaps you will agree, Yuyutsu, that it is not possible to prove that there is a God or that there isn't a God.

Happily, some of us have the privilege of being able to choose either to believe or not believe that there is a God (or, perhaps, as many Gods as there are human beings). I consider that to be a privilege because most people do not have the possibility to choose. The choice has already been made for them by somebody else, usually, their parents. Their parents (or some other person) have (or has) brought them up in the belief that there is a God (or Gods) or that there is no God (or Gods).

Those people who are not able to choose have been influenced, educated, programmed, indoctrinated, or brain-washed – whatever we might like to call it. Their brains have been “hard-wired” like a computer but, unlike a computer, nobody, today, knows how to rewire human brains, in order to turn on the belief or turn it off at will, or, better still, restore their possibility to choose, themselves, whether to believe or not.

I spent the best part of my life studying the god hypothesis in my spare time and reserved my decision as to whether I should believe or not until I had completed my study. I finally arrived at the understanding that the god hypothesis was simply the best explanation of life and the universe that primeval man was capable of conceiving. The concept was then passed down to us, generation after generation, in a slightly more sophisticated form.

Unfortunately, it is no longer valid and has been largely superseded by modern science, though, admittedly, we still have a great deal to learn.

What about you, Yuyutsu ? How did you come to believe in God ? How do you know what He wants ?

.

So Foxy you are sprouting "Its a woman's right to take the life of her unborn". However there is events deeper that are happening here - no woman can become pregnant without fertilization from a man. That the pregnancy is unwanted is either from violence or lust, and indicates an undisciplined behavior. This means the religion [thoughts, values, actions] of those taking part in this is worse than the ancient child sacrifice to the gods of fertility. You want to excuse this as a human right - as a Christian this whole behavior indicates the evil destruction of a society. Only criminals use assault rifles against innocent people and that against their will, so it stands to reason that only criminals take the lives of the innocent. You are complicit in the murder of the innocent and call it a human right.

Josephus,

Women have abortions for a variety of reasons
not just the ones you indicate. There's cases
of the mother's life being in danger, of rape, incest,
and so on. I don't think that we are in any position to
be able to fully judge anybody's situation. And to call
it a criminal act because of our own religious beliefs
is not something that we should be doing.

In any case you and I could argue this and keep going
around in circles - and continue to finger-point
ad nauseum. It would be unproductive. You have your
religious beliefs. I have mine. Personally I would
never be capable of having an abortion. But at the
same time I would never judge anyone who did have one.

Have a nice day.

So much for rape or incest - fallacy
Fact:
A survey of more than 2.4 million aborting women performed by the states of Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota and Utah during the years 1996 to 2020 gives us an accurate estimate of the number of “hard case” abortions, since these are the numbers that abortion clinics must report in official documents to these states:

1.14% are done to save the life or physical health of the mother.
1.28% to preserve the mental health of the mother.
0.39% in cases of rape or incest.
0.69% for fetal birth defects, or eugenics.
3.50% for all the hard cases combined.
96.50% of all abortions are therefore performed for social or economic reasons

Dear Banjo,

Thank you for telling us about your glorious life journey.

Apparently you grew up in an environment where belief in "a¹ God (or Gods)" was expected. You searched far and wide for an object (or creature) that could fit the common description of "God", found none and finally concluded that there is no such thing.

I actually agree with you that there is no such thing: God is not a thing.

We are however, discussing here the protection of religion and so, the first question to arise is whether religion exists, for otherwise there is nothing to protect: Is there a path for everyone (not necessarily the same for each), a sequence, hopefully a pattern, of behaviours (including, but not limited to, thoughts and beliefs) by which one can approach and ultimately unite with God?

I previously brought the cinema-screen analogy to demonstrate that the existence of religion does not depend on the existence of God, hence I suggest that the latter be shelved and perhaps be kept for other discussions.

It could be that you believe that religion does not exist, in other words that it is impossible to approach and unite with God. Should that be the case, then it does not matter how we behave - for the result would be the same: death, total oblivion, and the eventual loss of everything we thrived for.

