We should be promoting freedom of belief, not religious freedom

The Drum

Updated October 22, 2015 15:12:36

Photo: When freedom of belief is threatened, the oppressive force is often religion itself. (Getty Images)

"Religious freedom" is often just a Trojan horse for religious privilege. That's why we should instead be promoting the freedom of all beliefs, including atheistic ones, writes Hugh Harris.

In early November, the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, will host a Religious Freedom Roundtable. Different faith and non-faith groups will come together to discuss "religious freedom" in the context of our secular society.

The main item on the agenda will no doubt be the same-sex marriage debate that has seen the collision of traditional religious beliefs with community standards. If gay marriage is allowed, how will this affect religious freedom?

Sydney Archbishop Anthony Fisher gave a preview of what we can expect to hear at the roundtable with his recent article for ABC Religion & Ethics. In it, he describes a nightmare vision of a future Australia in which bishops are gaoled for discriminating against gays, religious tax exemptions are gone, and there's no more religious instruction in schools. It's hardly the Earth-levelling apocalypse promised by Christian eschatology; this is simply a dream induced by fear of the Christianity's dwindling influence.

Fisher's article demonstrates that Christian leaders and lobby groups are mainly concerned with protecting "religious" beliefs. But what about other beliefs?

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) safeguards the right of "freedom of thought, conscience and religion". But we don't hear about freedom of thought or freedom of conscience as often as we hear about religious freedom. Strange, since freedom of thought is in fact the progenitor of human liberties including freedom of speech and freedom of religion. US Supreme Court Judge Benjamin Cardozo described freedom of thought as "the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom".

In addition, the UNDHR protects all types of beliefs. Article 18 protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right to profess any religion or belief.

Given non-faith based beliefs are granted equal protection under the UNDHR, the phrase "religious freedom" provides an undue emphasis on "religious beliefs". In our submission to the roundtable, The Rationalist Society of Australia suggests using the far better umbrella term "freedom of belief". This accurately describes the rights protected by the UNDHR without elevating particular types of beliefs.

Adopting this term could help prevent "religious freedom" from becoming a Trojan horse for religious privilege. We've had enough of that already. Widespread exemptions to anti-discrimination law allow religious service providers in education, health and aged care to discriminate on who they employ and on what beliefs they promote. Notably, many of these organisations are government funded, which means that our taxpayer dollars go directly towards buttressing these beliefs.

Tax exemptions are enjoyed by charities. Some of these are also religious groups. This is uncontroversial. But tax exemptions are also enjoyed by religious organisations on the basis of their religiosity alone. Australian taxpayers - many of whom are nonbelievers, many of whom prefer the writings of atheist Christopher Hitchens to those of theologian David Bentley-Hart - contribute about $31 billion a year to religious organisations. It's impossible to know how much of this money is being used for bona fide charity, but what we do know is that much of it is actually being used for "the advancement of religion", which the law says is a legitimate charitable purpose.

When freedom of belief is threatened, the oppressive force is often religion itself. We see it on the news every night. In Saudi Arabia, secular writer Raif Badawi is flogged and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, and Shia activist Ali al-Nimr is sentenced to beheading and crucifixion. We see it when mobs hack secularists to death in Bangladesh, and the local police chief seemingly admonishes the victims for offending religious sentiment. Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh and Charlie Hebdo all represent the right of free expression against the tyranny of suppression.

World religions are better organised and better equipped to fight the battle of beliefs than non-believers are. Many non-believers used to be apathetic about faith rather than opposed to it. They've tolerated the gradual impost of things like the contentious National Chaplaincy scheme (its federal funding having twice been ruled unconstitutional), and policies resulting in Australia having one of the largest proportions of children studying at religious schools in the OECD?

The 2016 Census will for the first time offer the choice "no religion" at the top. In previous surveys, it was hidden at the bottom, underneath a list of "other" choices. When the results are published in 2017, there's little doubt that non-religion will become the largest religious denomination. The 2011 Census recorded "no belief" at 22.3 per cent, and even then, another 8.5 per cent failed to record a theistic option. Given the 2012 WIN-Gallop poll recorded it at 48 per cent and a 2013 Roy Morgan survey recorded it at 37.6 per cent, the next Census looks certain to record a huge bump in non-belief.

Two potent forces - the scourge of Jihadism and the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse - have conspired in the minds of many Australians to strip away the veneer of deference shielding religion from scrutiny. Following on from the New Atheism movement, a second wave of opprobrium gathers pace. A second coming of sorts, the awakening conscience of non-believers who demand an equal voice and equal treatment under the law. Those who previously gave the creeds of Abraham the benefit of the doubt, who averted their eyes from their excesses and scandals, have had to finally agree that enough is enough.

Amongst the multitude of faith interest groups, there will be only four non-religious groups represented at the Religious Freedom Roundtable. Our simple task: to promote the message that is contained within the very definition of UNDHR itself, that the beliefs of non-believers carry equal weight with those of believers. When we "let freedom ring", it won't be in order to discriminate against others.

And for those such as Archbishop Fisher who fear the clang of a fast-closing door, I offer the following consolation. The heathens in your midst don't want to invert the current situation. We aren't advocating that you have to pay for evangelical atheists to preach Nietzsche and Dawkins to your children. Nor should your children grow up to face discrimination by government funded secular businesses.

We think this would be unfair. We hope you can acknowledge the obvious asymmetry.

Sigmund Freud said, "The voice of reason is soft, but persistent." Well, perhaps it's time for unbelievers to raise their voices. And in doing so, let's get the emphasis right. Let's talk about "freedom of belief", inclusive of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Hugh Harris is a board member of the Rationalist Society of Australia and writes a blog called The Rational Razor.

Topics: religion-and-beliefs, other-religions, community-and-society

First posted October 22, 2015 15:06:58

Comments (284)

Comments for this story are closed.

DaveR:

22 Oct 2015 3:27:30pm

You seem to want it both ways. Firstly you crow that "The 2011 Census recorded "no belief" at 22.3 per cent" at the same time as you bemoan that "Australia having one of the largest proportions of children studying at religious schools in the OECD?"

Perhaps you made a point you didn't intend to :)

Alert moderator
- ThingFish:
  
  22 Oct 2015 3:48:26pm
  
  "Perhaps you made a point you didn't intend to :)"
  
  Actually, it is your good self who has missed the point being made. The reason we have a disproportionate number of children attending religious schools is because the religious institutions are working the system to obtain tax payer funding that then encourages non religious parents to send their kids there as fodder for indoctrination. I know a number of cases where the outcomes have been undesirable in that children come home from a religious school to an atheist family and start sprouting "God made this food".
  
  Alert moderator
  - DaveR:
    
    22 Oct 2015 4:59:07pm
    
    Interesting view you have there Fish. I guess you are unaware that in NSW 75% of total government funding goes to the 63% of students in the public system, thereby saving the governments a massive amount of money.
    It is a common misconception by those who haven't actually looked at the facts. Does that count as 'working the system'?
    
    "I know a number of cases where the outcomes have been undesirable in that children come home from a religious school to an atheist family and start sprouting "God made this food"."
    You could see that as an opportunity to rationally discuss your belief vs the school's belief, or you could feel threatened as your quote would suggest.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Demac:
      
      22 Oct 2015 5:36:52pm
      
      "NSW 75% of total government funding goes to the 63% of students in the public system,"
      
      And 100% of government money spent on golf courses goes to public golf courses, not private ones.
      
      If 25% of ratepayer funded spending on golf-based recreation went to private golf clubs, what would you say?
      
      Fund the public system properly and then let the free market sort out whether private schools have a viable product.
      
      Alert moderator
    - ThingFish:
      
      22 Oct 2015 6:25:39pm
      
      "And 100% of government money spent on golf courses goes to public golf courses, not private ones. "
      
      Thank you, Demac. I have nothing to add.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Trev:
      
      22 Oct 2015 10:05:47pm
      
      Why, are you as ignorant of the real world as Demac. Most parents pay tax, unless you are a late arrival to this country, and as a result they want the state to pay its fair share of their kid's educational requirements.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Disciple of Rationality:
      
      23 Oct 2015 9:24:17am
      
      Trev, the government pays 100% of the cost of educating children in its public school system.
      
      Parents who choose not to make use of that system, in favour of home-schooling, Steiner, religious or macrobiotic non-government schools have rejected their "fair share" of government funding.
      
      Be grateful that a generous government allows ANY money to go to rogue schools outside the properly run, supervised state system. It can stop at any time.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tom1:
      
      23 Oct 2015 10:29:52am
      
      Last time I looked the State is prepared to pay for all of any kid's educational requirements. Unless of course you call religion "Education".
      
      Alert moderator
    - Demac:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:55:32pm
      
      "they want the state to pay its fair share of their kid's educational requirements."
      
      They get 100% of their kid's educational requirements funded by the state system. If they want to make a personal choice about selecting a non-state provider then they have to fund that personal, private, choice themselves. Just like golf players.
      
      Alert moderator
    - DaveR:
      
      22 Oct 2015 7:33:37pm
      
      Demac, you missed the import of what I said. Because only 25% of total govt funding is supporting 37% of the students, who makes up the shortfall? That parents. Private schooling subsidises the education system. If the private schools closed, then the govt would have to find billions MORE to make up the shortfall.
      
      The point being, private schools SAVE the govt and the taxpayer money, despite ill-informed claims to the contrary.
      
      Do note, I fully support a well funded public system, it is crucial. Just get the facts right :)
      
      Alert moderator
    - black belt:
      
      23 Oct 2015 2:41:41am
      
      DaveR,
      
      "The point being, private schools SAVE the govt and the taxpayer money, despite ill-informed claims to the contrary"
      
      Rubbish, its costing the the taxpaxer 25% more.
      
      Name a rich person that would allow their little darlings to go to a 'cesspit' of a 'public' school. They would simply pay higher school fees to avoid that.
      
      Therefore, it saves nothing but for them on what the private schools fees should really cost.
      
      Go to America, and see what happens over there. Any public funding to a 'private' school is seen as an insult to the richie richers, and the school itself is not worthy of being called a 'private' one.
      
      Australian 'private' schools are nothing but fraudsters and not freemarketeers at all, as are the parents that send their kids to them, and claiming they cover the fees for a 'private' school for their kids...
      
      Because it is simply not true. They dont. But would if forced to to stay away from mere 'public schools'.
      
      Alert moderator
    - DaveR:
      
      23 Oct 2015 10:05:10am
      
      black belt, I fear whatever school you went to did not teach you adequately in mathematics, let alone logic.
      
      It isn't costing the taxpayer 25% more, how on earth do you figure that? If the private schools didn't exist the govt would need to pay far MORE than it currently does.
      
      Public schools aren't a 'cesspit' as you describe it. They are staffed for the most part by talented and devoted teachers, and most are quite well resourced.
      
      The rest really isn't very coherent at all...
      
      Alert moderator
    - black belt:
      
      23 Oct 2015 10:59:47am
      
      DaveR,
      
      Here:
      
      "I guess you are unaware that in NSW 75% of total government funding goes to the 63% of students in the public system, thereby saving the governments a massive amount of money."
      
      Your comment, not mine.
      
      I fear you may have completely missed my point though.
      
