What are others opinions on the penalties applied for serious crime in our society? I was surprised recently on the forum when one of the more progressive posters, a truly enlightened bloke, informed me he was in favour of the death penalty for terrorists. My opinion is I oppose the death penalty in all cases as it is nothing more than state sanctioned murder. In places where the death penalty has been applied there is no evidence that it has deterred the committing of serious crimes. History shows that more innocent people have been executed in the name of justice than actual serious offenders.

Yes, it stops repeat offending.

Dear Paul,

My reply may also surprise you as well.

I too agree in bringing back the death penalty for
heinous crimes. People who are psychopaths - and
get pleasure out of killing are beyond help. They
do not deserve being put to death in a humane way
A choice they did not give their victims. I would
need to hear good reasons as to why these animals
deserve to be kept alive

My main reason for opposing the death penalty is that I have little faith that government can be sufficiently accurate in its decision making as to be 100% certain that every execution was justified.

Government, being the collective decision of fallible men (and woe-men), inevitably get some things wrong. Society can be no more debased than wrongly executing an innocent man - and it will be men who get killed.

That said, it is wrong to say that "there is no evidence that it has deterred the committing of serious crimes." Indeed there is ample evidence eg http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=295576
and a series of follow-up studies which showed that each execution reduced the murder rate by 5. But the data is equivocal with other studies showing the opposite.

Currently we convict based upon the premise of 'beyond reasonable doubt' and that's not good enough for certainty - ask Linda Chamberlain. If we were to have a further level of 'beyond any doubt' then the death penalty might be possible. But that is a very high bar and is unlikely to be reached.

mhaze said it well.

Issy, you must agree with Pol Pot, it is reasonable to execute nine innocents if it means one guilty is eliminated.

The vast majority of those executed by the state for "serious" crime have not been mass murderers, a small percentage, but rather those perceived as having acted against the regime (French Rev), or having committed criminal offences brought on by social conditions (Colonial times). In places where the death penalty is popular (USA) there is no evidence of a reduction in serious crime. What is achieved by executing offenders, other that some perverse satisfaction for society.

Hi Foxy, you did surprise me, but many would agree with you. I do understand that position.

I absolutely agree with all those individuals who oppose the Death Penalty for any reasons whatsoever. Can we ever be 100% sure, the State is executing the guilty man? I must declare herein, I'm very much at odds with most of my former colleagues who vehemently seek to have capital punishment, re-introduced to our statutes.

Yet I've seen some awful crimes against the person, none worse then Alan BAKER & Kevin CRUMP who brutally tortured, raped and murdered Mrs Virginia MORSE of Moree, back in the day. I was a junior copper back then, but the emotions among those police who investigated her killing when the two were ultimately caught ran so high, one of the senior detectives had to be restrained from drawing his gun and summarily shooting the pair. It's my understanding they're still in maximum security gaol. These two individuals are evil personified.

As was another abomination of a human being (I was the case officer on this matter) - Archie Beattie McCAFFERTY. Those who're interested can look him up on the Internet. By the way, some say police don't earn their salary - well, spend a few hours with these killers, and try to get to sleep the following night, it should read - 'nights'. The sheer terror and dread of McCAFFERTY'S crimes would make an excellent horror movie.

With all the above, I still do not support the death penalty. Lock 'em up and throw away the key. I've heard all the economic arguments, the costs associated with feeding, housing and supporting prisoners for years upon years. Incarceration is a far superior punishment. And for the worst of the worst, the knowledge they'll never be released into a free society ever again; is sufficient in my personal opinion.

Hi o sung wu, I would agree with you if in fact we did throw away the key. However mostly some do good parole board usually decides it is humane to let them out after 15 years or so, & to hell with who might be hurt.

When you hear of some rapist murderer being convicted of a repeat offense I can only believe that what ever parole board let these people out should be convicted of crimes against humanity & locked up with the murderer. I have no interest in rehabilitation of murderers or criminals, only in protecting the community from them. Put them down, or lock them up for extended to life periods is the only way to do that.

Oh & we should get psychologists & psychiatrists out of prisons, these fools are too easily conned by inmates as they want to believe their ministrations have been effective, though they never are.

Dear Paul,

I feel divided on this issue.

On the one hand, I do not approve of the concept of man punishing his/her fellow, thus adding violence to violence. Justice is a matter for God and should be left there alone, where it is carried with absolute precision.

On the other hand, given that man already does so and inflicts even more pain and horrific suffering on others by way of prison, which is even more cruel, so long as that is the case, then possibly giving the offender a quick death would reduce that suffering.

«History shows that more innocent people have been executed in the name of justice than actual serious offenders»

Yet also so many innocent people languish in jail, some for decades before being found innocent. Being killed instead would grant them a ticket out of jail and a quick new start.

It is a worry, in the US there is even an organisation that studies
convicted cases finds one with doubt and then undertakes a study and
has had a number of convictions overturned.
As against that is the Islamic murderer that spent years in a UK gaol
convinced the psychologists that he had reformed after many years
and a week or two after released murdered a woman on London bridge
probably because she was dressed immodestly.
Can't remember the exact details but it is a well know case if you
want to look it up.
When it comes to Islamic murderers I think different rules should apply.

G'day HASBEEN...

I hope you and yours are all well. Mate, it's very hard to argue with you on most elements of your post. Essentially I agree with everything you say. It's true, the academics seem intent to cause an early release of a criminal despite the comments of the presiding jurist at the individuals trial and subsequent sentencing.

The only departure to that, was BAKER & CRUMP. Parole authorities began earnest murmurings about the possibility of supervised release, on strict parole conditions for these two maggots. The NSW Govt. of the day got wind of it, and very quickly legislated a special Act of Parliament ensuring they remain in gaol for the public good.

Interestingly, at their trial & subsequent conviction, the presiding Justice, in his 'Ratio Decidendi' said, in part, they should never be released. It is they, the original trial Justice, who is in possession of all the relevant facts. Not a parole or probation officer reading their file in the comfort of a nice AirCon. office some place, years after the crime was committed.

Don't get me wrong. A well trained Parole/Probation Officer is worth his/her weight in gold. But sometimes they allow their hearts to rule their mind and common sense.

Being executed does not guarantee a person a fresh start. Death is oblivion. It is the end of everything for that person. It is the end for the organism whatever species the organism is part of. Some people have a belief in superstitions which soothe their fear of death by creating a fiction that there is something for them after death. Death is the end for humans, cats and cockroaches. We can make of our life what we can. Our end is final.

David,
You have your beliefs and I respect that, but I believe in life after death and I know for a certainty that I shall never be disappointed in that belief.

I have been settled on this for a long time now and feel it is pretty straight forward.

I little have condemnation of people who on the spur of the moment kill someone who has clearly brutally raped or murdered a family member.

But once the perpetrator is in the arms of the State then the sanction for a new murder is revoked.

The definition of murder is:"the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

The only difference if the State does it is represented by the removal of just two letters in that definition. The killing is otherwise even more premeditated.

It is not a matter of whether the odd person might be innocent for me, but rather it diminishes us when we go about sanctioning, or aiding, of participating in the wilful murder of another. We take a step as a collective toward that person and their crime.