But if there is any positive probability that religion exists, small as it may be (0 < p <= 1), then the rational statistical approach is to guard it as the most precious thing, more precious than our lives even, because the statistical expectation in guarding religion is p*Infinity, whereas the statistical expectation in abandoning religion is (1-p)*0

Since we have no formula, no easy way to tell what behaviours, by a particular person in particular circumstances, are religious, I advocate that we err on the safe side by trying to protect all behaviours.

---
¹ The particle "a" (or "an") indicates that the following word is an object and that it is in singular: only objects can be enumerated.

Josephus,

Statistics aren't always accurate we already know that
many people who are raped or suffer from incest or
other difficulties don't always report their
incidents. Besides I can give you a link from the
Pro Choice Movement in America that points to the
hypocrisy of your pro-life stance.

They state that it's pretty hard to call yourself
"Pro Life" when for example the Republican Party is
working hard to:

1) Tear babies away from their parents and lock them in cages
with no plan to re-unite them.
2) Imprison or execute women who access safe abortion
care.
3) Silence doctors and strip reproductive health care away
from millions of low-income people.
4) Stand by while the maternal mortality rates sky rocket amd
women - especially Black women die in childbirth.
5) Deny affordable healthcare coverage to people with
pre-existing conditions.
6) Cut programs that feed hungry kids.
7) Block access to HIV testing and treatment.
8) Incite far-right violence with lies about abortion.

We could keep going on like this for a long time.
I however would appreciate your not addressing posts
to me any longer.

You are entitled to your views. As I am to rejecting them.
I have no wish to continue this discussion with you.
Such as it is.

cont'd ...

Josephus,

If you want to continue discussing abortion -
start your own discussion on the topic.
Kindly don't divert mine.

So we cannot critique your religion and things you hold as values. Conclusion - it is wrong to criticize someone's. in your view YES!.

Josephus,

Criticize my religion all you want.

I do.

But I don't force my beliefs onto other people.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

That's all very interesting, Yuyutsu, but you did not reply to my question at the end of my previous post on page 29 of this thread.

Here it is again :

« What about you, Yuyutsu ? How did you come to believe in God ? How do you know what He wants ? »

.

Dear Banjo,

«but you did not reply to my question at the end of my previous post on page 29 of this thread.»

I did not reply because my personal life story and capabilities are unimportant, nor relevant to this discussion.

Yuyutsu,

It would be lovely to learn just a little about your
background and what made you turn to God would also
be inspiring but of course if it's too personal to
share - we understand.

My own background comes from my family. My dad was raised
by Jesuits - and he studied for the priesthood until he met
mum. However religion has always played a huge part in our
family's lives. I started to drift away - as I grew older
and began to question things. I still do.

It was when I was diagnosed with cancer and had several
operations and procedures - that my life changed and I
found turning again to God had a calming effect. Life
without a belief in God would have made my life more
difficult.

I keep my views private - and I certainly am not out to preach
or convert anybody. However I do find that prayer helps me
to remain centered.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for your kind comment.

One thing is that, I simply cannot remember what blessed me to turn to God because it was lifetimes ago, I cannot even tell how many. There is just no way that I could have been born with such an interest in God (despite the resistance of my family) had it not been due to my spiritual efforts in previous lifetimes.

The second thing is that I do not wish to publish identifying information on the internet.

The third thing is that I do not want to reduce this forum into some kind of a social media. There is enough of that disease elsewhere.

I appreciate your understanding and I also appreciate your information about your own life. Indeed, prayer is good - please keep it up!

Yuyutsu,

Thank You for your response. I understand.
I shall keep up my prayers. They've become
a part of what I do. From your name "Yuyutsu"
I assume that you are of Indian ancestry.
I hope that your life has not be a fight as
the name suggests. And that your struggles
have not been major.

.

Dear Yuyutsu, Dear Foxy,

.

To my question : “What about you, Yuyutsu ? How did you come to believe in God ? How do you know what He wants ?”, Yuyutsu replied : “I did not reply because my personal life story and capabilities are unimportant, nor relevant to this discussion”.