      But by your summations. Perhaps they can make up the shortfall by cutting teaching staff pay rates, or cleaners pay, or whatever it is that the glorious private sector do to improve quality in their world to stay comfortable in the lifestyle they are accustomed to, without drawing on the public fundings they require to stay afloat.
      
      No idea whether your figures are actually correct or not. But it does not change much of your essential sentiment though really does it.
      
      Coherent enough for you?
      
      Or do we need to buy yet another private school an olympic sized indoor swimming pool with your so called "savings"?
      
      Alert moderator
    - wizeowl:
      
      23 Oct 2015 1:22:51pm
      
      Black belt, I would very much like to agree with you that 'private schools are all fraudsters'; as a govt. school teacher for most of my life, it would be in my best interests to 'bash' the private school system. However, to be perfectly honest, i can't. I've seen too many excellent private schools with first class teaching. (Let's not forget that BOTH govt and private school teachers all come out of the same universities and teachers colleges; the private school teachers DON'T go to 'better; unis or colleges - a factor that so many ignorant Australians simply don't know.) But to get to the REAL point of the discussion - religious teaching in schools - let me assure that most private schools worthy of the name barely touch on the subject of specific doctrine. What they, and ALL schools of any stripe teach is 'values', in other words, the things all parents send their kids to school for: good manners, courtesy, respect for others, religious, social, political and cultural tolerance, an understanding of multicultural Australia. Any kid who comes home from school telling his/her parents that 'God made this food', or, as I've heard from a child subjected to the infamous school chaplaincy program, that he was 'going to die and go to hell if he was naughty' - is in a bad place! Remove him/her! Even the Catholic system - the one religious school system that makes a point of preaching doctrine - wouldn't come at this. And yes - private schools clearly have more money spent on them by govt and parents and it is outrageous. Parents send their kids to private schools because they think they'll get a better education. What they get is better facilities and if they are lucky, good teaching.They are funded by the govt and do NOT 'save us money'; where the blazes does this idea come from? Parent who send their kids to govt schools do so for a great many reasons -ideological, geographical, financial. What they get is in the main, excellent teaching - and I'm able to say that because I've been in the system long enough to know. What they won't get is a socio-political doctrine preached at them about how much 'better' they are than those kids who go to the private system and they won't get flash facilities because they can't be afforded and they don't matter a toss anyhow. And atheism, Islam, Anglicanism. Catholicism, Buddhism, etc., is regarded as a private matter to be treated with respect. Religious belief - or lack of it - is a non-issue, as indeed, it should be.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Demac:
      
      23 Oct 2015 2:51:40pm
      
      "Just get the facts right :)"
      
      Ok, using your numbers, the facts are as follows:
      - 25% of total govt funding goes to private schools
      - if this funding was cut some/most private students would stay in the private system (like they did before 1970).
      - Let us say 50% return to the public system
      
      Results:
      - Public school funding increases 25%
      - Public school numbers increase 19%
      
      Outcome:
      - An overall increase in public school funding per student with no increase in spending.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Cyn:
      
      22 Oct 2015 7:00:18pm
      
      "I guess you are unaware that in NSW 75% of total government funding goes to the 63% of students in the public system, thereby saving the governments a massive amount of money."
      
      Why should any private school get the same level of government funding per student as a public school? The whole idea behind private schools is that the school fees pay for the school and not the government, the fact the government gives them any funding is just an acknowledgement that the parents who send their kids to private school help pay for the public school system through taxes as well and contribute part of that back tax back to their children's education. Also while private school may technically save the government money, it costs the parents a gobsmacking amount of money and the money they spent on private schools can't be spent on other things. I'd like to know what percentage of GDP is spent on education as a whole and compare that to the percentage spent on private education.
      
      Alert moderator
    - bob:
      
      22 Oct 2015 7:09:29pm
      
      So 75% of funding goes to 63% of students in government schools. You've confirmed for me that private schooling is a waste of taxpayers money. Consider that the government has to fund rural and remote schools and these can cost a lot more per student than big city schools. Also the government has to cover ALL special needs kids, private schools do not. So it looks like the government spends 20% more per head in public schools and thus there must be a "big" saving. Of course there are also economies of scale. I live in a rural area and the local high school which has a senior catchment of about 70km has 6 students in the physics class. Now if you remove subsidies for farmers kids who go to boarding school you probably would have 12 kids in the physics class (for almost the same cost) and it would still be a better staff student ratio than the school the farmers kids board at.
      
      If private schools need a subsidy then by all means provide it via a scholarship to special needs kids and let the private system show that it really can "value add" (which it cannot).
      
      Alert moderator
    - chalkie:
      
      22 Oct 2015 10:54:08pm
      
      Exactly right. It is not a level playing field, and the private schools know it. They helped make it unequal.
      
      That is why they hated Gonski: why should those with the most needs have funding to match? Instead, the 'Christian' schools demanded that the weak and the poor should miss out, and that there should be a 'no disadvantage' rule given to their historical privilege.
      
      So the fact remains, education is a 'positional good': it does not matter what you know, it just matters that you can use your education to out-compete others for university placement.
      
      And when schools like mine - Church owned - provide $25 000 + per year (with significant government subsidy) educational experiences to already hugely resourced kids, and state schools provide $11 000 to vastly more needy kids, guess who out-competes the other?
      
      Almost none of these kids would leave to go to state schools if funding was withdrawn, so there is no real 'saving' for high fee schools like mine.
      
      Alert moderator
    - DaveR:
      
      23 Oct 2015 10:11:30am
      
      Chalkie, you need some facts. Most private schools did not have ANY problem with Gonski, not sure where you got the idea they hated it. Also, the 'no disadvantage rule' wasn't about any 'historical privilege' but ensuring they didn't receive LESS funding.
      
      I know there are a minority of private schools that charge ridiculous fees, and these schools obviously have no need of govt funding, but the vast majority are not, and serve all manner of students.
      
      Considering you are so critical of your own school, perhaps you should match your actions to your words and not compromise your principles by working there?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Demac:
      
      23 Oct 2015 11:59:51am
      
      "I know there are a minority of private schools that charge ridiculous fees, and these schools obviously have no need of govt funding, but the vast majority are not, and serve all manner of students."
      
      I live in SE QLD and I don't know of a single non-Catholic private school that charges less than $15,000 per annum (Year 12). The top ten charge more like $20,000 and if you factor uniform, book and extra curricular expenses the total cost can hit $35,000.
      
      Alert moderator
    - DaveR:
      
      23 Oct 2015 4:05:34pm
      
      Demac, based on your replies so far, I really wouldn't rely on what you don't/do know.
      
      I work in the private school sector, and have worked in public schools. I assure you that you are incorrect.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Demac:
      
      23 Oct 2015 5:17:25pm
      
      "I really wouldn't rely on what you don't/do know."
      
      Article in the Brisbane News, 20/1/2014 'Brisbane private school fees up to $22,000 in 2014'. Based on information complied by Fairfax Media and publications by the Australian Scholarships Group. Which, by the way, also found that Brisbane is the second *cheapest* city, after Adelaide, for a private education.
      
      "I work in the private school sector, and have worked in public schools. I assure you that you are incorrect."
      
      I assure you that you are a biased source of information.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tom1:
      
      23 Oct 2015 10:26:53am
      
      Dave. So 25% of government money goes to private schools, mainly church schools. That is a disgrace. Churches run schools to indoctrination kids into religion, to perpetuate the myth of the church.
      
      I do not care if the education budget increases proportionally. The education of our kids is a government responsibility, and if the churches paid taxes, the government would come out in front, and the kids better educated.
      
      The fact that a child made the ridiculous statement "God made this food" just shows how the school has failed in the first basics, reality and common sense.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Sam:
      
      23 Oct 2015 11:21:43am
      
      So why aren't the atheists/non religious people building good private schools then?
      
      Obviously religious schools are offering something worthwhile or else people wouldn't pay a fortune to send their kids there.
      
      If the religious schools shut up shop tomorrow, all of those kids would have to go to state schools. That would cost the taxpayer a whole heap more.
      
      Alert moderator
    - DaveR:
      
      23 Oct 2015 11:35:26am
      
      "to perpetuate the myth of the church."
      
      Fortunately, most private schools teach independent and critical thinking at least as much as public schools do; I know mine does. Therefore no-one is asked to blindly believe anything. Perhaps you too could learn from that.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Early Grayce:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:11:09pm
      
      DaveR,
      I would just like to reiterate that we pay for schools to educate children, these are public schools and should be the only ones which our tax dollars pay for unfortunately we also pay for Private Schools. If people do not chose to be educated in a public school they have every right to educate their children in a private school at their own cost but we should not as taxpayers be forced to contribute to their tuition.
      I want tax loopholes which allow businesses to avoid paying large amounts of tax to be closed in the same way I want private schools to stop leeching off of taxpayers. If our government did these two things we would have a lot more money to spend on projects which benefit all of the public.
      
      Alert moderator
    - DaveR:
      
      23 Oct 2015 2:05:20pm
      
      Grayce, as I already posted, parent contributions to their child's education actually saves the govt massive amounts of money. If these children went to public schools because the private schools closed the govt and taxpayer would have to spend MORE than the contributions to private schools cost them. This whole concept of "private schools leeching off of taxpayers" is simply a fallacy.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Demac:
      
      23 Oct 2015 5:08:56pm
      
      "actually saves the govt massive amounts of money."
      
      I understand why you continue to misrepresent the facts (after all you have a vested interest).
      
      " If these children went to public schools because the private schools closed"
      
      This is the assumption that you always bring up and is *obviously* wrong. Private schools existed before public subsidies and will continue to do so if those subsidies cease.
      
      "This whole concept of "private schools leeching off of taxpayers" is simply a fallacy."
      
      Your logic is fails because your key assumption is false. Based on the figures you provide more than two thirds of private students would have to exit the private system before there was any additional cost to the public system.
      
      Alert moderator
    - franjulie:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:09:37pm
      
      Not sure if you are being disingenuous or simply unaware, but it is the Commonwealth government that is funding the private schools, so whilst your NSW figures may be correct, you are ignoring the disproportionate amount that private (usually religious) schools receive via Commonwealth funding.
      
      Alert moderator
    - DaveR:
      
      23 Oct 2015 2:07:55pm
      
      No franjulie, my figures were TOTAL govt spending. Separating Federal/State is ignoring total funding, and ignoring the different responsibilities the different levels of govt have. This is a tactic commonly used by the detractors of private schools.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Bev:
    
    22 Oct 2015 5:03:28pm
    
    I would say that is a minority. A great many choose private schools (Religious or secular) because they think their children will get a better education. Religion has little to do with it.
    
    Alert moderator
    - ThingFish:
      
      22 Oct 2015 6:26:56pm
      
      "A great many choose private schools (Religious or secular) because they think their children will get a better education."
      
      Right! And without taxpayer funding from working the system they would not be able to offer "better education"...
      
      Alert moderator
    - Bev:
      
      23 Oct 2015 7:40:49am
      
      They are still Australian children and should have the same funding as any other child. Which is why a voucher system would stop this argument cold. All would have the same funding to be spent where they want.
      