The more dearly we hold life the more heinous it makes the original slaying.

Also the deeper we believe in the sanctity of live the greater the reluctance to take it will exist across our society.

Steele,
Fair enough; and does it diminish us when an innocent person is murdered, with premeditation, by some previous murderer who was released by us?

There is an assumption that the death penalty once introduced is only applied to the most serious, most horrendous criminals, but history shows that not to be the case. I made the point that "offenders against the regime" (Jesus Christ for example) are more likely to be executed than not (China today). Once introduced it tends to be applied discriminatory rather than universally (a black man convicted of murder in the US is far more likely to be executed than a middle class white male committing a similar offence).

p/s Yuyutsu, would you support the notion that a person convicted of a serious offence involving a life sentence be given the option of euthanasia as an alternative?

Two Australian cases of execution.

Henry James O'Farrell, Poor Henry murdered no one, yet hung 21st April 1868.

Ronald Joseph Ryan was the last person to be executed in Australia. Found guilty of murder, Ryan a petty criminal may or may not have murdered warder George Hodson, to this day there is serious doubts if Ryan actually was a murderer. Poor Ronnie hung 3rd February 1967

Dear Is Mise,

If there is an afterlife we can meet on the other side, and I will admit that I was wrong.

David,
Perhaps we can, but I have absolutely no doubt that I shall not be disappointed and what’s more I can prove it, logically..

What should we do about these lunatics?

Watch How An offended Group Of Students Reacts To The Claim That Men And Women Are Different
http://youtu.be/MkHWLUPPIOI

AC,
I just watched it; unbelievable

They also vote.!!

I too took a look at those videos, and if it was up to me I'd expel everyone of those disruptive students for their loutish behaviour. That 'girl' attired in black who was screaming abuse at someone for calling her a woman - what else do you call her? I have a few ideas, not socially acceptable, I'm sure.

Dear David F.,

«Being executed does not guarantee a person a fresh start.»

I didn't make such claim - I used the phrase "new start" in connection to wrongly convicted innocent people, not the guilty.

«Death is oblivion.»

Oblivion just means that one receives no input from the world (including their inner mental world), just like in a coma or in deep dreamless sleep. I'm not sure that it's such a terrible loss...

«It is the end of everything for that person.»

Nothing ever started for persons, thus nothing can end. Persons are just objects, like the table or the clock on the wall.

«It is the end for the organism whatever species the organism is part of.»

Sure, no argument and no problem there.

«Death is the end for humans, cats and cockroaches.»

Indeed, this is uncontroversial, but what's the big deal about it? Humans, cats and cockroaches are merely physical objects, dead matter to begin with.

«Some people have a belief in superstitions which soothe their fear of death by creating a fiction that there is something for them after death.»

The biggest superstition is the belief that we are born only once.
There is no evidence for it whatsoever - and statistical evidence against it.

If one puts on their socks, then there is a certain probability that they will never put on socks again, that it is the last time they do - but it is small.
If one brushes their teeth, then there is a certain probability that they will never brush their teeth again, that it is the last time they do - but it is small.
(...nowadays we can say the same about marriages...)

Once upon a time, 90-something years ago, you somehow got hooked up with a human body. We may not understand how it happened, but it did. To claim positively that this was the one and only time you got hooked up with a body, the first and the last, that even though you did it once you can never ever do it again, is very irrational and unscientific.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«Our end is final.»

That is a tautology, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the death of our body brings about our end.

«We can make of our life what we can.»

So is it justifiable in your view to throw people in jail for the rest of their dear life which you claim to be the only?

---

Dear Paul,

«p/s Yuyutsu, would you support the notion that a person convicted of a serious offence involving a life sentence be given the option of euthanasia as an alternative?»

I would, but better still, I rather have this be the default because actively asking for euthanasia equals suicide. Suppose society still insists on punishing people, then rather let anyone who prefers to instead be incarcerated, say so.

Dear AC,

I watched the video. It was pretty patched together, of at least two separate incidents and not much in the way of context.

Most of the video was a talk being presented by GOP candidate Jeff Younger. Through his efforts the Texas governor withdrew funding for a centre providing support services for trangender children. He also talked the governor into sending child services around to homes where there were transgender children running the line it was child abuse.

His own divorce was particularly ugly and he had been constantly breaking court rulings about a gag order both he and his ex wife were under.

Nasty piece of work.

Hi Issy,

The Shooters and Hooters Party believes in the death penalty, they want to shoot everything in sight. Do you still agree with their policy of allowing five year old's to take loaded guns to school for self protection?

Yes, it stops repeat offending
Is Mise,
Any figures on how many executed re-offended ?

accurate in its decision making as to be 100% certain that every execution was justified.
mHaze,
The death penalty would definitely go quite a way towards sorting out the criminal, bureaucratic criminal & incompetent elements which would bring about a gradual improvement in competence & sense of responsibility !
A quick start guide for this is a National Service !

This appears to work;

It is now legal to kill motor bike thieves in Brazil!

https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/brazilian-street-justice/

I am personally against the death penalty firstly as I don't like the idea of a state having the right to kill anyone, especially since the application seems less than consistent.

Secondly, the cost of the appeal etc often costs more than incarcerating someone for life.

Thirdly, research shows that the death penalty has little or no deterrent effect.

However, I disagree with a previous post that claims that more innocent people were executed than guilty unless you are talking about dictatorships such as China, Iran, Gaza etc.

.

Dear Paul1405,

.

« For or against the death penalty ? »
.

That is a question of justice.

Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, neither more nor less.

For John Locke, justice derives from natural law (the law of nature). In social contract theory, justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone. For John Stuart Mill, justice is based on the best outcomes for the greatest number of people. For Egalitarians, justice is equality. For John Rawls, justice is fairness.

And last, but not least, for Bertrand Russell, “if a decision is sought, it is sought usually by considering whether the consequences [of the decision] are on the whole good or bad”.

For me, justice is all that and more.

“While there’s life there’s hope” observed Theocritus, the ancient Greek (3rd century BC) poet. It is difficult to imagine a more fundamental human right than the right to life. But we have to recognize that life and death are two sides of the same coin. There can be no life without death and no death without life. The two are absolutely inseparable. If life is a fundamental human right, then death is too. Both must be respected – equally.

I consider that most of us aspire to a good life and a good death, the former defined as the freedom to do as we please limited only by the freedom of all others and whatever other restrictions we voluntarily consent to in the common interest, and the latter as a peaceful and painless death, preferably in a warm, cosy environment.

The state alone, exercising the will of the sovereign people, should be empowered to prevent us from living or dying, against our will, in the common interest, if such is the decision of a democratically constituted court of justice and only after full exhaustion of all means of recourse available to defendants within the judicial process.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

It will be a long time before mentalities change in order for justice to be seen simply as the rightful enforcement of the terms and conditions of the social contract to which we all voluntarily subscribe through the democratic process, and not just some cruel form of punishment.

Intentional murder is an act by which the murderer clearly demonstrates his refusal to recognise and respect life and death as the fundamental rights of every human being, including himself. By his act, he forfeits his own fundamental human right to life and death.