I beg to disagree, Yuyutsu. Discovering the answer to those two questions is essential to gaining a proper understanding of your posts. I think it really is a great pity you ignore the origin of your religious mysticism. It’s the key to understanding you and what you have to say.

Your regular presence on OLO is a clear indication of your desire to communicate your ideas and opinions on many different subjects. I personally enjoy exchanging ideas and debating with you, but, unfortunately, I do not understand everything you say. My comprehension is all too often derailed by your mysticism. Your message is lost, and we are no longer able to communicate.

That is why I disagree with you when you say : “my personal life story and capabilities are unimportant, nor relevant to this discussion”. On the contrary, it is important and it is relevant, not only to this discussion but to every discussion.

Important means : “of great significance or value; likely to have a profound effect on success, survival, or well-being” (OED).
.

I am grateful to you, Foxy, for adding your voice to mine in this discussion. It adds weight to what I am trying to say and, coming from you, I’m sure it helps Yuyutsu understand that our interest is sincere and our curiosity well-intentioned.

Hopefully, Yuyutsu, you know a little more about how you came to believe in God than you indicated to Foxy. Perhaps, in time, you will find a way of helping us understand you a little better.

In the meantime, your brief explanation to Foxy would seem to indicate that your belief was not the result of a personal choice.

But, I dare say, that may not be the end of the story.

.

Dear Banjo,

It's my pleasure to add my voice to yours.
I love reading your posts. Your ability to
communicate is far superior to mine.

Yuyutsu to me has always been an intriguing
poster on this forum. I have to admit
I don't mind his mysticism. He presents a
different perspective and I'm sure that it is
the influence of the culture that he comes from
which may be hard for us to understand at
times. Still it's worth a try.

PS:

Isn't mysticism the acceptance that everything
cannot be logically explained?

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Yes, it seems there are several strands of mysticism and “the acceptance that everything cannot be logically explained” is a common characteristic of all the strands.

The OED identifies two main categories of mysticism :

1. Belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.

2. Belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

Yuyutsu’s mysticism obviously falls into the first category and, as you surmise, it is probably one of the numerous Hinduistic strands.
.

I’m afraid I’m very skeptical about mysticism. I see it as a purely subjective activity, at best a form of meditation and introspection. That is the positive aspect of it. I think we all need to stop and meditate seriously on our lives and the universe occasionally, but that is a strictly personal activity.

I don’t think we can learn much about life or the universe in general through mysticism. It has no application beyond the human brain in my opinion.

I find more interesting the French psychologist Pierre Janet’s idea of a subconscious that I see as capable of imagining associations and solving problems that the conscious mind is incapable of achieving, however hard we try. For that, a good night’s sleep usually proves more effective than meditation and introspection, autohypnosis, entering a trance, evoking God, or any other mystical method.

Better to sleep on it is usually pretty good advice.

While all that does not prevent me from respecting Yuyutsu’s mystical and religious beliefs, I think it explains my difficulty in following him in his world of mysticism.

I do not know enough about him or his thought process.

A little background explanation of how and why he thinks as he does would be helpful in my opinion.

.

Dear Banjo,

Ross Douthat writing for The New York Times
tells us that:

"Mysticism is dying and taking true religion with it.
Monastries have dwindled. Contemplative orders have
declined. Our religious leaders no longer preach
about the renunciation of the world. Our culture scoffs
at the idea..."

He points out that as our society has become more
materialistic, our churches have followed suit - giving up
the ascetic aspects of religion and emphasizing only the
more worldly experiences of faith."

And yet people are still searching for spiritual epiphany.
And there are so many choices to choose from.

Douthat points out -

" A would be mystic can attend a Pentecostal healing
service one day, a class on Buddhism the next, experiment
with crystals, dabble in Kabbalah,
practice yoga every morning, meditate in the afternoon and
spend week-ends at an Eastern Orthodox Retreat centre."

He says you can name your preferred path to spiritual
epiphany and it's probably available.