      Alert moderator
    - graazt:
      
      23 Oct 2015 9:59:56am
      
      A voucher system would only work if private schools weren't allowed to either turn away problem students, or raise fees privately.
      
      Otherwise you're further entrenching privilege and denying opportunities to those with talent that lack resources.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Early Grayce:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:12:30pm
      
      They could still offer "Better Education" but the parents would need to pay a reasonable amount for it.
      Why are we still subsidising private companies?
      
      Alert moderator
    - DaveR:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:20:11pm
      
      "Right! And without taxpayer funding from working the system they would not be able to offer "better education"..."
      
      Neither would the public schools, as the education funding would be stretched further and not subsidised by the parents of the private school students.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Disciple of Rationality:
      
      23 Oct 2015 9:30:15am
      
      And a great many others send their kids to a second-rate non-government school so that they can be "school chums" with the Malfoys (the "right sort of families") and try to get a leg up into the Old Boys Union, who wear "the right tie".
      
      These are the kids who drop out of Uni at the end of first year when their grades tank because the second-rate school to which they were sent has mollycoddled them, instead of requiring them to work for a pass mark, so that the school can inflate its academec records instead of earning them honestly.
      
      Alert moderator
  - CF Zero:
    
    22 Oct 2015 10:09:00pm
    
    This has been the modus operandi of religion since the first university was opened in Cairo about 1,000AD.
    
    The religious institution secures funding to provide a superior education than what the government of the day can provide, parents want the best education for their children so are forced to send them to religious schools.
    Young and impressionable minds are then molded by the religious institution and the students in time rise to positions of power because their education is superior to others, because they have been indoctrinated they then use their position of power to ensure the cycle continues. The previous PM Mr Abbott forcing chaplains into schools is the perfect example.
    
    This method of recruitment was so successful for Islam, that Christianity copied the model in Europe.
    
    I myself am a product of this education system and while I threw the shackles some years ago, it did take something like 20 years to have the confidence to break free.
    
    There is no place for superstitious belief in a modern society. no matter what the UN says.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Orion:
      
      23 Oct 2015 11:53:09am
      
      Quote: "...since the first university was opened in Cairo about 1,000AD."
      
      Nope. India beat that by more than a thousand years and there were many operating before 1000 AD. No Roman universities though, they went in for individual teachers. It was after the Romans that what we call universities arose.
      
      As early as 700 B.C., there existed a giant University at Takshashila, located in the northwest region of Bharat, India, which ran for some 800 years. At one stage, it had 10,500 students including those from Babylon, Greece, Syria, and China.
      
      The oldest existing, and continually operating educational institution in the world is the University of Karueein, founded in 859 AD in Fez, Morocco.
      
      A medical school arose in Salerno, Italy, in the 9th century and another appeared in Bologna in the 11th century, which expanded into other topics and still exists as the University of Bologna. It is here the word "university" was coined.
      
      Finally a famous university arose in southern Spain in Cordova in the middle of the 9th century.
      
      Alert moderator
  - splod1:
    
    23 Oct 2015 9:04:04am
    
    We chose to send our 4 children to a local Lutheran school, not because of its religious nature, but in spite of it: the alternative public school was simply sub-standard. I wouldn't worry too much about religious indoctrination at religious schools, ThingFish. The school tried very hard to wash my children's minds, but, quite frankly, it wasn't very good at it. The administration even discriminated against my Buddhist eldest child, but she just smiled beatifically and let it wash over her. If you support your children at home to question the world, and make their own decisions, they'll come up with the belief system that suits them. If they choose a theistic belief system, then so be it: it's their lives.
    
    Alert moderator
    - ThingFish:
      
      23 Oct 2015 9:37:54am
      
      Well, Mr Splod, I now have have a devoutly Lutheran adult niece from nowhere. I say "nowhere", but suddenly we have a devout Lutheran in our family and the only thing I can attribute that to is the fact that she attended a Lutheran School. It may well be that she is not the brightest star in the galaxy, but that simply suggests that if she had attended a Catholic school that she would now subscribe to a different brand of superstition.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Edina:
      
      23 Oct 2015 10:14:41am
      
      She's free to make up her own mind ThinkFish - as we all are. Trying to protect children from other beliefs will more than likely just make that belief more attractive. At the end of the day, being religious is not the worse thing that could happen to her. It will probably keep her a lot safer than other things young people get into.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Early Grayce:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:20:31pm
      
      ThingFish,
      I truly feel sorry for your niece and the rest of your family.
      Lutherans are one of the worst religious institutions around and unfortunately their introduction to Australia was the fault of my family.
      Did you know that they believe the magic words they say to their wine and crackers literally turn them into blood and flesh before they devour it?
      This seems to make it a vampire religion as drinking this blood is meant to give them eternal life.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tom1:
      
      23 Oct 2015 2:47:24pm
      
      Early Grayce: And they do all you say at the taxpayers expense. No income tax, no land tax, and virtually the freedom to preach what they like.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tom1:
      
      23 Oct 2015 2:42:43pm
      
      Thingfish: Exactly the point. If she had gone to a Muslim school, let us say a radical one, what would she be now? Yet Tony Abbott on regular occasions referred to his religion as though that places him above others. Thank goodness Turnbull is quieter on the subject.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Edina:
      
      23 Oct 2015 10:07:30am
      
      Ha!! The same thing can be said about secular public schools. I became a christian at age 16 whilst attending a very secular school. They tried to encourage my friends and I away from "a ridiculous religious belief" but in the end just showed us how spiritually bankrupt they were. Those who know what they believe will never be led away by anything their educators can say. For those who aren't sure what they believe, exposure to different ideas will help them decide what they think is right.
      
      Alert moderator
    - ThingFish:
      
      23 Oct 2015 10:33:54am
      
      "They tried to encourage my friends and I away from "a ridiculous religious belief""
      
      I find that hard to believe. A truly secular school would not try to influence anybody in relation to what they choose to believe.
      
      Alert moderator
    - franjulie:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:14:13pm
      
      Unfortunately, truth & religion aren't very connected.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Sam:
      
      23 Oct 2015 1:38:58pm
      
      Well that's your opinion franjulie - not everyone's.
      
      Thankfully we still live in a society where people are free to have a different belief. Hopefully it will remain that way.
      
      Alert moderator
- Grommo:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:08:45pm
  
  Hi Dave. With both myself and wife being atheists having a non-believing daughter in a religious school I think you misunderstand why many parents send their kids to private schools. It's because of family tradition of having been to private schools, quality school facilities and the community focus on academic achievement and social grace and citizenship such schools entail.
  I know very few parents of this private catholic girl's school that are in any way religious or even care about invisible magical fantasy friends.
  A little bit of inoculation by exposure to ranting about walking on water and other nonsense helps kids identify irrational belief and the psychosis that allows grown adults to believe fairy stories.
  
  Alert moderator
  - M:
    
    22 Oct 2015 4:36:39pm
    
    Same, Grommo.
    
    Being a reformed catholic I can and do run interference on some of the more bizarre and constraining aspects of my daughter's catholic high school religious instruction.
    
    Despite the bollocks, it's still a school I'd recommend for its cohesive, supportive culture and the quality of the education, activities and facilities.
    
    Alert moderator
  - The weed:
    
    22 Oct 2015 5:28:07pm
    
    Grommo, you shouldn't be so hard on public schools!
    
    I only went to public schools and got a first class education (along with scripture classes).
    
    I'm sorry that people think that religious schools are any more moral or desirable than any other school.
    
    Having said that, at least many, but by no means all, people in religious schools (both teachers and students) have a sense of fairness, ethics, respect for their fellow humans, and at least try to do good for their god's sake.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Early Grayce:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:24:58pm
      
      These people are "hard on public schools" because they need to attack public schools so they can justify having taxpayers subsidise the private organisation they pay to educate their children. In fact they have had no contact with public schools and have no idea what education standards are in place in them.
      Without their elitist education beliefs they have no way to justify spending my tax on services from a private company.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Edina:
      
      23 Oct 2015 2:57:19pm
      
      Parents spend their own money Early Grayce to send their kids to private schools. If we didn't have private schools, the taxpayer would have to foot the entire bill for our children's education. Private schools are doing our society a great service.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Chris:
    
    22 Oct 2015 10:23:44pm
    
    So, you and your wife are committed to the school's values and standards, but refuse to accept the principle of Good, God, that underlies it? This is not good enough. It is like wanting to have it both ways. I am not Catholic.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Sam:
      
      23 Oct 2015 10:33:32am
      
      So in other words, atheists send their kids to religious schools because they are "just better" than the secular public schools.
      
      So that begs the question - why aren't the atheists getting together to create great private schools, with all the benefits of a religious school - but without the religion?
      
      Alert moderator
- Dove:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:14:16pm
  
  In parts of Indonesia parents that can afford to, send their (Muslim) children to the Catholic schools because they are considered superior to the state offerings whilst moderately affordable
  
  Alert moderator
  - Early Grayce:
    
    23 Oct 2015 12:26:09pm
    
    The majority of people who this news service is aimed at reside in Australia, not Indonesia.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Dove:
      
      23 Oct 2015 2:11:36pm
      
      And I trust you've learned something
      
      Alert moderator
- Meredith Doig:
  
  22 Oct 2015 5:01:57pm
  
  Firstly, the author was not "crowing" - he was stating a fact. And given the New Zealand experience, where the No Religion option was placed at the top of the list, the next Australian census is likely to show a more realistic measure of the number of non-religious. In NZ, the number is around 48%.
  
  Secondly, the number of the non-religious and the number of parents choosing religious schools for their children are different issues. Australia is one of the few countries in the OECD that funds a whole religiously oriented school system - the Catholic School System. This is an historical anomaly, devised to appease the Catholic vote, and has become entrenched. Parents who send their kids to the local parish school often do so, not because they want a religious schooling, but because it's cheaper than an independent school and they've been duped into thinking that public schools are value-free zones. (They're not, of course, but that's due to some clever marketing by the religious elite).
  
  If Australia did as the Finns do, we'd put all our public money into great public schools. Perhaps then we'd improve our standing on the international rating scales.
  
  Alert moderator
- Mitor the Bold:
  
  22 Oct 2015 6:19:33pm
  
  It surely cannot be long now until religious belief is regarded, in educated societies where people have access to facts, as a pathology. I'm sure there will be counselling and maybe drugs available to help sufferers recover. I imagine the therapies will be very similar to the deradicalisation programs we read about today.
  
  Religious education is an abuse of children and should not be permitted at all, let alone funded by taxpayers. It is absurd, like something from a dystopian alternative world.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Sam:
    
    23 Oct 2015 10:41:14am
    
    Oh Mitor, you have no idea at all. The history of centuries shows that the more Christianity comes under threat, the more it will flourish. Christianity has always thrived under persecution. Just look at the church today in China. Mao and others did their best to get rid of the church. Now there are more Christians in China than any other country. Same with Russia. My belief is that this current atheist trend will flourish for a while but will inevitably fall apart when many realise, it has nothing of substance to offer. There is a very good reason why religion has lasted through the centuries. It gives people a rock to stand on in good times and bad.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Early Grayce:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:27:51pm
      
      Unfortunately rats and cockroaches survive all of our attempts to stop them spreading disease too.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Sam:
      
      23 Oct 2015 1:49:58pm
      
      Ha, insults. Always a good indication that an intelligent counter argument is nowhere to be found.
      