Criminal court decisions of legal euthanasia should, however, be limited to crimes such as child murder, serial killing, torture murder, mass murder, terrorism, and premeditated murder that is carefully planned and executed.

Capital punishment, as it continues to be practised in many countries today, belongs to another age. It is a barbaric concept that finds its roots in the development of retributive or punitive justice which has historically been largely favoured and influenced by the Abrahamic religions :

“Show no pity; life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot”. The Book of Deuteronomy is the fifth book of the Hebrew bible (the Old Testament) and is thought by modern scholars to date from the 8th century BC.

The barbary of capital punishment as it has been practised down the ages and continues to be practised in some countries has no place in a modern civilised democracy respectful of today’s universal humanitarian values.

I do not advocate the reintroduction of capital punishment as it was previously practised in Australia. I propose that we amend our legislation to allow our justice to fulfil its purpose and arrive at its logical conclusion as defined by our eminent forebears, John Locke and company cited earlier.

Those persons found guilty of particularly atrocious, cold-blooded crimes should be euthanised with full respect for their human dignity, calmly, peacefully and as painlessly as modern science can allow, preferably in a warm, cosy environment.

.

Being executed does not guarantee a person a fresh start.
davidf,
Nor does being robbed, raped, disabled, deformed, broken marriages, constant fear of a repeat attack, loss of social life etc etc.
I totally agree that wrongful sentencing is horrible but being in a motel come gym, come Uni study etc etc with steel bars is not exactly deserved penalty either. Twenty years in conditions reflecting the crime/offence to a close as possible degree & a cyanide pill in a glass cabinet that can be accessed by the prisoner by braking the glass would be the best crime rate slower. If, after twenty years they haven't taken advantage of the cyanide, the execution should go ahead.
The decision for either extending the jail term or execute should rest on the families of the victims.
The main reason crime is on the rise instead decline is the absence of penalty !

I don't like the idea of a state having the right to kill anyone,
shadowminister,
Nobody does or should like it ! Nor should anyone like the idea where the State does not protect its citizens from criminal elements simply because people living in safe enclaves are not affected yet voice their opinions over those who have experienced being victims !
Bureaucrats, lawyers etc get wealthy on this softly, softly approach !

Herr Goebbels,
Still pushing your lies.
Boy it really must have affected you when your firearms license was cancelled.
Get over it we can’t all be recognised as responsible citizens.

Hi BP,

Agree, justice must be served, but that can be so without the death penalty. I agree with Locke, Mill's, Rawls and Russell, but none of what they say is dependent on capital punishment, the simple, "life for a life" is not an absolute necessity to satisfy society that justice has been served.

Question; Why does execution have to be humane? Can it not be barbaric. The 'guillotine' was considered so humane that during the French Revolution they could not but stop using it. BTW, most who were guillotined at the time had murdered no one. I see capital punishment as nothing more than a political weapon, and has never been generally used to mete out justice.

I see capital punishment as nothing more than a political weapon,
Paul1405,
That is the way we're heading by not having at least the threat of appropriate punishment. Just having a Death row would put a dent into criminal activities & if 100% certain of guilt is established, carry out an execution after twenty years of confinement.!
If not 100% certain of guilt, have the threat of execution ! One thing is certain, jails as we have them are definitely not a deterrent. We have to move towards a National service scheme to re-introduce common sense & sense of responsibility & respect ! There's no getting around it.
Do not for one moment believe crime will reduce under present laws !
That's why you & I are always at each other because I believe in responsibility to society for individuals & you believe in society being responsible for individuals ! We have tried your way for over five decades now & look where we find ourselves. Let's give my way a go & see how things will work !

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, neither more nor less.»

Thus defined, the laws of nature already guarantee that there is no possibility for justice to fail, so any attempt to enhance justice using artificial human intervention, is absolutely silly.

«It will be a long time before mentalities change in order for justice to be seen simply as the rightful enforcement of the terms and conditions of the social contract to which we all voluntarily subscribe through the democratic process, and not just some cruel form of punishment.»

You are entitled to your view regarding capital punishment (or whatever else you like to call that practice), but you may not use some non-existent contract as an excuse.

The barbary of capital punishment
Banjo Paterson,
Cut the Barbary of capital punishment when criminals cut the Barbary of crime !

Indy,

You make assertions about me that are totally wrong. I believe in justice not simply punishment. You say; "I (Indy) believe in responsibility to society for individuals & you (Paul) believe in society being responsible for individuals!" We are all subjected to a social contract and that entails acting in certain ways towards society, so I do not believe the state is totally responsible for the individual, and therefore the individual carries no personal responsibility.

You emphasis punishment as a deterrent to serious crime, there is absolutely no evidence to support that. Those committing the types of crimes we are talking about, terrorism, serial killings, horrendous murders, are in a dark mental state where the thought of punishment (which I doubt they would even consider) is not relevant as a deterrent to their crimes.

You continue with your hobby-horse of 'national service', again there is no evidence that a regimentation of society in that way would have any effect on future crime. The vast majority of crime, fortunately mostly petty crime, is caused by social disadvantage and a dysfunctional environment , something your national service would not solve.

Those demanding punishment in the form of state sanctioned murder are most likely looking for self satisfaction than any notion of deterrent, put simply you have outraged me, so die as a consequence. I said capital punishment is used as a political weapon, therefore it has nothing to do with justice, and punishment for criminal actions should be all about justice.

Paul1405,
Your above post is mere common academic-type ramble with zero evidence supporting your claims.
National service is not a hobby to me, it's a proven necessity. As for punishment not being a deterrent is utterly baseless as you have absolutely no evidence of any punishment as such carried out. All you know of is mere incarceration with no actual punishment.
National Service has produced citizens who worked for the common good & you et al have been ungrateful beneficiaries of those peoples' discipline & commitment. i don't think future generations will be able to make such a claim about your generation !

Indy,

The only 'western' country that imposes the death penalty regularly is USA, which executes about 20 persons a year. America has a very high homicide rate at the same time, about 6.5/100,000, unlike Australia with no death penalty and a homicide rate of less than 1, even Canada is low at about 1.5. America has far great social problems and inequality in its society than both Australia and Canada. America also has a much higher rate of militarism among young people than us.

Please explain.

National service helps produce a regimented society. Individuals who are used to do things on command. It takes time to produce a competent soldier. The battlefield is an unforgiving place. Make a mistake there and you're liable to be dead. Professional soldiers are less liable to make such a mistake. Supposedly the first US soldier killed in the Korean War was a man who stood up to take a look around. It was his last look.

A well trained soldier will be able to take command when all who are above him in rank are out of action. A well trained soldier is worth more in combat than a number of half trained conscripts.

A citizen in a democratic society must question. He or she must ask if those above are competent. He or she must not automatically accept what a person in authority says but must ask whether a leader is fit to be a leader. If not the enlightened citizen must vote against authority. A soldier who questions authority except in unusual circumstances is not a good soldier.

A democratic society is best preserved and defended by a professional military and an enlightened citizenry.

This issue can go Hang.