You're probably going to laugh - but I do practice yoga
daily to stay fit. I don't meditate. And I have spent
a week-end at a Retreat run by nuns. Which I did enjoy.

However, on the whole - I find that a good night's sleep
does wonders for me. As does being outside - going for a
long walk - spending time in nature. Even going for a drive,
And so on.

Regarding Yuyutsu? I think we have to respect his wishes.

Dear Foxy,

«I hope that your life has not be a fight as
the name suggests. And that your struggles
have not been major.»

Life on earth is and meant to be a fight to improve one's character and morality, a fierce struggle between one's divine and demonic tendencies.
(off-topic, this is also what is meant in Islam by the term 'Jihad', not what the ignorant terrorists think it means)

The Mahabharata tells of this great war between morality and immorality. Most characters stayed in the company of and took sides with those they grew up with, but Yuyutsu was the exception: Just as the great battle was about to begin, Yuyutsu defected from his brothers of the evil camp and moved across to the opposing camp of righteousness.

And thank you for producing the interesting quotes by Ross Douthat.

A good night's sleep indeed does wonders. The teachings of Vedanta say that during deep, dreamless sleep, one experiences the deepest roots of their being, just short of God. While our memories cannot capture it and our intellect cannot understand its own roots, this is why we come out so refreshed.

Dear Banjo,

I do not find it wise or healthy to expose identifying information on the internet. Even here on OLO there is one lawyer who would like to sue me for things I wrote had he access to my private details, not to mention what powerful politicians could do if they found who it is that criticises them and does not even agree with the very existence of their positions of power.

While I have no care to be personally understood or accepted, I do want to forward the principles I advocate for, especially the freedom of religion, which in my analysis cannot be protected without protecting all freedoms whatsoever, including even the freedom to make mistakes.

I fail to see why belief is so important that you need to know how I came to this or that belief: beliefs are just fleeting ideas of the mind and can often change. What's the difference anyway between one who entertains the idea "There is God" and another who entertains the idea "There is no God"? That does not make one a better person than the other, nor more religious.

Even the term "believe in God" is so vague and could mean so many things to different people (even to the same person at different times). What for example if someone believes that "Yea, this omnipotent grandpa on the clouds promised success to all who pray to him, therefore I always pray before I go to rob a bank"? So depending on your own particular interpretation of the term, perhaps I never even believed in God and therefore could not answer your question even if I wanted!

I do not discard any belief: it can be a good religious technique for certain people at certain segments of their spiritual journey, but there comes a time to shed old and childish beliefs before one can gain a deeper understanding, thus believing in "No God" is often also an important step along the path to God.

[continued...]

[...continued]

The Bhagavad-Gita speaks of people who have made spiritual efforts in previous lifetimes but died before they could complete their journey. Such people are not drawn to traditional religions, including to old-fashioned beliefs in God's existence. They may well adopt atheistic attitudes and mistakenly consider themselves to be non-religious:

"Indeed, they feel drawn toward God, even against their will, on the strength of their past discipline. Such seekers naturally rise above the ritualistic principles of the scriptures." [Bhagavad-Gita 6:44]

«In the meantime, your brief explanation to Foxy would seem to indicate that your belief was not the result of a personal choice.»

Again, you must be specific about what you refer to as "your belief".

As I told Foxy, my interest in God is inner rather than societal driven, but then there is this intriguing question of personal choice: as per the above quote, due to my efforts in previous lifetimes I indeed now find myself with no choice but to feel drawn toward God.
If you like to explore this question of personal choice, I can suggest that you try the test in: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/newcomb

«My comprehension is all too often derailed by your mysticism. Your message is lost, and we are no longer able to communicate.»

May I suggest instead, that your comprehension is derailed by the combination of association and dissatisfaction with the Biblical-based religions along with your habitual dependence on Western materialistic scientism?

Yuyutsu,

Thank You for your invoking explanations.
And for being so open and honest.
I can see that I have much to learn -
from cultures that I know so little
about.