      I take it you agree Early Grayce that the church isn't going anywhere? We will survive as we always have.
      
      Alert moderator
Boutros Boutros:

22 Oct 2015 3:27:34pm

"When freedom of belief is threatened, the oppressive force is often religion itself."

Catchy phrase. But you're conveniently focusing on religious oppression of vague "beliefs", rather than the multiple instances from history of atheistic or secularist oppression of religious groups.

Secularism, as distinct from pluralism and mutual respect, is not a friend of freedom of belief and conscience. It attempts to force faith into private and dominate the public discourse with naturalistic assumptions and "rationalistic principles" that are all supposedly self-evident common sense.

But there are plenty of educated, civic-minded, respectful and caring people who don't approach questions of life and society with so-called "rationalism" as their ultimate guide.

People should be able to peacefully express and spread their religious and philosophical views without being encroached upon by restrictive laws.

Alert moderator
- Desert Woman:
  
  22 Oct 2015 3:57:37pm
  
  Boutros, you have made a lot of assertions to which I am having difficulty attaching evidence.
  
  What is the historical evidence for:
  - atheistic or secular oppression of religious groups?
  - secularism forcing faith into private?
  
  if we want a generally free and harmonious society, we should aim for freedom of belief. Laws are required in all cultures and societies and they should be focussed on ensuring that there is that freedom. Any believers of any description should be subject to the punishments enshrined in the law if they attempt to restrict the beliefs of others or impose on others.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Himself:
    
    22 Oct 2015 4:44:48pm
    
    Desert Woman , couldn't have wrote it better , agree .
    
    Alert moderator
  - Bev:
    
    22 Oct 2015 5:12:10pm
    
    Communism is the recent glaring example.
    
    Alert moderator
  - Boutros Boutros:
    
    22 Oct 2015 5:40:20pm
    
    Religious minorities and even mainstream groups have been oppressed by officials, state enforced atheism in various communist societies including the USSR, Romania, China, Cambodia and North Korea. But atheists typically find ways to tell us why these regimes are unrepresentative of atheism, while tarring every religious person with the brush of the Iranian theocracy, the Taliban and the crusades.
    
    Secularism has sought to remove the public voice of people with faith by telling them to keep their religious opinions to themselves: e.g.; out of the political sphere in Australia, getting prayer out of the schools of America and obstructing people's freedom to openly discuss their views in public if they don't fit a politically correct agenda.
    
    The way some people like Mr. Harris come across is that "religious people" collectively need to be kept in check so we don't ruin the lives of the non-religious. I agree with freedom of belief, freedom of religion and freedom of expression. But I fear Mr. Harris and co. are unlikely to truly be satisfied with anything other than the complete marginalisation of religious opinions in public life.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Desert Woman:
      
      22 Oct 2015 6:19:52pm
      
      Boutros, certainly totalitarian regimes attempt to prevent religious beliefs because they pose a threat to the regime.
      
      However, your evidence in democracies shows no such oppression. Countries such as the USA and Australia have constitutional requirements for the separation of religion and state. To be true to the constitution requires that there is no religion in public schools or the parliament. It is an historical accident that we have religious education in schools, often against the wishes of parents and/or children, for example. It is not oppression to ask that it be removed.
      
      if we had a ban on people being able to worship in their own places or in public places as long as they did not interfere with the rights of others, I would agree that there is a marginalization of religion in public life, but we don't.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Boutros Boutros:
      
      22 Oct 2015 9:29:04pm
      
      "It is an historical accident that we have religion in schools"
      Well Desert Woman, you may be in another part of the country to me, but in Qld religious education in schools is there because of one of the only successful referenda in our states history. Is it an accident of history that Indigenous people have the vote? Will same sex marriage be a historical accident if the plebiscite is successful?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Desert Woman:
      
      23 Oct 2015 8:44:17am
      
      Boutros. there is a thing called social change, a phenomenon caused by people changing their minds.
      
      Religious beliefs were much more accepted in the past, as was discrimination against non-white people. But people have been changing their minds: religion, homophobia and bigotry are now much less acceptable.
      
      There is not much you can do about it unless you decide you don't want a democracy and try to initiate an entirely different system of governance. But you may not get very far with that either.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Daniel:
      
      23 Oct 2015 1:53:27pm
      
      Boutros is right about religion in schools not being an accident. It was there because people wanted it there.
      Society has changed since then and while a lot of people still want religion in schools there is less agreement over which one and an increasing number would prefer none at all.
      
      So it seems change is desirable.
      
      Alert moderator
    - leafygreens:
      
      22 Oct 2015 6:23:54pm
      
      'Religious minorities and even mainstream groups have been oppressed by officials, state enforced atheism in various communist societies including the USSR, Romania, China, Cambodia and North Korea.'
      
      In which case these states did not have freedom of belief.. so what is the issue with the original statement:
      
      "When freedom of belief is threatened, the oppressive force is often religion itself."
      
      it does not say always only often...
      
      Your eagerness to label oppressive regimes as 'state enforced atheism' in fact proves the point that you cant separate religion from belief..
      
      Personally I don't want Christian prayers said in parliament. Not because I am Stalinist, a devotee of the Dear Leader, or even because I have a different God, but because the purpose of parliament is being a representational, democratically elected government for the people making laws and administering the money... and should not be appealing to anyone's deity for assistance to do a job for a secular nation, that requires education, logic and compassion foremost.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Mitor the Bold:
      
      22 Oct 2015 6:52:25pm
      
      "Secularism has sought to remove the public voice of people with faith by telling them to keep their religious opinions to themselves"
      
      That's not quite right, I think the message has been keep your weird beliefs private and stop trying to impose them on the rest of us through the law. No gay marriage because god's watching, no stem cell research because god's watching, no family planning because god's watching, no blaspheming, adultery, pork consumption, dressing outrageously, working on Sunday because god's watching.
      
      Until you can demonstrate that god's watching why should we pay attention to any of these prohibitions? And why should we include them in laws that restrict the lives of those of us who know for an absolute fact that god's not watching. He's simply not there, as Carlos Santana might have sung.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Zing:
      
      22 Oct 2015 7:10:07pm
      
      Boutros.
      
      What you fail to recognise is that the things that make communist systems terrible are the similarities they share with an oppressive, fundamentalist religion. Except instead of a deity, you have a Supreme Leader.
      
      So while you try to argue "atheists can be monsters too" what you really argue is "atheists who start acting like theists end up as bad as theists". Bit of an own goal really.
      
      Alert moderator
    - bob:
      
      22 Oct 2015 7:13:17pm
      
      ahhhh.... North Korea is not and atheistic country, it has a strong belief system that is not rational. There are also weird (lets call them supernatural) beliefs such as the three generations of guilt that punishes children and grandchildren for the misdeeds of their parent - sort of like original sin or something.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Dr Who:
      
      22 Oct 2015 8:02:15pm
      
      "But atheists typically find ways to tell us why these regimes are unrepresentative of atheism, while tarring every religious person with the brush of the Iranian theocracy, the Taliban and the crusades."
      
      Indeed - and religious bigots from those faiths keep telling us that the crusades, Taliban etc. were carried out by deviants, and thus it shouldn't be used as a slur against their religion. It's a common fall-back for the bigot who doesn't want to acknowledge that horrible things have been done in the name of a religion or ideology that he/she identifies with. And atheists are no different in that respect.
      
      Ultimately, the problems are extremism, intolerance to differences (in race, ideology, or whatever), and human greed. The sociopaths, narcissists and ideologues will find a way of making everyone's lives miserable, with or without religion. And while religion has certainly got a lot to answer for in its role for fueling those things, the notion that atheism is some panacea for all the world's woes is not only wishful thinking; the prominence of very dangerous 20th century ideologues (such as the abovementioned communist regimes, and there are others) counts against this idea.
      
      But like most other religious fanatics, extremist and intolerant atheists are blind to evidence if it contradicts their ideology.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Dr Who:
      
      23 Oct 2015 2:19:14pm
      
      I see that at least two commentators have now gone along the lines that totalitarian regimes are not rational or elevate a supreme leader, ergot, they're not real atheists.
      
      For Zing and bob, atheism is lack of belief in a God. There is no requirement that atheists need to be rational - in fact, many are not. That atheistic nutters and religious nutters have tactics in common, does not make atheists theists. Extremism is not a product of dogmatic adherence to a religion, it is the product of dogmatic adherence to a philosophy. That philosophy may or may not involve belief in a God (in which case, it becomes a religion).
      
      Alert moderator
    - HPH:
      
      23 Oct 2015 5:01:32pm
      
      Dr Who,
      
      Do you know the difference between Philosophy and Ideology?
      
      Alert moderator
  - HPH:
    
    22 Oct 2015 6:23:29pm
    
    Well, the headline says, "We should be promoting freedom of belief, not religious freedom"
    
    Now, taking the religious aspect out of this proposition and remaking the proposition by saying, "We should be promoting freedom of belief, belief in anything", sounds very funny to me. Because, everyone on this planet has a freedom of belief. A person in North Korea can believe Kim Jong-un is a looney psychopath, and, another person can believe Black-Africans are inferior race. No one can stop another person what to think and believe.
    
    There is a big difference between having a belief AND having the freedom to express this belief.
    
    Big difference...
    
    Obviously, the person in North Korea is not stupid enough to express his belief in public spaces or in the company of friends.
    
    I can't say the same for the rednecks... because most of them are stupid.
    
    Alert moderator
  - franjulie:
    
    23 Oct 2015 12:19:19pm
    
    There has to be a limit to freedom of belief in a rational society. For example, female genital mutilation, child brides, (which is paedophilia), enforced marriages, gender inequality, etc. have no place in a civilised rational society; regardless of one's personal religious beliefs.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Dove:
      
      23 Oct 2015 1:37:36pm
      
      Australia is a rational society. None of those things are permissible here. I suppose if you wanted them you could go to India or Africa
      
      Alert moderator
- Alternatvue:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:26:15pm
  
  No doubt there is a place for rationalism in thinking scientifically on the great realities that exist quite independently of man's thinking - realities that include the Cosmos, Earth and the Solar System, Life, and 'natural' Nature. In its proper place, rationalism follows up imagination and inspiration to fill in the particular pictures of those realities which scientists paint - pictures that are different from amd rather more prosaic than those of poets, great artists and connected human imaginations.
  
  But rationalism in the making of man-imagined realities has not much to recommend it. It invariably claims vastly more authority for itself than it is entitled to.
  
  We have produced The World As We Know It by a process of self-interested and selfish rationalism over the about eight thousand years of history.
  
  Our machinations were so incompetent and inelegant that we needed to invent The Law, and all its hangers-onto-it, and so malignant that we invented and generally adopted political ways in doing almost everything. We looked to place wealth and power in the hands of a few at the great cost to the happiness and potentials of the many and of the pre-existing realities which we exploited for our ends without consideration for their own.
  
  We 'competed' with everything - not to motivate the best we might be capable of, but to defeat and deprive others of the opportunities we claimed for ourselves - and at great and needless costs to people, Nature, Life, and the Biosphere. We invented Rationalisms which held this gross misuse of our opportunities was a brilliant result.
  