Whether we breed cattle or grow crops, there will alway be errors in reproductive coding which produce faulty products.
The same thing happens with humans.
They can be born with bodies that are oddly shaped or disfigured.
Or they can be born with brains that are 'wired' differenly, which have a different emphasis on emotion.
So we need to stop thinking of people as evil or depraved, and realise they are just different.
Stop 'hating' them, and instead treat them as defective items.
Take away the cruel intent shown by some towards them.
For that is showing your instinctive behaviour at its worst.

When their difference makes them harmful to society, they must be removed from normal social life.
But putting them to death is a bit drastic.
Who is going to do it?
Before you write blithely about how necessary it is to kill off harmful persons, stop and think.
Would you be willing to execute another human being by one of the means we have available?
Would you personally supervise such an event?
If not, how can you expect others would do so?

I think we value human life, even the 'errored' kind.
So we must just keep those persons separated from the rest of society.
There is a cost for this, but that is something we must allow for.
We know in advance that not every child will be born without blemish.
And one of those children might be your own.

Somebody wrote:
'I believe in life after death and I know for a certainty that I shall never be disappointed in that belief.'

I am curious.
It is a certainty?
What makes you so sure there is life after death?
Is there strong proof of this that for some unaccountable reason I have missed out on seeing?
What is that proof?

But I do agree with the phrase 'I shall never be disappointed in that belief'.
When you die, it is because your brain has ceased to function.
When it stops, all feeling stops too.
So no happiness, and no disappointment either.
'No nothing' as they say in the classics.

Ipso Facto,

You win the packet of popcorn.

As I said ‘ . . .I shall not be disappointed”

Premise: (a) I believe in life after death and (b) I shall not be disappointed: ’
Argument: If (a) proves to be true then (b) follows, if, however, (a) proves to be untrue then (b) does not follow.
Conclusion and proof: If there is life after death I shall not be disappointed, and if there is not I shall not exist and therefor could not be disappointed.

Would you be willing to execute another human being by one of the means we have available?
Ipso fatso,
Ask a partner or relative of a victim !

Foxy & Paul1405,
What would you do with someone who murdered or hideously/psychologically maimed one of your loved ones out of sheer malice ?

Would I be willing to execute someone who had murdered a fellow human, raped a child/baby etc.
Yes, just as I was willing to kill enemy soldiers who had never harmed anyone, committed no crimes and were good, honest hardworking members of their society as well as good and loving husbands and fathers.

Anyone who would countenance the killing of enemy soldiers in time of conflict in defence of their country but would not allow the death penalty need to take stock of their priorities for you are supporting the killing of the innocent but refusing to support the killing of the enemies of your society who are in your midst.

Were I given the chance to execute the low lifes who murdered my cousins (two seperate criminals/two seperate victims) I would not hesitate any longer than it does for me to kill a wild dog on sight.

As they used to say; You've got to be cruel to be kind !

Dear Is Mise,

In a moment of seriousness, I actually respect your position created by your involvement in Korea. Unfortunately war is yet another form of unjustified state sanctioned murder.

Would I lose sleep should the most despicable murderers be executed, no, would I agree that they must be put to death, no. My point is if you look at history, those executed by the state from Jesus Christ and many before, to today, they are not in the main sadistic killers of women and children etc, but enemies of the state. There is no evidence that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime.

.

.

According to an article on our federal parliament website :
.

« There is … a somewhat inconsistent attitude to the death penalty amongst Australians. Public opinion polls reveal marked differences, depending on whether those on death row are Australians or foreigners, and whether the crimes were committed in Australia or overseas.

When it comes to domestic murder convictions, Australians are resolutely opposed to the death penalty, with 67 percent preferring imprisonment, and only 23 percent favouring capital punishment, according to a 2009 poll. Swap the crime to drug offences committed overseas, and there is suddenly less opposition to capital punishment. When a January 2015 Morgan poll asked respondents: ‘In Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Singapore and some other countries, the penalty for drug trafficking is death. If an Australian is convicted of trafficking drugs in another country and sentenced to death, in your opinion, should the penalty be carried out or not?’, 52 percent answered ‘yes’, and 48 percent ‘no’.

When terrorism offences enter the fray, views on the death penalty shift yet again. A small majority (52.5 percent) of Australians favour the death penalty for deadly terrorist acts in Australia. Former Prime Minister John Howard favoured the death penalty in Indonesia for the perpetrators of the 2002 Bali bombings, which claimed 202 lives, including 88 Australians » :

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2015/February/Attitudes_towards_the_death_penalty_at_home_and_abroad

.

I oppose the death penalty as it elevates the power of the state and diminishes the value of human life. Also, by trying to balance this with more opportunity to appeal, the cost of incarceration becomes less than the cost of execution.

The death penalty could make Australia's justice system cheap if it were based on the Taliban's system, even less with the Chinese system of charging the family for the bullet and medical recycling of the corpse, but who would want that?

National service helps produce a regimented society.
david f,
That's your way of thinking. The reality is that a National Service creates & instills a sense of responsibility. Simply adhering to guidelines for the common good is not regimental !
In the few instances your assertion is correct, is because people with your mentality are in charge.
People who care are usually & literally vehemently being opposed by the do-gooder elite.
It is just so morally & technically wrong to portray common discipline for the common good as wrong !
Freedom is not to be able to do as one pleases such as most indoctrinated Uni students claim it should be, freedom is to be responsible to oneself & others so as to maintain harmony by sharing natural resources rather than hoarding ! Natural resources are there for all, products are there for making a living ! Can you tell the difference ? Can you tell the difference between a National service & Military service ? Who in your opinion should be paid more ? A bureaucrat or a producer ? My view is that the taker should get no more than the maker ! Crime would decrease if such policies were in place & there wouldn't be any need for a death penalty in the first place ! Taking a murderer's life is still less than the innocent life taken from the victim ! Crime only exists because the majority of people allow it to exist !

Indy,

Absolute rubbish!

"The reality is that a National Service creates & instills (sic) a sense of responsibility." During the Vietnam War when national service was in operation it clearly did nothing to instil a sense of responsibility in conscripts, in fact it was divisive and negative, young male suicides rocketed, mental instability in nashos went up.

"Crime only exists because the majority of people allow it to exist" No where that laws and punishment are excessively draconian is there evidence that crime does not exist. China for example, they still have no shortage of victims to execute year after year, but crime still exists.

As for saying "the majority of people allow (crime) to exist, that's bunk, not worth answering.

You lack total credibility, when you became an Australian citizen, you were eligible for military service in the Australian Army up to the age of 35, BUT YOU FAILED TO ENLIST. Why was that? You are always prating on about others, and what should be done with them, none of it ever includes yourself. Why is that? Whinging old farts on aged welfare should be thrown into Seniors National Service digging up roads until they are 110.

We need to look to our instinctive behaviour.
Harming or killing another life form in defence of one's own life is a natural response.
If we are under threat, it is an instinctive reaction, and is needed for our survival.
Though we would almost certainly suffer severe emotional shock afterwards.

However, the detached and deliberate taking of life is not natural?
We would suffer too great an emotional upset?
Except that a psychopathic person would likely have no problem with it.
I am sure they made great hangmen in the past.

Those who suffer severe emotional distress from personal loss, will often 'fire up' and seek revenge.
This is instinctive behaviour which can get out of hand.
It can lead to 'the cure being worse than the complaint'.
Cooler wiser heads must ensure that restraint is exercised.