Between March and June, many Aboriginal people living in remote communities have received emails from a Queensland man named Kris Schlyder, who runs the so-called Australian Indigenous Prayer Network. Schlydner believes Covid-19 vaccination is the work of the devil and Aboriginals should reject it.

Mr Schlyder is wrong, misguided and extremely dangerous, if that's what his religion preaches then I believe he should be locked up, along with his religion.

Dear Paul,

The case of this Mr. Schlydner does not sound like a religious matter, but rather like some social ideology or alternately a mental illness.

Can you honestly suspect that God told Mr. Schlydner to send these letters or that doing so helps Mr. Schlydner along his spiritual path towards God?

If your answer, like mine, is in the negative, then this is just an ordinary social/medical incident.

Still I hesitate, because if people like you can mistake this secular affair to be a religious one, then they might as well mistake an authentic religious behaviour to be an ordinary secular one. One must be very careful.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Thanks for that. I see that Ross Douthat was brought up by his mother as an Episcopalian (Wikipedia) until she had a transformative mystical experience and converted to Pentecostalism and then, with the rest of his family, to Catholicism (Harvard Magazine).

He wrote a book entitled “The Decadent Society”.

Harvard Magazine reports that his worldview is that of a “devoutly Catholic social conservative, reformist Republican, reliably right-wing on social issues like abortion and gay marriage … In 2017, he proposed reparations for slavery, but as a one-time payment to descendants of slaves, in exchange for an end to race-based preferences in hiring and admissions”.

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/11/features-the-conservative
.

I don’t know what evidence Ross Douthat presents (if any) to substantiate his claim that “mysticism is dying and taking true religion with it”. I reserve my opinion on that.

There is mystical tradition present in all of the world’s great religions. For thousands of years, mysticism has been present in religion and though religion is receding in much of the Western world, I don’t think that’s the case worldwide :

« A Pew 2015 global projection study for religion and nonreligion, projects that between 2010 and 2050, there will be some initial increases of the unaffiliated followed by a decline by 2050 due to lower global fertility rates among this demographic. Sociologist Phil Zuckerman's global studies on atheism have indicated that global atheism may be in decline due to irreligious countries having the lowest birth rates in the world and religious countries having higher birth rates in general. Since religion and fertility are positively related and vice versa, non-religious identity is expected to decline as a proportion of the global population throughout the 21st century. By 2060, according to projections, the number of unaffiliated will increase by over 35 million, but the percentage will decrease to 13% because the total population will grow faster » (Wikipedia).
.

Good to hear you’re keeping fit, Foxy. That’s great !

.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Schlydner is trying to turn the secular into the religious by attempting to hoodwink vulnerable people, in this case remote community Aboriginals, with whom it seems he has established some kind of religious affinity through his Australian Indigenous Prayer Network. There is a grey area between what is a religious matter and what is secular. Obviously this Schiydner has an opinion opposed to vaccination, whether that opinion is from a secular belief, or from a religious belief, that God has spoken to him. No matter, the bloke is attempting to sway Aboriginals away from vaccination by invoking the "word of God", and that is dangerous.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « I do not find it wise or healthy to expose identifying information on the internet. »
.

Anonymity is the prerogative of everybody here on OLO, Yuyutsu, and I am sure your real name is not Yuyutsu.

As a matter of fact, when I first registered on this Forum, I mistakenly thought it was compulsory to have a pseudonym, otherwise, I would have registered under my real name.

I don’t know about the lawyer, Yuyutsu, but I wouldn’t worry about the politicians if I were you, no matter how powerful they are. They probably receive worse criticisms from every Tom, Dick, and Harry than you could ever imagine. Australia is a democracy. It’s not like Putin’s Russia or MBS’s Saudi Arabia. You won’t get locked up and poisoned in a jail in Siberia or chopped up into little pieces in a consulate in Istanbul and carried away in suitcases.
.

2. « While I have no care to be personally understood or accepted, I do want to forward the principles I advocate .. »

I guess that’s what we all want, Yuyutsu, but to achieve that we need to be, at least, understood. If nobody understands us, we have not communicated anything.
.