  The Drum publishes countless tiny rationalist contributions, articles and comments, that reflect various compasses and that add very little beyond noise. We make points. We make excuses. We level criticisms and accusations. We expound on theories and interpretations of theories. We are so sure that this or that course of intelligent rationalism has the answers to the great issues - that sprout from the total failure of their historical antecedents.
  
  I say RUBBISH THE LOT OF IT.
  
  I think we have a real chance if we connect with the whole stock of wisdom that is available to us - of which only a very small part derives from science.
  
  The trick is to think and behave as good people - not simply the 'good' defined by religions, ethics, laws, morals, political or social best practices, but according to the standards of our best instincts, our best imaginations, our best wisdoms, our best "souls".
  
  These are not things to be subjected to reason, rationalism or science - they are far beyond our capacities of mathematical representation. They are things to be, to practise and to depend on.
  
  I suggest we stop wasting time on our various conceits of intellectualism and get on with living together as good people.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Skeptic:
    
    22 Oct 2015 4:54:58pm
    
    Love your suggestion all of us becoming 'good people'. Let's make a start on that by chucking out all the nonsense spouted by all religions from public discourse. It is divisive and there are some who are so deluded that they are right, and everyone else is wrong, that they seek to prove their moral superiority over everyone else by the most violent means. Which is more like politics, really. We should also remove their tax exempt status. They are set up like businesses and should be treated as such. Victims of any abuse by members of any religious organization should be allowed to sue, as well.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Bev:
      
      22 Oct 2015 5:17:24pm
      
      We are talking about freedom of belief and you want to remove religious belief from the mix.
      
      Alert moderator
    - graazt:
      
      23 Oct 2015 10:06:03am
      
      We want to move the state from the mix.
      
      No-one is looking to close down the churches. The public expression of religion will still be tolerated.
      
      Just not funded by the tax-payer, or promoted through the law of the land.
      
      People don't seem to understand what secularlism means.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tel :
      
      23 Oct 2015 4:07:14pm
      
      Is religion funded by the taxpayer? I thought religion was funded by the donations of people in their congregations, for the purpose of providing a meeting facility, paying the for a full time minister and other workers. Plus off course giving to the poor and needy. The funds are collected for the benefit of the community.
      
      Religious organisations, like others are non-profit. They are not a business with shareholders and who receive dividends. Not there to profit an individual but the community. If you work for the church you pay tax on your salary. That is why they don't pay tax. Yet so many think they should. On what basis?
      
      And as for the law of the land, we religious people have just as much say as to what should be, as anyone. Its a democracy after all.
      
      Alert moderator
  - mattg:
    
    23 Oct 2015 9:38:34am
    
    Alternatvue - you write "We have produced The World As We Know It by a process of self-interested and selfish rationalism over the about eight thousand years of history."
    
    This is a eurocentric point of view, and little wonder, as the adapters, changers and survivors of the most recent ice age have now dominated the planet - not necessarily with their genes, but certainly with their version of "The World As We Know It".
    
    This dominant world view has been achieved at the expense of other world views. The other views include many 'indigenous' cultures that have been systematically destroyed, commonly without recording much of the details of the knowledge, cultures and systems of living that have been eliminated. Irretrievable losses that will been seen as some of the most disgusting crimes in human history, should we be lucky enough to survive as a species long enough to gain some perspective.
    
    The indigenous cultures of the Australian continent, for example, seem to have been able to exist quite well within their environment, rather than changing it = something developed over tens of thousands of years with a relatively benign climate regime assisting. The destruction of these cultures is ongoing, and we know little of their details. We do know that European religions are at the vanguard of this process. That is a 'great reality'.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Alternatvue:
      
      23 Oct 2015 10:46:12am
      
      mattg
      
      My view is only eurocentric because at present the Anglo-Euro-American imperialism is dominant. The numerous greater and lesser imperialisms of earlier history have already fallen over, and perhaps the next pretenders are even now on the rise, but I think my view is timeless in history. You just insert the nominative of the prevailing top dogs to shift it anywhere on the timeline.
      
      I share your view that aboriginal cultures have fitted better with their sustainable realities than those of any imperialisms have managed.
      
      Brutish cultures like ours are much better at breaking than building. I would judge them more harshly than you do in the almost nothing they have taken aboard from cultures that are far more elegantly resolved. I also think that if we have the deference and respect reuired to appreciate them, these original cultures have a great contribution to make to the human future.
      I think we come to 'religions' through the necessity of coping with profound unknowns and a reality consisting almost entirely of unknowables. Ordinary people have something like 'dreamings' to meet their needs in this. Imperialists manufacture political religions that make them part of the potencies in these unknowns. They put themselves on some,demi-godlike footing. That approach has nothing to recommend it that I can see. But European, Meso-American, Middle Eastern, and East Asian religions all do much the same thing.
      
      In this Euro phase of history, the failings of Euro religions are on show. At other times, it is others that we would be talking about.
      
      I'm into reverent dreamings, and even the sharing of them among peoples, but political religions? I think not.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Orion:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:00:14pm
      
      "I share your view that aboriginal cultures have fitted better with their sustainable realities than those of any imperialisms have managed."
      
      Aboriginal cultures were the imperialists of their time.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Desert Woman:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:05:36pm
      
      Alternatvue, thank you for your very respectful and thoughtful response to mattg. I am pleased you realize that the way we behave is shaped by our times and our culture.
      
      Do you realize, however, that your response contradicts your views on human nature? If different cultures produce different behaviours, then if you don't like the way we behave, it is the culture we have to change, not the people directly.
      
      in other words, we are the same species we always were, with the same potentials for both selfishness and altruism, greed and generosity. Many people are unaware of just how the forces they are subject to are changing their behaviour. So unless we change those forces such as the nature of our social and political systems, the behaviour of the people is not going to change in any significant way.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Alternatvue:
      
      23 Oct 2015 5:04:04pm
      
      Desert Woman
      
      I think rather that how we think and behave shapes our times and our cultures but, if we persist in thinking and behaving so long enough and in numbers, our cultures do come to underpin our thinking and our behaviours.
      
      If we think and behave 'wrong-headedly' we get wrong-headed cultures and times, and they inculturate wrong-headed thinking and behaviours at the expense of better alternatives - thus, History.
      
      If we think amd behave well-mindedly, thence well-minded cultures and times and their reinforcement, support, and development of thinking and behaviour.
      
      In my view, we are what we think and do consistently (and there, if not in much more, I agree with Aristotle).
      
      I think the great majority of us are equipped with all that is needed to be good thinker-actor members of good human societies, but that we have been inculcated with wrong-headnesses that serve the fundamental ideas andd the principal beneficiaries of the madnesses behind History.
      
      I think we have to give up those habits for healthy ones much as addicts of most debilitating influences need to swear off them if they want to be healthy. If you like, I think we are something not completely unlike a global AA society. If we can beat this addiction with wrong-headedness we have everything we need to be spectacular at hand.
      
      What we have to do is to recognise well-minded ways of thinking and behaving and to take them up.
      
      You, and most of the rest of the Drummers (few of whom match you in your attention to your crafts), are Rationalists, I think
      
      Most of the Drumming is done by very limited Rationalists but some make a real effort.
      
      I am sorry but I think you are pushing a very little barrow and, for the most part, just slowing down any hope we have for transformation. Rationalists seem to be happiest contesting with each other about the emd of the egg to crack. Competition between Rationalists has been a major contributor to bogging man in wrong-headedness throughout history.
      
      In addition, I think your way is no road to anywhere. It's a bit like the legalist and religious model - just simultaneously deliver on these thousands of different standards - that are ambiguous or arcane - and all will be well. Good society by numbers One....Good society by numbers 8497....Goo
      
      That's no way to play golf even. It has no chance at playing good people and good society, and why go that way when we have all the basic skills onboard anyway?
      
      It's a bit more than this, but to echo a famous man - we having nothing to fear but wrong-headness itself.
      
      I don't propose to comment on the Drum much in future. I have seen too many examples of serious people tending to babble. Good luck with your efforts. I am pretty sure I will not have dented your contentions.
      
      Alert moderator
    - mattg:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:58:45pm
      
      As you say, "these original cultures have a great contribution to make to the human future.", however to be realistic we only have fragments of these human coping systems to work with in most cases.
      
      Like the current abhorrent mass extinction of species known and unknown, again in the name of greed, ideology and a perverted sense of being at the centre of the universe, future people will only be able to speculate on what has been lost forever. That is where a despairing sense of loss will be felt.
      
      And we know these things now. The Gods must be crazy.
      
      Alert moderator
- Alternatvue:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:43:40pm
  
  Boutros
  
  The Moderator may or may not publish a long comment of mine that I attached to yours, but I did want to applaud your comment separately.
  
  So many people are certain of both what is right and what is wrong. They have been sure for all of History.
  
  The proof of their pudding suggests to me that it is well past time that educated, civic-minded, respectful and caring people need to take up the championing of the general goodness of mankind - along with ordinary, plain, salt-of-the-Earth folk who have always understood more about what being happy and human involves than the greatest rationalists ever could arrive at by Reason.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Boutros Boutros:
    
    22 Oct 2015 5:50:51pm
    
    Thanks Alternatvue,
    
    Perhaps a sign of maturity in society is when people are able to hold certain beliefs, values and principles as certainties in their hearts and minds, but be responsible in how they advocate for them, charitable in how they interact with those who differ and humbly realistic in their evaluation of themselves and their ability to spot errors in their own thinking.
    
    Many, if not most who engage in these kind of debates have been guilty at some point of acerbity, ad hominems and arrogance.
    
    While I agree with you that there are good things in humanity in general that can be appreciated by all, I suspect there are only a few, particular belief systems and philosophies that are capable of the kind of attitudes towards those who differ, which I've described above.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Alternatvue:
      
      23 Oct 2015 8:29:19am
      
      Boutros
      
      Philosophies and belief systems are late-comers to the existence of man. They do not exist in Nature or in the evolution of the Universe or of Life. They are constructs we have come to to deal with the Unknown and, particularly with unknowables, which bother us as juveniles of conscious intelligence.
      
      I contend we have a shared 'DNA' of goodness - instincts and soul - and of common experience of life over history that sums to our wisdom-potentials.
      
      If we apply our wisdom-potentials of common goodness well, I think we can reach a level of good society of good people that is impossible any other way. The belief systems and philosophies we might develop from such a position seem likely to me to be more likely to be better than any that we have come to that are responses to the abject deficiencies of goodness that mark our history.
      
      So I contend, first be good people according to our common wisdom-potentials and let's see where that takes our devices of conscious intelligence.
      
      Where philosophies and belief systems are deliberately placed to block or direct a general flux towards such a common goodness, I think they have been used foolishly or for non-good ends.
      
      Be good. Think good. Act good - where good is the standard of our shared wisdom potentials - and trust the force.
      
      Do that and I think the adjunct philosophies and belief systems that goodness inspires or requires are likely to be very simple things compared say to the 'religions' of history and today.
      