I am sometimes surprised to find that those with a religious bent can be severely vengeful.
My my. What a world we live in.
Isn't there a saying something about 'your slip is showing'?
Could it be that True Atheists have a far better feeling for life than religious persons do?

Hi IF,

Some good observations there.

"the detached and deliberate taking of life is not natural"
The Nazi regime were concerned about their soldiers shooting Jews. Not for any concern for Jews but the mental impact it was having on their men.

"Those who suffer severe emotional distress from personal loss, will often 'fire up' and seek revenge"
The 'My Lai' massacre during the Vietnam War seen ordinary men who had suffered personal loss of their own, direct their hostility towards innocent people, murdering 350 to 500 .

"I am sometimes surprised to find that those with a religious bent can be severely vengeful."
Until recent times the Christian God was portrayed as "vengeful", its only in the last few hundred years that the Christian God morphed into a "forgiving, benevolent" being. Christians cannot explain why for 1,000 years their god was such, and then suddenly changed. The best they can come up with is it was all a mistake on the part of the believers. Tough luck for all those they burned at the stake. Incidentally women who murdered their husbands were often burned alive, they had sinned against the word of God. Men on the other hand who murdered their wives could often justify the act as "she had sinned against thr word of God", and therefore they were set free.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

«I am sometimes surprised to find that those with a religious bent can be severely vengeful... Could it be that True Atheists have a far better feeling for life than religious persons do?«

But how can you tell that someone has a religious bent? Only because they say so?
True Atheists can be at least as religious as those who just claim to be religious with all the hoo-ha.

I think every person develops a set of 'understandings', or 'principles', which guide him through life.
Even when these are not based on the existence of a supernatural entity, some might regard them as a 'religion'?
It is sometimes said that even sport can be a religion.
So I suppose the word religion is taking on different 'hues'.

So atheists, and those with similar views, might be said to be religious in one sense?
It is just that their standards are not the same.
Theirs are based on truth and reason.
Theirs is a much healthier and more natural way of thought.

Many organised religions seem to be militant.
When you don't concur with their views, you are in danger.
True atheists are logical and peaceful as they go about daily life.
They mean no harm to those who disagree with them.
As a general rule, I would think they would not welcome the return of a death penalty.
They are not militant or vengeful.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

Albert Einstein was once asked by a blind person to explain them what 'white' means.
Einstein: "white is the colour of snow"
Blind person: "Ah, so 'white' means very cold"
Einstein: "No, a swan is also white, but is quite warm"
Blind person: "What is a swan?"
Einstein: "It's a white animal that floats on water"
Blind person: "Please describe this animal for me"
Einstein: "It has a twisted neck, just like this" and he goes and bends the blind person's neck.
Blind person: "Oh thank you so much, now I understand what 'white' means!"

Same for the blind who think that "religion" is about belief in supernatural entities - yes, belief in supernatural entities can at times be helpful as a religious method for some beginners, but to think of such beliefs as "religion" is just like thinking of a bent neck as "white" - just because they happen to coincide in swans.

Some people who believe in supernatural entities are zealots.
Some sports fans are also zealots.
To conclude that sports can therefore be a religion is like concluding that a broom can be the führer because both have a mustache.

«So atheists, and those with similar views, might be said to be religious in one sense?»

No, atheists don't automatically become religious merely because they are of the opinion that "God does not exist", same as believers don't automatically become religious merely because they are of the opinion that "God exists". To be religious, one has to truly earn it with good selfless deeds and other qualities that bring them closer to God.

Some atheists use logic and reason, some don't, same for religious people, so that isn't an indicator either.

«Many organised religions seem to be militant.
When you don't concur with their views, you are in danger.»

That being the case, I don't believe them to be religious - just pretenders.

«True atheists are logical and peaceful as they go about daily life.
They mean no harm to those who disagree with them.»

That being the case, they more likely are religious.

Put simply, religion is away of life that has followers and rules, thus Presbyterianism is a religion as is Communism.

Dear Is Mise,

«Put simply, religion is away of life that has followers and rules, thus Presbyterianism is a religion as is Communism.»

Indeed over-simply...

Yes, religion can be described as a way of life where one tries to come closer to God in thought, word and deed.

But everyone starts their journey from a different place, from different circumstances, so their paths to God vary accordingly.

For some religious people, Presbyterianism and its rules could comprise a segment of their path to God; and in theory, Communism and its rules too could be used as a segment of the path to God of certain people (though I find it difficult to point at actual examples).

However, neither Presbyterianism nor Communism automatically constitute religions for all their followers, only for some, depending where they come from. If there are many of them, then we may for convenience-sake call their path a religion, but we must keep in the back of our minds that no particular path suits everyone.

.

Historical alternatives to the death penalty …

.

Exclusion, ostracism, exile, and banishment have been practised by human societies throughout their evolution from the initial primitive family clans to modern multicultural nations.

Compared to physical revenge or direct reciprocal non-cooperation, ostracism constitutes a safer method of punishment. It carries less risk of injury for the remaining group members.

Anthropologists tell us that for tribal and ancestral humans dependent on tribal and social relationships for survival, ostracism may be experienced as an exclusion from humanity and a form of social death.

Exile was practiced by the ancient Greeks chiefly in cases of homicide. Ostracism was a form of exile imposed for political reasons. In Rome, exile arose as a means of circumventing the death penalty. Before a death sentence was pronounced, a Roman citizen could escape by voluntary exile.

Later, degrees of exile were introduced, including temporary or permanent exile, exile with or without loss of citizenship, and exile with or without confiscation of property. The Romans generally determined punishment by class, applying sentences of banishment to the upper classes and sentences of forced labour to the lower classes.

From the Anglo-Saxon penalty of outlawry, British law developed the practice of banishing criminals as an alternative to capital punishment. British convicts were deported to penal colonies first in North America until the War of Independence, and then to Australia.

The first convoy to take the 15,800-mile (25,427 km) trip to Australia departed on May 13, 1787, with 730 convicts. Banishment and transportation to Australia ended in 1868.

The colonisation of part of North America and much of Australia represented, to a large extent, an alternative to the death penalty.

.

Hi BP,

"The colonisation of part of North America and much of Australia represented, to a large extent, an alternative to the death penalty."

Totally correct, England was suffering a "crime epidemic" during the 17th through to the mid 19th centuries. This was brought about by social inequality and political instability. The answer from authority was draconian laws with extreme penalise, some 200 offences carried the maximum death penalty. This period was known as the time of Britain's "Bloody Legal Code", problems arose when somewhat "liberal" mined judges would commute a death sentence to a term of imprisonment, or simply imposes a lesser sentence to begin with. With little public money spent on overcrowded prisons, unsatisfactory alternatives were found, including the infamous prison hulks on the Thames. Resistance from colonists to convict transportation to North America had begun in the late 17th century, as American colonist had found slaves to be a better economic proposition to convicts, nothing to do with thoughts of liberty and justice.

The rest of the story is well known. BTW less than one percent of convicts transported to Australia ever returned to Britain. So indeed it was a life sentence.