3. « I fail to see why belief is so important that you need to know how I came to this or that belief … »

It is not that it is “so important”, Yuyutsu. It is just that because it is so difficult for you to communicate “the principles [you] advocate” due to the impenetrable nature of your mystic, esoteric mode of thought and expression, I suggested that you direct us to the source of the “principles” that you wish to communicate – my question of “how and why you came to believe what you believe” is a quest for the source of those beliefs.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

4. « … believing in "No God" is often also an important step along the path to God. »

That may be, Yuyutsu, though I’m not so sure about the “often”. The corollary, of course, is that « believing in "God" is often also an important step along the path to “No God” » - and, in this case, I am more inclined to believe that the “often” really does apply.
.

5. « They may well adopt atheistic attitudes and mistakenly consider themselves to be non-religious »

Once again, Yuyutsu, I think the inverse is just as true – perhaps even more so.
.

6. « … you must be specific about what you refer to as "your belief". » - this, in response to my comment : « In the meantime, your brief explanation to Foxy would seem to indicate that your belief was not the result of a personal choice.»

[ I had previously asked you (page 29 of this thread) : « What about you, Yuyutsu ? How did you come to believe in God ? How do you know what He wants ? » ]

You replied to Foxy (page 31) :

« One thing is that I simply cannot remember what blessed me to turn to God because it was lifetimes ago, I cannot even tell how many »

If you “turned to God” as you say, Yuyutsu, it can only be because you believe there is a God. If you did not believe there is a God, you would not say that you “turned to God”. It’s as simple as that.
.

7. « If you like to explore this question of personal choice, I can suggest that you try the test in:

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/newcomb »

I was unable to open the link you provided because my computer indicated the site was not safe. However, not to worry, I am reasonably aware of the philosophical implications of the notion of personal choice.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...=

.

8. « May I suggest instead, that your comprehension is derailed by the combination of association and dissatisfaction with the Biblical-based religions along with your habitual dependence on Western materialistic scientism? »

I am not “dissatisfied” with any religion, nor their different strands of mysticism, Yuyutsu. I do not adhere to any of them, even though I have been imbued with Christianity ever since I was a child.

I respect everybody’s religious beliefs provided they do not encroach on the freedom of others and cause no harm.

Also, I do not consider that I have an “habitual dependence on Western materialistic scientism”, Yuyutsu. I view everything with a critical eye, as you may have noticed, including Western materialistic scientism.

If I have an “habitual dependence” on anything, it is on logic, rationality, critical thought, and … keeping an open mind on everything.

.

Dear Paul,

Well of course it is dangerous, like always when someone pretends to follow the word of God when it is not. This is not even a grey area unless you can seriously suspect that God indeed told Schlydner to send these letters. Schlydner may be TRYING to turn the secular into the religious, but he cannot, God cannot be fooled!

The question is what can we do about it?

Had we prophets available then in no time they would authoritatively expose Schlydner's lies/delusions, but alas we are orphaned of them, so that is hypothetical.

I rather allow 100 such Schlydner's than accidentally obstruct the true path of even one wo/man to God, for this is all that life is about.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I respect your belief in God, but the Bible speaks of "false prophets" which I assume are those that invoke the name of God to further their own ambitions, by propagating an array of unholy lies. The question is how does one differentiate the false from the true, when often the false is so appealing and seems so good. I don't agree that prophets are not with us today, they are but we just cannot recognise them. A prophet is not the classical biblical holy old man delivering a message of fire and brimstone from atop a mountain, they are much more secular than that. Great prophets today are few, but they are still with us, the Dalai Lama is such a great prophet, but the Dalai Lama is but one in many billions. but there are millions of everyday people who by their words and actions are prophets for good. Its just that most of us don't want to heed the message which is there by their good example, but rather follow false prophets with their message of hate. Hitler was a false prophet who delivered a message of hate, and millions followed, believing he was good. As Buddhism teaches, good is within us, and prophets/teachers like Buddha and Christ can only guide, its up to the individual to set their own path in life.

Dear Banjo,

«They probably receive worse criticisms from every Tom, Dick, and Harry than you could ever imagine.»