      Alert moderator
- Early Grayce:
  
  23 Oct 2015 12:28:58pm
  
  To every religion all other religions are a mess of "vague beliefs"
  
  Alert moderator
New World:

22 Oct 2015 3:28:25pm

There is evidence that the unseen can give correct information via inspired thought. That gives religious belief a evidenced basis.

Alert moderator
- Rhino:
  
  22 Oct 2015 3:43:02pm
  
  There is also ample evidence that the unseen can give incorrect information via inspired thought.
  
  Now, how many times has the end of times been predicted by religion and the religious, only for us to all wake up the next day?
  
  Alert moderator
  - ThingFish:
    
    22 Oct 2015 3:52:12pm
    
    "Now, how many times has the end of times been predicted by religion and the religious, only for us to all wake up the next day?"
    
    100% success rate on waking up the next day so far! Woo Hoo!
    
    Alert moderator
    - Rhino:
      
      22 Oct 2015 4:40:07pm
      
      Good for you!
      
      I have lost count of how many religiously predicted doomsdays I have survived.
      
      Alert moderator
- ThingFish:
  
  22 Oct 2015 3:49:38pm
  
  "There is evidence that the unseen can give correct information via inspired thought."
  
  There is no such evidence! None! I would challenge you to provide it but I know you won't because it does not exist!
  
  Alert moderator
  - New World:
    
    22 Oct 2015 6:10:14pm
    
    Evidence exists that correct information can come via inspired thought. It is a case of looking. It is a case of evaluating. It is a case of experimentation. These are things that science does not do. Science is not interested in seeking correct knowledge. Science has already made its mind up the unseen does not exist, so science refuses to look beyond that. Science currently is being very narrow minded, and refusing to look. Science and people should do better than that if the world is to progress for the better.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Chubblo:
      
      23 Oct 2015 8:39:23am
      
      Er...no.
      
      Science is all about knowledge, theory and experimentation. A failure is on par with a success and at times can almost be as useful.
      
      Science allows you to type your drivel on the internet. Religion would rather you didn't have an opinion at all.
      
      Alert moderator
- Zing:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:30:10pm
  
  No. There is merely a belief that such evidence exists.
  
  And much like religion itself, the "evidence" will never be analysed. The theist will accept the priest's statement that the evidence exists and never worry about following up. Or the theist will rely on "divine revelations" as evidence, rather than taking it as a sign they might have a brain tumour.
  
  And to be fair, it's only the dumber theists who participate in such farce. The smarter theists realise there is no evidence, their religion is unprovable beyond faith and they'll only look foolish if they try to argue about it.
  
  Alert moderator
  - whogoesthere:
    
    22 Oct 2015 4:56:59pm
    
    Yes. I have always said, if god wanted his existence to be a fact, it would be. Therefore either there is no god, or he doesn't want to prove his existence. Therefore trying to 'prove' god exists, is completely futile.
    
    Alert moderator
    - dafall:
      
      22 Oct 2015 5:36:54pm
      
      You may be right - but the Americans have 'In God We Trust' on their coins -so there's a foot in the door.
      
      Alert moderator
    - JoeBloggs:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:14:27pm
      
      Dafall,
      
      And the german soldiers in WW2 had "God is with us" on their belt buckles.
      
      Clearly God is consistent in the company he keeps.....
      
      Alert moderator
    - Boutros Boutros:
      
      22 Oct 2015 5:57:29pm
      
      Do your presuppositions allow you to seriously evaluate anything that might be presented as evidence of God's existence by God or anyone else?
      
      Alert moderator
    - black belt:
      
      23 Oct 2015 7:30:52am
      
      Prove that it exists, and you if you do not have faith that it does, then to you it does not, and to you and you are excluded from its amazing streets paved of gold for eternity, nor 77 virgins for eternity. (depending on religion).
      
      The short circuit loophole that can never be disproved. And the alternative of course is eternal hellfires. Ouch.
      
      Its Advertising 101.
      
      Find the biggest suckers you can find. And keep taking as much money off them as you can, or they will suffer horrors of the unimaginable to comprehend for not giving it to you!
      
      Alert moderator
    - Christian99:
      
      22 Oct 2015 6:15:49pm
      
      I personally have concluded he doesn't want to prove his existence, so it is all about faith, and I cannot prove him to you. I could point to fine-tuning of the universe or other arguments, but there always seems to be a mental foxhole nearby, to hide from the evidence of Intelligent Design.
      
      Alert moderator
    - ThingFish:
      
      22 Oct 2015 8:58:20pm
      
      "I personally have concluded he doesn't want to prove his existence"
      
      Why? What is the motive?
      
      "to hide from the evidence of Intelligent Design."
      
      There is no evidence! In fact, all the evidence to date, and it is far from complete, fully supports Darwinian evolution and not creationism.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Optimist:
      
      22 Oct 2015 9:15:51pm
      
      'evidence of Intelligent Design.'
      
      I would not employ a designer who had designed this planet for the benefit of humans. I mean, if you're clever enough to create this planet, why put earthquakes in?
      
      At best the designer is an absent parent. In reality, if there is a designer, he/she has a moral vacuum.
      
      Alert moderator
    - ThingFish:
      
      23 Oct 2015 10:36:43am
      
      "I would not employ a designer who had designed this planet for the benefit of humans. I mean, if you're clever enough to create this planet, why put earthquakes in?"
      
      Forget the planet! What about the design of the humans themselves? We need go no further than the prostate gland to find proof that the design is far from intelligent!
      
      Alert moderator
    - Santiago:
      
      22 Oct 2015 9:13:34pm
      
      Surely a god would be an 'it' rather than a 'he'? What use would an omnipresent, omnipotent superbeing have for reproductive organs that require another omnipresent, omnipotent superbeing of the opposite gender to have any use. Or are they the lordly equivalent of an appendix. For goodness sake, I wish people would use 'it'. Although wouldn't feel so warm and fuzzy if you referred to your creator as an it.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Anton de Vent:
    
    23 Oct 2015 8:18:22am
    
    This whole discussion I find interesting. Beliefs are simply just beliefs and any one can believe whatever they wish. It is the expression of those beliefs that causes such angst. For what it is worth, I believe that every religion believes that they are right. However it is not possible for them all to be right so the only logical conclusion is that they are all wrong!
    With regard to government funding of private schools I think we should remove all government funding of private schools and make all schooling expenses tax deductible. That would settle the whole argument.
    
    Alert moderator
- bonzono:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:31:03pm
  
  "There is evidence that the unseen can give correct information via inspired thought"
  
  Untrue.
  Completely untrue.
  
  If you disagree with me - that's fine. show me the peer reviewed scientific literature that validates your claim.
  
  Blogs, personal opinion, and prayers for granny to overcome what a human doctor thought was incurable, really dont cut it.
  
  Alert moderator
- Blzbob:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:44:37pm
  
  We should be promoting freedom from belief.
  
  Why should any of us be expected to believe anything that we are less than 100% sure about.
  
  Yes! the unseen inspired me to conclude that the unseen is often also the unexplainable, and therefore remains the unknown, mainly due to the fact that it is more frequently the unreal.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Tronsh:
    
    22 Oct 2015 5:29:13pm
    
    We al believe things that we are not 100% sure about. In believing in science there are many things still that science can not explain yet we still believe in the science.
    
    Alert moderator
    - nameless:
      
      22 Oct 2015 6:39:36pm
      
      No one "believes" in science!
      
      Most *trust* what science tells us, a trust based on a history of science accurately and repeatedly explaining the world around us. There is absolutely no requirement for belief.
      
      Religion on the other hand has no such trust, based on a history of getting it completely wrong and destroying peoples lives. Hence it's existence dependant purely on belief.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tronsh:
      
      22 Oct 2015 9:14:21pm
      
      I read a book that was written back in the 80's. The forward was written by Bon Brown, founder of the greens. In it he stated the science is in, we are heading for a ice age and soon it will be to cold to grow wheat in Australia. Now should I believe him. Should I trust the science. Science does change and hopefully will continue to change as there are still many things in the universe that science knows that it knows nothing about as yet. If you do not believe in something it is impossible to trust it.
      We believe how ever that science has the potential to answer questions.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Blzbob:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:04:09pm
      
      A perfect example of why you shouldn't believe something just because someone else believes it.
      Many scientists come up with stuff that I don't believe.
      
      Every new claim has to be measured against what you already know, but what you know is only what you believe you know, because it fits with what you believed to be the truth up to that point.
      
      Let's hope the first thing I accepted as a truth was not a mistake.
      At the age of 10 I reassessed my beliefs and switched from being a Christian to being an Atheist.
      Because I realise that half of the things I believed didn't fit with the other stuff I believed, so I jettisoned the stuff that made less sense.
      
      Alert moderator
    - basil:
      
      23 Oct 2015 4:07:46am
      
      The word science means knowledge. So what you are actually claiming is, " in believing in knowledge there are many things still that knowledge can not explain yet we still believe in the knowledge."
      
      Science is knowledge, that which is known, it is not believed it is known. We do not have knowledge of everything so we don't understand everything and can't explain everything, but what we do know does allows us to understand and explain and overcome the ignorant acceptance required by faith.
      
      There is nothing that knowledge can not explain. If you don't have the knowledge belief is not the answer, it is just pretending you know when you don't.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Blzbob:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:17:51pm
      
      I agree with much you are saying Basil,
      but I would argue that science is not knowledge, as much of science is hypothesis, and a hypothesis is accepted if it fits in with what you would call knowledge.
      Knowledge however is not necessarily truth.
      
      One accepts as the truth that which one perceives to be most likely, and some people are better at making the assessment of likelihood than others.
      
      I don't accept everything that is claimed to be scientific fact, unless I judge it as being the most likely scenario.
      However accepting it as fact does not mean that I will not someday discard it for something that is even more likely.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Demac:
      
      23 Oct 2015 2:46:55pm
      
      "as much of science is hypothesis,"
      
      Bollocks. Sometimes science utilises hypothesis in order to progress experiment but the Scientific Method is entirely based on empirical or measurable evidence.
      
      Next you will be saying the 'the theory of gravity' means that gravity is only a hypothesis. Gravity is a fact, the theory of gravity is a description and explanation of the behaviour of gravity.
      
      What science also says clearly about gravity is that we *don't* know what causes gravity (Because God Wills It, is one hypothesis) and that's ok because we are trying to find a way to collect *evidence* about the answer.
      
      "I don't accept everything that is claimed to be scientific fact, unless I judge it as being the most likely scenario."
      
      So, according to Boyle's Law the pressure of a gas drops as its volume expands. Have you decided if this is true or not yet? What do you think is the most likely scenario for explaining this if it is true?
      
      Alert moderator
  - Boutros Boutros:
    
    22 Oct 2015 6:00:16pm
    
    "Why should any of us be expected to believe anything that we are less than 100% sure about."
    
    Bye bye natural scientific knowledge then?
    
    Alert moderator
    - Blzbob:
      
      22 Oct 2015 6:22:36pm
      
      My point is that no one should be able to tell us to believe something that we are not convinced of.
      
      Life is full of uncertainties, we all know and accept that. But I'm not going top believe something just because someone demands that I should.
      
      If we feel that there is a higher than 50% chance that something is possible then we have the right to believe it, but we have no right to demand that others do.
      