Life sentence BS, the convicts that stayed ib Australia did so voluntarily, very few of them ever wanted to return to Britain.

Hi Issy,

Being in favour of the death penalty as you are, do you believe the Aussie baby killers from Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan should be hanged or face the firing squad? What's your choice.

We'll never know if convicts once completing their sentence would have chosen to return "home" to England, as they were required to pay their own passage, which at the time was prohibitive for a poorly paid worker. I agree most would not if they had the choice, returned to such a sh!thole, My convict relatives, eventually had the means but it was never an option for them, as far as I know.

Herr Goebbels,
My choice is that you stop maligning decent Australian soldiers and that you get over your personal bitterness.

Hi Issy,

Nothing to do with "personal bitterness" but more to do with justice for the innocent. In wars there are the innocent murdered by the militarists, do you deny that such atrocities take place. Russians have murdered children and babies in Ukraine recently, that's undeniable. Australians murdered innocent non combatants in all wars our country has taken part in, that is also undeniable. You seem to be in denial about such atrocities committed by your comrades in arms, as if they never took place. Is it a lesser crime if you murder a Korean, or a Vietnamese, or an Afghan in war than an Australian in a time of peace?

What is your take on the mad dogs of war killing the innocent?

I find it really curious that those callow individuals who've never served in a theatre of conflict 'trumpet' loudest at every opportunity they get. Secure in the knowledge that no harm will come to them because of the blood spilt by Aussie troop to ensure that freedom of expression remains.

Herr Goebbels,
Were it not for the fighting men you denigrate you would be using a typewriter with a couple of thousand Japanese characters.
You seem to know so much about attrocities, how about some references?

A religion is a belief in a god.

Religious people have decided there is a supernatural entity in control of life and matter.
For them it is fact.
They introduce this idea in to their lives deliberately.
There is no reason to think that any other life form has the same concept.
No other life form bows down to a fictitious entity, or attends a 'church'.

So a religious view is not part of the natural world.
It is an aberrant view.
Atheists are in tune with the natural world.
Theirs is a truthful view.
And nothing competes with truth.

But this is taking us away from the original question.
I still say it is not natural to take life unless it is absolutely necessary for survival.
We have intelligence.
We can devise a better way of dealing with those who try to harm others?
And while we think about it, being able to keep them under some form of control is necessary.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

You wrote, "A religion is a belief in a god."

That is a definition of only one kind of religion. There are religions with a belief in many gods such as the Roman, Greek and Norse pantheons and Hinduism. There are religions with a belief in no gods such as Buddhism, humanistic Judaism and Universalism-Unitarianism. There are religions with belief in supernatural beings who are not gods but spirits with limited powers such as animism.

One form of monotheistic religion may not recognise another monotheistic religion as monotheistic. The Christian tripartite god (father, son and Holy Ghost) is not a theistic religion to Jews and Muslim who believe in one, unitary God.

It is difficult to find a description that encompasses all forms of belief. Try again

Dear Ipso Fatso,

You wrote: "So a religious view is not part of the natural world.
It is an aberrant view."

I don't believe anything exists besides the natural world. Human thoughts including religious views are part of the natural world.

The word, aberrant, means departing from an accepted standard.

Since many people accept a religious view, a religious view is part of an accepted standard.

I believe there is nothing but the natural world. However, in order for a religious view to be aberrant a religious view would have to be a view that most people don't accept. I am an atheist. At this time that is an aberrant view.

Dear David F.,

«I am an atheist. At this time that is an aberrant view.»

I am really surprised that you feel that way - I think that the vast majority of Australians accept atheism, which is also the dominant view in Australian intellectual circles.

Since I see no conflict between religion and atheism, I find it difficult to understand why anyone should not approve of atheism.

Here are quotes by Swami Vivekananda (from March 1900) to cheer you up:

"He is an atheist who does not believe in himself."

"As certain religions of the world say that a man who does not believe in a Personal God outside of himself is an atheist, so the Vedanta says, a man who does not believe in himself is an atheist. Not believing in the glory of our own soul is what the Vedanta calls atheism."

"There is some hope for the atheists, because though they differ from others, they think for themselves. The people who never think anything for themselves are not yet born into the world of religion; they have a mere jelly-fish existence. They will not think; they do not care for religion. But the disbeliever, the atheist, cares, and he is struggling. So think something! Struggle Godward! Never mind if you fail, never mind if you get hold of a queer theory. If you are afraid to be called queer, keep it in your own mind — you need not go and preach it to others. But do something! Struggle Godward! Light must come."

---

Dear Ipso Fatso,

Belief in a god is only one religious technique among many.
Many people benefit from such belief (and I could describe the benefits if you are interested), but if that particular technique is not for you, then no problems, religion has many other methods to offer.

Also, many religious people, even those with faith in God, myself included, do not think of God as a supernatural entity, in fact as an entity of any kind.

BTW, attending a church is also not required for being religious.

Opinions can differ widely.
It is not so much individual opinions which matter, but an 'averaged out' version. A consensus.
Having different ideas is just that. Having different ideas.
We are not rejecting another person's point of view.
We are giving an alternative.

I don't see it as productive to be overly critical of another person's text.
Ask for clarification by all means.
But don't use difference as an excuse to be scathing.
We don't need to 'light-up' the conversation.
This is not a combat zone.

I enjoy reading the opinions of others.
I don't agree with all of them.
I see merit when logical points are made.
But now and then points are inaccurate, and the 'story' just won't 'hang together'.
The 'framework' collapses as one reads.

I note that the word 'religion' is taking on new shades of meaning in modern times.
This happens with many words.
A religious view is being seen as an intense and consuming interest in something.
Sport is in this category for many persons.
It controls and directs life for them, as a religion would normally do.

True atheism and religion are both personal belief systems.
They have that in common.
But in all other ways they are worlds apart.
And it is modern religions which should be of concern?
Not what was said and done thousands of years ago?
We live today, and must deal with life as it is today.
Learn from yesterday by all means, and use that knowledge to assist with planning for the future.

Those who say that atheism deviates from religion are wrong.
Atheism came first, and religion is the deviant.
Some try to 'muddy the waters', to create confusion and uncertainty, by saying otherwise.
This is not at all a worthwhile ploy.
It smacks of desperation.
Anyway, religion doesn't enter my thoughts any more than the stories I was told when I was four years old.
Unless for some reason I am obliged to turn my attention to it.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

«True atheism and religion are both personal belief systems.»

Only the former.

«Atheism came first, and religion is the deviant.»

First was natural unconscious religion.
Then as language developed, people started formulating their religious practices consciously, handing them down orally, eventually writing them down too, giving them names and adding stories to make them more memorable.

Thereafter the origin and purpose of these stories were, partially or wholly, forgotten.
Then came people who read these stories and mistakenly thought that they were meant to be objective.
- some of them believed these stories to be objectively true.
- some of them could not tell whether or not these stories were objectively true.
- some of them believed that these stories are objectively false.

Thus believers, agnostics and atheists, are all on a par, having no clue about the original purpose these stories served.

Regardless of what they think of these stories, people of all three categories continue to practice religion, some naturally, some out of habit and a few consciously accelerate their practices.