Sure, they have a tough skin for abuse and foul-mouthing, but I'm not sure how they react to reasoned, substantiated explanations as for why their position of power and their whole career should have never existed. Still there is also that lawyer.

«If you “turned to God” as you say, Yuyutsu, it can only be because you believe there is a God. If you did not believe there is a God, you would not say that you “turned to God”. It’s as simple as that.»

I am saying so now, retrospectively.
At the time I turned to God, I could perhaps have had no such concepts.

Now "turning to God" is attitudinal, it does not mean that God is in some direction, so I turn my body to face Him, that would be a really primitive notion, it doesn't even mean that God exists, which is also quite a primitive notion. Such primitive notions may be helpful for some children and beginners along the spiritual path, but I think that we are safe to skip them here.

God cannot exist because that would paradoxically render Him part of His own creation. However all that exists, is in fact nothing but God. All we see, hear, touch, smell or taste, think or feel, without exception, is in fact, in essence, God.

To understand how it is possible to turn to God despite Him not existing, I presented the cinema-screen analogy.

The screen is not part of any movie. While watching a movie, one could turn left, right, backward, forward, up, down, inside, outside, north, south, east, west, whatever, and still not find the screen.

Yet the screen is all there is. What the spectator sees, whether they realise it or not, is the screen.

So long as one is too engaged in the hustle and bustle and excitement of the movie, they are less likely to discover the screen: their eyes see the screen, but they fail to recognise it.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«I was unable to open the link»

Strange, it opens in my browser.

I find this Newcomb paradox, when well-presented, encourages deep contemplation about personal choice. Nevertheless, it is presented elsewhere as well - try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KxJ6eTY9bA

«I am not “dissatisfied” with any religion, nor their different strands of mysticism, Yuyutsu. I do not adhere to any of them, even though I have been imbued with Christianity ever since I was a child.»

Could it be that your childhood's Christianity, though consciously discarded, is still affecting you deeper than you know, both positively and negatively?

You say that you keep an open mind on everything, then why not have another look at the cinema-screen analogy without any Christian/Biblical glasses which tell you in advance what God can or cannot be?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « Sure, they [powerful politicians] have a tough skin for abuse and foul-mouthing, but I'm not sure how they react to reasoned, substantiated explanations as for why their position of power and their whole career should have never existed … »
.

My guess is they would consider that the person proffering such “reasoned, substantiated explanations” was a crank and ignore them.

[ I employ “crank” in the OED sense : “an eccentric person, especially one who is obsessed by a particular subject or theory” – e.g., “when he first started to air his views, they labeled him a crank”]
.

2. « God cannot exist because that would paradoxically render Him part of His own creation. However, all that exists, is in fact nothing but God »

That is what you believe, Yuyutsu, the religious doctrine to which you adhere. It is not an established fact.

Please do not feel offended by my saying so, but I think you really should not assert something that is simply a religious belief as a universally verifiable fact. It is not.

It would be more accurate to write : “I believe that God … etc.
.

3. « To understand how it is possible to turn to God despite Him not existing, I presented the cinema-screen analogy »
.

Don’t worry, Yuyutsu, I have no doubt whatsoever that a very large majority of mankind believes in a God or Gods” even though He does not or They do not exist.

Also, I not only understand your interpretation of the analogy, but I would even go further and point out that people watching a movie see movement that does not exist. What their brain interprets to be movement is simply a series of still photographs passing in quick succession.

In other words, it’s an illusion. There is no movement in reality. It’s a construction of their minds.

They are led to believe there is movement where there is none. It is simply a belief, not fact.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Nevertheless, Yuyutsu, please be assured that I understand your interpretation of the analogy of “God as a movie screen”.
.

4. « You are entitled to your views, but this is not a different interpretation of my analogy, but rather your own completely different analogy for something else, which just happens to also include a cinema screen »

As I see it, Yuyutsu, the analogy is “God as a cinema screen” which you interpret in a particular manner and I in another.

