Dear Yuyutsu,

Matthew Arnold wrote “On Dover Beach” which was published in 1867. It concerned the conflict of science and religion. In it are the following lines.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

With Victorian optimism he thought the Sea of Faith would retreat before the reality of a scientific view of the world. I think his optimism was unjustified. However, it is a beautiful poem, and one can enjoy it whatever the feeling one has about science and religion.

How can government dictate who we hire?

When I was hiring people their level of qualification was probably about 35/40% of what guided my choice. Sure many jobs had a minimum requirement, but with this met, my opinion of how well they would fit into the organisation, promote the company objectives, references verbally from previous employers if any, & importantly how I felt about working with them, outweighed level of qualification by a considerable margin.

This was decided by me, & importantly their immediate superior to be at an interview. Different times, but I found it interesting that we would get 50+ applications for an office job, & less than 10 for a stores or assembly job.

One thing very disappointing was to realise over time that school reports & references for juniors looking for a job were totally worthless for evaluation.

I have heard people on televised forums express these same ideas:
Your religion is a personal thing.
Keep it with you in private life.
But don't take it with you in to public life.
There it can clash with the laws of the land.
And those laws must always prevail.
Your religion is NOT an excuse to break any law.
The law always comes first.

And separate to this....
Homosexuality IS normal for those whose sexuality does not match their physical shape.
That variance comes about due to random errors in coding during conception?
When they reach adulthood, they become fully aware that their shape and sexuality are at odds?

In the natural world, sexual attraction is needed to initiate copulation leading to reproduction.
Without it we would not be here to argue the point.
I think it must be difficult to be attracted to a woman, and not have the right shape to deal with it.
But they do the best they can, and good luck to them.

Dear David F.,

«Since we have different definitions of religion we are not talking about the same thing. Further discussion when we are talking about the thing seems pointless.»

My definition of religion is precise, it is neat, it is elegant, it is inclusive, it is clear-cut, it is independent of human ideas and feelings, it is about substance rather than name-calling - thus is made of the same materials as scientific definitions.

Please tell me what your definition of religion is, but from what I heard thus far, I suspect that it is arbitrary, whimsical, inaccurate, cuts corners, leaves lots of grey/undefined areas, and populist, catering to human emotions.

Suppose for example that Kim Jong Un decides to declare himself 'G-O-D'. Kim is already worshiped by the North-Koreans, but he is worshiped as the Great Beloved Leader, or as Big Brother, etc., not as a god, but suppose he does: his behaviour would still be the same, the concentration camps, the nukes, the missiles, the hunger, the corruption, none of that would change, but would you then, by your chosen definition, start calling the North-Koreans religious?

- Nothing would have changed by my definition.

Also, is Buddhism a religion by your definition, given that 'G-O-D' is not mentioned?

I await your answer.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Your post was insulting. You praised your definition of religion thusly:

My definition of religion is precise, it is neat, it is elegant, it is inclusive, it is clear-cut, it is independent of human ideas and feelings, it is about substance rather than name-calling - thus is made of the same materials as scientific definitions.

Then you didn’t state your definition.

Then you attacked me thusly:

… from what I heard thus far, I suspect that it is arbitrary, whimsical, inaccurate, cuts corners, leaves lots of grey/undefined areas, and populist, catering to human emotions.

It seems as though you are less interested in my definition than in attacking me. You just did a bit of name-calling.

You have decided that a religion must have something to do about God when you ask:

“Also, is Buddhism a religion by your definition, given that 'G-O-D' is not mentioned?”

I already gave a definition. I repeat it.

Religion is a form of superstition which apparently fills a need.

I have avoided insulting you or being rude. I would appreciate it if you would behave likewise.

Dear David F.,

I am sorry if my last post seems insulting: it was not my intention to insult you. Being critical of former definitions of religion that you presented on OLO over the years does not mean being critical of you as a person.

I assumed that you already heard my definition of religion many times before, thus that there was no need to repeat.

My definition of 'religion' is "whatever [actions and choices] bring one closer to God".

Now if you consequently and rightly ask what I mean by 'God', then my answer is that God cannot be defined directly/positively, but can still be defined negatively as follows:

1) God is not ___{anything}___ [fill the space with whatever object you like} ; and
2) There is nothing but God.

And if you ask me what it means to 'come closer to God', that I answered a few days ago in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=22180#387357

Now I admit that I expected to hear more-or-less your usual definition of 'religion' which has to do with belief in God or gods. I was quite surprised by your unexpected response that: "Religion is a form of superstition which apparently fills a need".

So suppose someone believes that the moon is made of cheese (because they feel they need more cheese than this planet can provide), then apparently you would consider them to be religious. Very interesting, but if I didn't get it right then perhaps you should provide a better definition for what you mean by 'superstition'.

I feel no need to speak for or against superstition since as far as I can see it has no direct relation to religion, not unless you surprise me again with such an overwhelmingly unusual definition of 'superstition' that also explains why of all things you attribute most of the evil in the world to that particular exotic practice.