A national Service scheme would go a long way towards not needing a death penalty for years to come !
Why ? Because a responsible & caring mentality out-performs a selfish one any day and, that's proven !
Punish crime & the crime rate will reduce ! Gyms, three different meals/day, internet rooms, Uni studies etc aren't prisons, they're Motels with barbed wire fences ! i.e. hardly a deterrent !

.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

.

The OED defines religion as :

« A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs ».

The OED definition largely inspired the High Court of Australia’s ruling in 1983 that the beliefs, practices, and observances of the Church of the New Faith (Scientology) qualified it as a religion in Victoria.

Contrary to religion, which is a set of beliefs, atheism is a set of disbeliefs, especially as regards :

• a supreme being or beings

• a human soul

Beliefs are subjective. They are simply ideas. Whereas reality is “that which exists independently of ideas concerning it” (OED).

Unfortunately, in the minds of most people, reality does not count. It is what they believe is reality that counts.

Smart populists, such as rogue politicians, religious gurus, financial fraudsters, psychologists, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, and many other swindlers, in various domains, have understood this and systematically target their victims’ minds rather than physical reality.

Trump, for example, does not physically rob money from ordinary, hard-working Americans, he simply persuades them to give him their money because he claims he won the 2020 presidential election that was stolen from him. They have faith in him and his motto : “Make America Great Again”.

Reality doesn’t count with them. They don’t want to know about it. It’s what they believe is reality that counts – and reality is what Trump says it is.

The rest is fake news.

.

Dear Indyvidual,

It happened to George Pell, it can happen to anyone, it can also happen to you - and if you purposefully do it to others then it will.

Have we not enough suffering in this world already?

---

Dear Banjo Paterson,

The OED's (current edition) definition of religion is completely flawed, it's a mockery and must have been written by ill-intending people on the outside who look at the religious people like viewing caged animals in a zoo.

Here is a more balanced definition, and while I still have reservations about its accuracy, at least it was written by an insider: http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/religion

" atheism is a set of disbeliefs "

That is a very misleading statement.
True atheists don't concern themselves with intangible hypotheticals.
They follow the truth shown by realities around them.
Truth has no equal, so nothing else matters.
True atheists will sometimes be academically interested in other systems.
But they don't need to compare themselves to any group, especially one whose belief system is based on fear and superstition.
On a normal day, they won't even give any other system a moment's thought.

I don't know why those with religious intent seem to spend so much time trying to panel-beat facts.
Trying to make it appear as if everybody has a religious outlook.
Are they seeking some kind of abstract approval?
Why are they so unsure of themselves?
And why can't they live and let live?
Why the unrest in their thinking?
Is it that their belief system is, perhaps unconsciously, far from satisfying for them?

People commit crimes because they need something they don't have, and usually see no other way of getting it.
Such people must be found and separated from the rest of society.
However, there is no need whatsoever to be cruel to them.
I see many comments which lead me to think that those who wouldst detain are, in reality, far worse than those who would be detained.
The cruel intent surprises me.
Why the need to allow harmful instinctive behaviour to surface?
Should that not be controlled?

.

Cher Ipso Fatso,

.

I wrote :

« Contrary to religion, which is a set of beliefs, atheism is a set of disbeliefs, especially as regards :

• a supreme being or beings
• a human soul »
.

And you commented :

« That is a very misleading statement. True atheists don't concern themselves with intangible hypotheticals. … »
.

I was not being judgmental or expressing a personal opinion, Ipso Fatso, I was simply citing what is generally understood by the term “atheism” as defined in all the reputable English dictionaries :

OED :

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Cambridge Dictionary :

The fact of not believing in any god or gods, or the belief that no god or gods exist

Merriam-Webster :

1. a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
2. a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Collins English Dictionary :

Rejection of belief in God or gods
.

Encyclopaedia Britannica :

Atheism is “the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings”.
.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy :

J. L. Schellenberg says that “in philosophy, the atheist is not just someone who doesn’t accept theism, but more strongly someone who opposes it.” In other words, it is “the denial of theism, the claim that there is no God”.

There is, as has been shown, neither empirical nor a priori knowledge of God, and talk of intuitive knowledge is without logical force.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Here is a more balanced definition [of religion], and while I still have reservations about its accuracy, at least it was written by an insider: http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/religion »
.

Thanks, Yuyutsu, but like you, I too have a number of reservations about the accuracy of that definition. But also like you, I don’t fancy carrying out an in-depth analysis of Noah Webster’s 1828 Congregationalist (Calvinist) definition of the word “religion” here.

As I am sure you have noticed, I usually cite the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) on OLO for the definition of words in the English language.

The OED generally offers a more precise, objective, and universalist definition than all the other English dictionaries.

Wikipedia tells us :

« The Oxford University Press began writing and releasing the Oxford English Dictionary in short fascicles from 1884 onwards. It took nearly 50 years to complete this huge work, and they finally released the complete OED in twelve volumes in 1928.

The OED remains the most comprehensive and trusted English language dictionary to this day, with revisions and updates added by a dedicated team every three months. »

.

Hi BP,

Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy. Based on Webster and others, it must be a philosophy. In my opinion its a philosophy not a religion. its possible to be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time.....well maybe.

http://www.thecollector.com/buddhism-philosophy-religion/

Dear Paul,

It is in our culture that one can only have one religion at a time not in other cultures. Japanese may consider themselves Buddhists, have a Christian wedding in Australia and go back to Japan and observe the Shinto rites. Religions can encompass philosophy and vice versa. The categories are not mutually exclusive.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«The Oxford University Press began writing and releasing the Oxford English Dictionary in short fascicles from 1884 onwards.»

Yes, I tried in vain to find earlier definitions of "religion" in earlier versions of the OED, but I could not gain access, not without paying large sums anyway.

So I could only look at the latest version of the OED. Perhaps you have access to earlier versions?

«The OED generally offers a more precise, objective, and universalist definition than all the other English dictionaries.»

Possibly so, GENERALLY.

They may be popular, they may be good on other entries, but all I can say is that their definition of "religion" is a mockery, not objective at all and seems to be written by anti-religious author(s).

The purpose of that mockery is to tell the reader that religion has no real substance and consists only of some silly intellectual veneer, just a set of beliefs would suffice, thus if you change your opinion about the "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" every minute, then in one hour you would have been 30 times religious and 30 times non-religious... and when you sleep deeply you must be non-religious because you do not believe in anything at that time... what a joke!

---

Dear Paul,

Different people make different uses of both Buddhism and Christianity - as a political tool, for tribal identity, for philosophy, for religion, or for some combination of the above.

The rewards come accordingly:

When used as a political tool, one can gain power but becomes cynical and deluded.
When used for tribal identity, one gains both friends and enemies and can temporarily cover up the feeling of emptiness inside.
When used as philosophy, one can gain intellectual satisfaction, lasting for as long as they have a sound mind and relatively good health.

When used as a religion, one gradually moves towards eternal peace, absolute joy and the cessation of all suffering.

Both Buddhism and Christianity are a religion for those who use it as such, not for others.

.

Dear Paul,

.

You raise the question of the difference between philosophy and religion, with reference to Buddhism.
.