We both say that there is nothing real but the screen – which, in your version of the analogy, is God. In my version, it is just a screen – on which each spectator projects whatever image of God he or she has in his or her own mind’s eye.

In my version of the analogy, the spectators are probably not all watching the same film, because they don’t necessarily all have the same image of God in mind.
.

5. « I find this Newcomb paradox, when well-presented, encourages deep contemplation about personal choice. Nevertheless, it is presented elsewhere as well - try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KxJ6eTY9bA »
.

Thanks, Yuyutsu, but I’m afraid I’ve never been attracted to that sort of conundrum. They always seem futile to me. I inevitably resolve them like the Gordian Knot. Instead of wasting my time trying to undo the knot, I simply cut it off with my sword as it were.

Instead of choosing one box or two boxes, I'm sorry to have to say I walked out of the tent before the lady finished her rather lengthy explanations.

Please forgive me for that.

.

Dear Paul,

Very thoughtful, thanks.

I believe the Dalai Lama to be a sage. Sages are distinguished by their purity of mind, heart and intellect. This allows the word of God to pass through them without the interference of an ego and thus be expressed undistorted.

Sages serve God in many ways and prophecy is only one of them, spiritual guidance is another and that is the Dalai Lama's main occupation.

I just find it difficult and most unlikely to see the Dalai Lama working for the Australian government and advising it: "Mr. Schlydner is a liar, God said He have never told him to send these letters - impale him!".

Dear Banjo,

«Instead of choosing one box or two boxes, I'm sorry to have to say I walked out of the tent before the lady finished her rather lengthy explanations.

Please forgive me for that.»

You are forgiven, Banjo!

«That is what you believe, Yuyutsu, the religious doctrine to which you adhere. It is not an established fact.»

How about the first part of my statement:
"God cannot exist because that would paradoxically render Him part of His own creation"

That is plain logic:
Suppose God existed, omniscient, omnipotent, unlimited, creator, without beginning or end, then who created existence? Some rival?

I can also explain the second part in pure logical terms: "all that exists, is in fact nothing but God", but that would take longer and require some more attention, more than required to follow the lady in the tent.

I can see that you understand the cinema-screen analogy:
Yes, the people/objects in the films, many different films, seem to move, but the screen never does. Movement can only be perceived on the basis of some unmoving background.

What's in a name? I have no objection if you prefer to call God, "The Screen".
"The Screen of All Screens", "The Eternal Cinema Screen", "That Immutable Screen that never moves", "That Screen which is never affected by any action", "That Screen which was there before all the movies of our lives and will remain after them all".

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« How about the first part of my statement:
"God cannot exist because that would paradoxically render Him part of His own creation" »
.

I don’t see that as a problem, Yuyutsu. People are willing to believe anything about God. You name it, they’ll believe it. God is magic, all-powerful, all everything. He’s everywhere. He’s the whole universe. He’s you. He’s me. He’s everyone. He can make himself if he wants to, and He can unmake himself too. There’s no limit to what He can do or be and not do or not be. There’s nothing but God. God is all there is. He’s "the birds and bees and the coconut trees" :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euzx3MJAoaM&ab_channel=RonCoby-Topic
.

Belief and conviction are one thing, truth and reality are another.

Quite frankly, Yuyutsu, I’m not the right person to answer the question you pose. You should ask the people who believe in God. The question does not apply to me or anybody else who considers there is insufficient evidence to believe there is a God.

Perhaps you could ask that lady in the tent. She seems to have the answer to just about everything. She was still explaining away when I left her late last night, but she might have finished by now. If you’re prepared to hear her out, you'll probably come away full of bright ideas – maybe even with a box or two full of dollars as well if you’re lucky.

If she asks you about me, just say I said I’m sorry I had to leave early and asked you to take my place to listen to her explanations of the paradox of how God miraculously created Himself from nothing when He created the universe – but you’d better check first to see if He does, in fact, exist or if it’s just a belief. That information is crucial to her explanations.

Let me know how you get on and don’t worry, I can wait. It will probably take a lot of explaining – from you both.

Good luck !

.