      We do still have the right however to but our case forward in the hope to convince others that it is believable if we wish.
      
      Alert moderator
    - graazt:
      
      23 Oct 2015 10:10:26am
      
      Some reverse Pascal's wager?
      
      I would suggest that belief is not a binary proposition but a matter of degree.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Blzbob:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:23:16pm
      
      I like to be 100% certain that something has a greater than 50% likelihood before I will commit to believing it.
      
      That is, being 100% sure that something is more likely than it is less likely.
      
      Alert moderator
- Meredith Doig:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:51:04pm
  
  What evidence? We know from scientific testing that the brain can be induced to experience thoughts that can be characterised as "religious" - but where is EVIDENCE that the "unseen" gives "correct" information?
  
  Alert moderator
- Demac:
  
  22 Oct 2015 5:39:46pm
  
  "There is evidence that the unseen can give correct information"
  
  If this were reliably true then the gambling industry could not exist. It does, therefore you are incorrect.
  
  Alert moderator
- malb:
  
  22 Oct 2015 6:24:13pm
  
  Okaaay....
  
  Backing slowly out of the room...
  
  Alert moderator
  - New World:
    
    23 Oct 2015 5:49:17am
    
    malb
    
    Not backing out of the room. Staying in the room listening to unbelievers, who if given proof will refute the proof without looking, for it suits their belief, and themselves that a God could not possibly exist. The unbelievers do not want a God proven to exist, for it would mean they would have to give thought to their lives, and the possibility of being judged. It is a bit frightening for people to know that life goes on after death, for they are not comfortable with that concept of the unknown.
    
    They could always apply their God, Science to discover more about life if they really wanted to know, about evidence that correct information can come via inspired thought.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Lisa Meredith:
      
      23 Oct 2015 9:00:19am
      
      Dear New World,
      
      What is the difference between science and religious ideology?
      
      Science constantly revises its position, challenging its own theories and models; changing its mind as new evidence comes to light. Science accepts that it is bound to be wrong somewhere. Also, science is more concerned with how someone thinks than what they are thinking. What is their methodology: their reasoning, logic, rationale and evidence behind their position?
      
      On the other hand, religious ideologists tend to believe they are correct, dismissing information that challenges their belief. They are more concerned with what they are thinking than how they think: how they arrived at their particular model of the universe.
      
      What is the empirical position on whether God/Gods exist? Scientifically we cannot tell whether we live in a Godded or a Godless universe, as there is no empirical evidence either way. Any decision that our universe is Godded or Godless and any model that defines this God or Gods and the rules it or they espouse is arbitrary. There is no evidence to place one model over any other. (That is, no evidence to place one religion over another.)
      
      Alert moderator
    - New world:
      
      23 Oct 2015 10:12:15am
      
      Lisa
      
      Science has already decided that the unseen does not exist. So science is not challenging itself to explore the unseen.
      
      I am not talking of religious ideology, when I talk that it can be proven that correct information can come via inspired thought. I am talking about proving that it does occur, by scientific experimentation.
      
      We have films like "The Sixth Sense" and "Ghost" that scientists can experiment with. Now there is more proof than that, but since Science has already made up its mind these things are not possible Science does not look at new knowledge available to it.. The Films had basis for their creation, that is something to bear in mind.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Lisa Meredith:
      
      23 Oct 2015 11:05:32am
      
      Dear New World,
      
      Science has decided nothing about the unseen. It cannot observe, measure or test it. So it says nothing. It does not say 'It does not exist'. It says "We have no evidence of its existence, we cannot test it".
      
      Correct information may indeed come via inspired thought, but how do you know it is correct? I cannot stress this enough! If inspired thought informs us of invisible teapots orbiting the Moon, what makes us decide this information is correct? Especially if we cannot observe, measure or test it, reproduce experimental results and have no explanation of its mechanism.
      
      As for experiments testing for ghosts and sixth senses, the only type I can think of are studying anecdotes. This involves the statistical analysis of anecdotal evidence, but here we find the statistical significance concerns the tendency for people who believe in ghosts to be the only ones that observe them (confirmation bias). Can you think of any tests that don't include anecdotes?
      
      Alert moderator
    - New World:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:42:52pm
      
      If I gave you a photo, then you gave me correct information that can be verified and that experiment can be repeated over and over, you have then demonstrated you can get correct information.
      
      If I asked you to locate a site with regards the photo and you did so then the experiment was repeated over and over again, you have demonstrated you can get correct information over and over.
      
      Now you have evidence that you can get correct information via inspired thought, for it has been demonstrated over and over under test conditions. This evidence exists in today's world. Science does not accept the demonstrations which work and science does not bother investigating for science is flawed.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Orion:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:20:54pm
      
      Undoubtedly correct information can come from inspired thought. Einstein's inspired realisation, unseen by everyone else, that either the velocity of light is not a constant or velocities of moving objects are not simply additive led to his Theory of Special Relativity. Now if you want to say he must have been inspired by a deity to come to this realisation then I say phooey. Einstein was inspired by genius, which he demonstrated repeatedly. If you read his lectures you will understand how he came to his realisations and no influence from an external agency is needed or justified. Inspired thought does not mean supernatural. "God" is simply a shorthand explanation for what you do not understand.
      
      Alert moderator
    - New World:
      
      23 Oct 2015 1:35:46pm
      
      If you gave me correct answers about a photo, if you give me correctly locate a site with regards the photo, and you repeated that experiment till there was 100% certainty of giving correct information, then you have certified evidence that you can get correct information from inspired thought under test conditions.
      
      If you can get correct information about a photo over and over, again and again you can also get correct information about other things in the universe as well. There is more to the universe than the physical.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Demac:
      
      23 Oct 2015 2:38:13pm
      
      "If you gave me correct answers about a photo"
      "if you give me correctly locate"
      "If"
      " repeated that experiment till there was 100% certainty"
      
      Correct, you have defined the scientific process (expect science does not require 100% certainty). However what you are alluding to (but not outright stating) has *never* happened. Remote viewing of any form has never been successfully demonstrated in anything like 'under test conditions'
      
      I repeat, if this were possible even with a 10% success rate then a number of activities just would just not make sense. E.g. Commercial gambling, military security, etc.
      
      "There is more to the universe than the physical."
      
      You know what 'physical' means right? By definition the observable universe is entirely physical aka 'natural', hence 'supernatural'.
      
      Alert moderator
malb:

22 Oct 2015 3:29:41pm

Agree 100%. Sensible, sensible stuff.

Alert moderator
- Cindy:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:44:54pm
  
  "a future Australia in which bishops are gaoled for discriminating against gays, religious tax exemptions are gone, and there's no more religious instruction in schools." is very sensible indeed.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Bev:
    
    22 Oct 2015 5:20:03pm
    
    Sounds to me like religious persecution to me.
    
    Alert moderator
    - malb:
      
      22 Oct 2015 6:28:48pm
      
      No, sounds like preventing discrimination, not giving tax exemptions to a particular business model because they believe in fairies, and encouraging kids to think for themselves.
      
      Sensible stuff.
      
      Alert moderator
    - mel:
      
      22 Oct 2015 6:31:06pm
      
      Actually Bev, it doesn't sound like persecution at all.
      
      How is not having religious instruction in schools persecution (and I'm assuming public schools here - private schools can do whatever they like as long as they don't take any government money)? A comparative religion/humanism course makes sense as that would be a useful subject, but taxpayer funded hard line religious instruction is simply indoctrination and there is no reason it should be publicly funded or in a school curriculum.
      
      And how is repealing religious tax exemptions persecution? It just puts the churches onto an equal footing with the rest of society.
      
      Admittedly, jailing bishops for discrimination is far too harsh: they should be fined severely like the rest of us if we break discrimination laws.
      
      Or Bev, are you trying to say that religions losing their special privileges amounts to persecution?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Disciple of Rationality:
      
      23 Oct 2015 9:45:25am
      
      No Bev. "Persecution" is what they've done in the USA in firebombing a church with kids trapped inside, or in Africa or India when they chase somebody down the street and hack him to death with machetes. (They do that in the Philippines, too)
      
      What we do in Australia is complain and criticise until a future government legislates to remove unjust and unwarranted historical privileges.
      
      Alert moderator
Nova4avr:

22 Oct 2015 3:33:07pm

Of all the inventions by mankind over the millennia, religion has to be the worst. It has caused more division, discrimination & wars than anything else.

Alert moderator
- Snickersnee:
  
  22 Oct 2015 3:48:56pm
  
  Except of course the godless world view that inspired communism and other forma of human totalitarianism, which have killed more than all religions combined in an extremely short time frame.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Lexx:
    
    22 Oct 2015 4:30:21pm
    
    That's an old argument that few proponents of religion are comfortable trotting out these days.
    
    Just because a particular regime did not subscribe to any particular brand of god does not establish that any evil actions were "inspired by a godless worldview". It is however well established that scriptures of many flavours have been used to justify evil actions.
    
    Alert moderator
    - DaveR:
      
      22 Oct 2015 5:03:19pm
      
      Is it no less well established that ANY worldview can and has been used to justify evil actions?
      
      You are very selective in the way you attribute that.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Lexx:
      
      23 Oct 2015 9:51:36am
      
      Not true. Take Jainism, pacifism etc.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Martin:
      
      22 Oct 2015 6:57:08pm
      
      Perhaps you need to study more history. The persecution of the religious in these states was a reaction to the role of the religious in propping up the previous totalitarian states. See French/Russian revolution history for details. A local example is the abuse perpetrated by religious in the children's homes/aboriginal missions etc. There is no shortage of evil-doers in religious bureaucracies.
      
      Alert moderator
  - whogoesthere:
    
    22 Oct 2015 4:38:31pm
    
    Actually totalitarianism has much in common with religion. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. The 'leader' is infallible, he cannot be questioned, he is judge, jury, executioner, he is to be worshipped and adored, if you refuse to play by his rules you will be punished, and so on.
    
    Dictators don't do away with religion, they just make themselves the 'god'.
    
    Alert moderator
  - malb:
    
    22 Oct 2015 6:32:21pm
    
    Er, that is a political system, not a belief system. No-one is suggesting that the absence of religion would drive society to communism.
    
    Alert moderator
  - ThingFish:
    
    22 Oct 2015 9:21:15pm
    
    "Except of course the godless world view that inspired communism and other forma of human totalitarianism, which have killed more than all religions combined in an extremely short time frame."
    
    While I would challenge your unsupported assertion that they "have killed more than all religions combined in an extremely short time frame", even if they did, they did not do so starting out from a proclaimed position of love, peace, and forgiveness towards their fellow man!
    
    Alert moderator
- Blzbob:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:50:07pm
  
  The original purpose of religion was to unite tribes that had grown too large to perceive a common father.
  
  It always fails when to different tribes who have created two very different gods collide.
  
  It would not fail if the followers were intelligent to understand that the purpose of their religion is far more important than the god that it has created.
  
  Alert moderator
- chalkie:
  
  22 Oct 2015 11:12:41pm
  
  As an atheist, let me defend religion for a bit.
  
  No, hear me out: religion has collated a lot of good ideas about communal behaviour, rituals that make psychological and emotional sense.
  
  Pity about the sky fairy bit.
  