I tend to see philosophy as a constant interrogation and religion as a definitive reply.

I am by no means an expert on Buddhism. Perhaps I am wrong, but my impression is that after a long period of meditation on the question of the human earthly condition, Siddhartha Gautama, alias Buddha, came up with a definitive reply – to which his followers adhere largely without question, and have perpetuated from generation to generation for the past 2,500 years and continue to do so with no end in sight.

Looks like a religion to me.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … I could only look at the latest version of the OED. Perhaps you have access to earlier versions? »
.

I have the 1988 second print version of the 7th edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which is complete despite being concise, and only weighs 1.25kg – obviously much more practical than the 12 volumes of the full, unabridged version of the OED I mentioned in my previous post.

I looked up religion for you and here’s what it says :

1. particular system of faith and worship

2. human recognition of superhuman controlling power and esp. of a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship; effect of such recognition on conduct and mental attitude

3. thing that one is devoted to or is bound to do (make a religion of football, of doing physical exercises)

4. life under monastic conditions (enter into, be in, religion; her name in religion is Sister Mary)

5. hence religion less

From Latin religio -onis obligation, bond, reverence ».
.

That was the OED definition for the English-speaking (Western) world in 1988.
.

And Wikipedia tells us :

The concept of religion originated in the modern era in the West. Parallel concepts are not found in many current and past cultures; there is no equivalent term for religion in many languages. Scholars have found it difficult to develop a consistent definition, with some giving up on the possibility of a definition. Others argue that regardless of its definition, it is not appropriate to apply it to non-Western cultures.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

An increasing number of scholars have expressed reservations about ever defining the essence of religion. They observe that the way the concept today is used is a particularly modern construct that would not have been understood through much of history and in many cultures outside the West (or even in the West until after the Peace of Westphalia). The MacMillan Encyclopedia of Religions states:

« The very attempt to define religion, to find some distinctive or possibly unique essence or set of qualities that distinguish the religious from the remainder of human life, is primarily a Western concern. The attempt is a natural consequence of the Western speculative, intellectualistic, and scientific disposition. It is also the product of the dominant Western religious mode, what is called the Judeo-Christian climate, or, more accurately, the theistic inheritance from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The theistic form of belief in this tradition, even when downgraded culturally, is formative of the dichotomous Western view of religion. That is, the basic structure of theism is essentially a distinction between a transcendent deity and all else, between the creator and his creation, between God and man »
.

A definition that aspires to universality, though highly reductionist, was coined by Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century who defined religion as "the feeling of absolute dependence".

.

In fact Australia has never got rid of the death penalty. When some people in a far off land fail to bend to our demands, we simply send in our mercenary army to murder their innocent men, women and children.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank you for looking at the 7th edition of the OED.
Though still a far cry from defining religion, it's one step closer and not as hostile as the current edition. It seems that the definition gets better as we go back in time.

«Parallel concepts are not found in many current and past cultures...»

There is one which Wikipedia overlooked and you probably heard of already: 'Yoga'.

Literally, 'Yoga' means "binding together" and at times was used for describing the binding of many unrelated things, but the most common use of 'Yoga' is to mean "binding together with God", similar to 'religion' coming from Latin 're-ligare', "re-bind [with God]".

Hindu scripture mentions many Yogas to describe the manifold paths and methods for binding with God: there is "Yoga of knowledge", "Yoga of everyday-action-with-the-correct-attitude", "Yoga of meditation", "Yoga of devotion", "Yoga of appreciating God's glories", "Yoga of renunciation" and many more, including what became most famous in the West - "Hatha Yoga" (very roughly, "Yoga of balancing will-power and surrender"), especially its physical-postures aspect.

It would be a natural extension to describe Christianity as the "Yoga of following the teachings of Jesus Christ", Judaism as the "Yoga of following the teachings of Moses" and Islam as the "Yoga of following the teachings of Muhammad (p.b.u.h.)".

Now valid discussions may arise: do these Hatha-Yoga postures, like standing on one's head, actually help leading us to God, or are they just nice stretching exercises or used for increasing blood-flow?
Similarly, does Islam actually lead to God, or rather to violence? Does Christianity actually lead to God or rather to a control-structure?

Suppose you take the view that no path whatsoever leads to God, whether that be because you believe that there is no God or for any other reason, then your position would not be correctly conveyed by saying "religion is bad" or "Yoga is harmful" - your accurate position in that case would be that "religion/Yoga does not exist" (others may or may not agree with this position and that may form a basis for further discussion).

[continued...]

[...continued]

What has belief to do with this? Why has it been so stressed in some dictionary definitions?

- Well if standing on one's head helps bringing one closer to God, then it happens anyway whether one believes it or not, but surely one who believes that to be the case is more likely to persist investing their time and effort standing on their head!

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Nobody seems to know exactly who invented Yoga nor how, when, where, or why it developed. Researchers have traced its origins back 5 000 years but it seems that some think it could be as much as 10 000 years old.

Whatever the case, apparently it is older than both Hinduism and Buddhism with which it later interacted and exchanged influence. This tends to suggest that it too could, perhaps, have qualified as what we in the West call religion.

However, the German Indologist, Georg Feuerstein, pointed out that Yoga “proposes no gods or saviours; it moves forward on the grounds of experiential confirmation rather than religious faith”.

I see that as similar to Buddhism, the principal difference being that Buddhists have faith in the Buddha and his teachings, whereas the identity of the founding father of Yoga (presuming there was one) seems to have been lost in the sands of time.

According to Dr. James Mallinson, senior lecturer in Sanskrit and Classical and Indian studies at SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies), University of London "the first text to teach physical yoga practices [known as hatha yoga] was written by Buddhists in the 11th century and called the Amtasiddhi and, certainly, through these practices they were aiming for some kind of salvation or liberation.”

He says that “modern-day yoga has echoes of these religious beliefs - natarajasana, or dance pose, for example, is a representation of Hindu god Shiva, and sun salutations may also reflect earlier beliefs. In the Vedas [ancient Indian texts], the sun is a god, so you could argue that sun salutations are religious to some extent.

"Today, however, many practitioners simply enjoy yoga as a physical practice that increases feelings of calm and gives them the opportunity to carve out some space for themselves in an otherwise busy week”.

I guess that means that modern yogis are more psychic-fitness fans than religious devotees.

.

Dear Banjo,

The distinction must be made that your last post only relates to Hatha Yoga rather than Yoga in general, more specifically even, only to the physical postures therein, which are traditionally considered the 3rd step of Yoga out of 8, and whose original main purpose is to ensure that the body's aches and pains do not disturb one's meditation.

To that extent I agree.

I know who invent Yogi, it was Yogi Bear and his sidekick Boo-Boo. Have I got that right, sorry wrong, it was Hanna The Barbarian.

http://www.google.com/search?q=yogi+bear+youtube+hey+boo+boo&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBAU997AU997&sxsrf=ALiCzsZ9TxsH1e4iDtQLLyczWPUm2phOYA%3A1667519121814&ei=kVJkY8WxMbnsjuMP95i1eA&oq=yogi+bear+youtube&gs_lcp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:9f199c0f,vid:YtBFxU8L-j4