  De Botton wrote an interesting book about how we atheists might learn to reclaim a lot of the communal experience from the churches that have hijacked this.
  
  Sure, I think the special status of religion should be gone; I think there is a lot we can loot from the ruins though.
  
  Alert moderator
  - graazt:
    
    23 Oct 2015 10:14:42am
    
    Confucianism has more or less done this. For better and worse.
    
    Alert moderator
  - Blzbob:
    
    23 Oct 2015 12:25:45pm
    
    I think we are on the same page on this one Chalkie.
    
    Alert moderator
- Tel :
  
  23 Oct 2015 4:29:00pm
  
  What rubbish Nova. Religion doesn't cause wars. Greed, lust for power and wealth is what causes wars. Religion can be used as a means of duping people into fighting wars, but it's never the cause. Not even the Crusades were about religion. The Crusades were about the western powers of England, France Germany etc wanting to control the Eastern trade routes and Muslim Merchant societies. They had to give people a reason to go and get killed, so invented a religious reason for fighting. Its called a Just War. No war is ever fought for religious reasons.
  
  Alert moderator
Sam:

22 Oct 2015 3:35:20pm

Here here! On spot about religion right here. It's no longer freedom, it's a overindulgence of privilege. How the religious minority thinks they can deny certain people basic things like marriage to sections of the population because it conflicts with THEIR beliefs confounds me.

To be fair though, even I believe that churches shouldn't be taxed for the obvious reasons, though yes, I do think this country needs to remember to keep its politics and religious beliefs separate.

Alert moderator
- Morestone:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:04:29pm
  
  Sam re tax that's all well and good but what about church-run businesses such as the makers of a popular line of breakfast cereal. It is hardly a level playing field for their competition.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Tronsh:
    
    22 Oct 2015 5:04:28pm
    
    Every company in Australia can avoid tax by donating 100% of their profits to charities. You as an individual can do the same. Maybe we should rule out all deductions as a tax brake. Then see the social cost that the government would have to cover to keep all charity services going that provide a service.
    
    Alert moderator
    - chalkie:
      
      22 Oct 2015 11:21:48pm
      
      We SHOULD remove all charitable deductions.
      
      How many child rapes have we pimped as part of cost cutting measures to low-price religious entities? Maybe we should have had higher standards even if it did cost a little more.
      
      Charity is by definition inequity: a few give a little to some who the givers reckon deserve it. That is why the welfare state emerged: because the charitable model failed.
      
      Too often charity is self-interested: the religious give to earn afterlife brownie points (which is ok, if strange) or simply use tax deductions to pay for private education or their clubs (ie churches).
      
      Alert moderator
Dove:

22 Oct 2015 3:37:21pm

All majorities impose their religious view on the minority. The monarchy isn't reserved for Anglicans by chance. The prayers at Parliament, the religious nature of ANZAC Day services, the God in the constitution, all speak of a once dominant religion.

But religious freedom in Australia has never been a Trojan horse for religious privilege. Once discriminated against, Catholics and Jews were allowed to participate in all levels of society, and as newer religions arrived, none have been discriminated against. Although their followers might have. Religious privilege has been divested, not entrenched.

There's nothing wrong with religious belief or observance provided it is personal, private, self funded, optional and breaks no laws

Alert moderator
- JoeBloggs:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:03:32pm
  
  Dove,
  
  You suggest "Religious privilege has been divested, not entrenched" - I would suggest that divestment of the privileges attached to religions has not occured. For example religions, despite having a profit motive, have a tax free status.
  
  Further more you suggest "There's nothing wrong with religious belief or observance provided it is personal, private, self funded, optional and breaks no laws". Sounds fine .... except that religious belief and observance is at its core divisive and the major religions have doctrines that are directly having a negative impact on our species (ie. promoting breeding instead of restraining breeding). It is perhaps worth noting that religions have a tax free exemption which is perhaps grossly negligent decision on the part of the government.
  
  Kind regards
  
  ps. yes I agree, for a secular nation there is way too many references to the early iron age Canaanite demi god (Yahweh) in our official events.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Dove:
    
    22 Oct 2015 4:27:22pm
    
    I had though that's what I meant by "self funding". No tax breaks.
    
    I take a long term view and over the generations, religion in Australia is a history of divestment. We're a far cry from banning Catholic priests in the colonies or the King not wanting our Jewish Governor General.
    
    Personally, I see religion as being a motivator for some of what's best in humanity, from the arts to charity. It's greatest flaw and irredeemable wickedness is that "belief and observance is at its core divisive". Religion by definition divides people into us and them, the washed, initiated, cut and saved versus the rest. And if "they" are doomed to an afterlife of pain and woe then what's so bad in helping them on their way? THAT, for mine, is the core of what's wrong with all religions. Amen
    
    Alert moderator
- bonzono:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:37:40pm
  
  "There's nothing wrong with religious belief or observance provided it is personal, private, self funded, optional and breaks no laws"
  
  "Not" breaking laws is insufficient. Religions are above laws, dontchaknow. What god says, goes.
  
  Religion commits far more crimes than simply what you see.
  
  The crimes are far more insidious than simply stopping homosexuals from approaching the marriage altar.
  
  Religion validates rejection of logical thought
  it justifies dismissal of critical thinking.
  
  Nowhere is it more obvious than in the USA where 60% of the country actually think the planet is 6000 years old, that the grand canyon is the direct observable result of the biblical floods, and think "evolution" means "my daddy was a monkey".
  
  It's worse than simply christians. The islamic population are under the impression that the quran is a revelation for the science. Apparently the quran contains secrets that prove it was divinely inspired. Of course, that we didn't know the secrets until we figured them out with science is overlooked, as is the fact that often the early greeks already discovered most of those details anyhow.
  
  Religion means "stop looking". it means "sit down, shut up and my god is right".
  
  Religion tells you to stop asking questions, it justifies a mindset which says "I already know everything: god dun it". Religion poisons humanity. it stymies our intellectual latitude and dehumanises us.
  
  I am all for freedom of though, but that doesnt mean i support freedom of stupidity. Intelligence matters, intellectual dishonesty should be stomped out.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Dove:
    
    22 Oct 2015 4:48:15pm
    
    There is plenty of illogical, self damaging aspects of humanity without religion. In fact every outcome of religion could be achieved without it. All that stupidity and all that conformity thrive in the absence of religion.
    
    You can't regulate people's thoughts and you can't control their conclusions. But you can regulate people's behaviour. And it's what people do that's far more important that what they think
    
    Alert moderator
    - bonzono:
      
      22 Oct 2015 7:24:15pm
      
      "There is plenty of illogical, self damaging aspects of humanity without religion"
      
      Sure, and with religion, there are even more.
      I've yet to have a single person tell me what we get out of religion, that is actually useful, and can't be already obtained in other ways.
      
      My point being - religion is useless, and it gives people just one more reason to BE useless. Since it has no purpose, and has plenty of BAD points, why do we need it? just dispense with it.
      
      "You can't regulate people's thoughts and you can't control their conclusions"
      yes, you can. This is the very basis of education. We dont have an innate knowledge that it's lousy to steal, we build that within our society by education.
      'control' is not what it's about - it's about providing people with adequate logical and educational tools so they don't wander off down a nonsensical garden path, and pretend to other people that they're doing the sane thing - they're not, they know it, we know it, and for some reason, on the basis of "oh it's religious freedom dontchaknow" we implicitly condone it.
      Time for us to not only pull our head out of the religious swamp, but actively gear up people with the mental faculties and courage to do the same. Intellectual honesty is what saved lives from the bubonic plague - had the religious mob had their way, far more than 200 million people would have died.
      
      Alert moderator
- Lexx:
  
  22 Oct 2015 5:00:26pm
  
  Dove, I would add to the list of caveats that religion should not be taught as fact to impressionable children, whether by parents, religious leaders, schools or any other authority figure.
  
  Many would disagree with having parents on that list, after all isn't it my right to teach my child what I believe is true? Maybe, but put the question to a Christian parent, "Should your child be taught that the Quran is the perfect and infallible word of god?" and see how far you get. Put the reverse to a Muslim using the Christian bible, or put either to a Hindu. The reaction will no doubt be even stronger than mine that no, it's not appropriate to teach a child those things because they're not true.
  
  This is what atheists "get" that a lot of theists don't.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Dove:
    
    23 Oct 2015 9:10:07am
    
    Lexx, As the first step, how about we start with the banning the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus? When parent are saying they want their children to learn religion they mean their religion. Your own religion is revealed. Everyone else's is mythology
    
    Alert moderator
    - Lexx:
      
      23 Oct 2015 9:40:57am
      
      There's a big difference with the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. When the kid grows up, everyone has a good laugh about it.
      
      When I said that atheists "get it", "it" is that all religion is mythology. You're right about the theist's view of other religion - theists already feel about most religions how atheists view all religion but they (theists) just can't parse that with their own beliefs. It's comparmentalised thinking.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Dove:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:59:59pm
      
      Sure. I'm familiar with The Hitch and that atheists are just one religion more atheist than theists. But I say, so what? Who cares? Compartmentalised thinking, conformation bias, magic thinking are a part of most aspects of people's lives. Just talk to most people about their political views or their sporting teams and you'll find it's just about the default human condition. The same thought processes are in operation.
      
      Back to the Tooth Fairy- unlike religion, parents know that they are lying to their child. They deliberately engage in deception and falsehood for their own amusement and no other reason. Religious parents believe what they're saying. That at least gives them some honesty
      
      Alert moderator
    - JoeBloggs:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:24:26pm
      
      Dove,
      
      The 'Binky Fairy' (aka. the pacifier fairy) came to our house the other day to swap my daughters Binky (pacifiers) for some presents and to take the Binky to a baby who needed it. My daughter completely believed our fabricated being existed (after all the Binky magically disappeared and presents magically were in its place).
      
      I guess the key point to remember is that the adults are fully aware that the tooth fairy, binky fair and even Santa Claus are fabricated super beings (and the kids eventually get told the truth or work it out themselves by using observational evidence and deduction).
      
      Which is perhap, arguably, where all religions really fail themselves as despite actually knowing their fabricated super being is a fabrication / myth they persist it pretending (or in some cases actually really believing!) their fabricated super being is actually real. And this is when the problems start to really occur......
      
      Alert moderator
  - Dr Who:
    
    23 Oct 2015 2:39:06pm
    
    I know a lot of people of various faiths, but the only ones who object to a child in a different family being brought up and instructed in a different religion are the extremists who cannot respect different beliefs. Most Christians I know, for example, have no problem with a Muslim family bringing their children up as Muslims, even if they do not share the beliefs. They only raise objections to extremist and intolerant interpretations of these religions - but then, the same Christians don't like seeing Christian extremists indoctrinating their children to hate other religions, either.
    
    What you ask is, furthermore, not practically enforceable anyway.
    
    Alert moderator
Chubblo:

22 Oct 2015 3:37:36pm

Good article.

"Sydney Archbishop Anthony Fisher gave a preview of what we can expect to hear at the roundtable with his recent article for ABC Religion & Ethics. In it, he describes a nightmare vision of a future Australia in which bishops are gaoled for discriminating against gays, religious tax exemptions are gone, and there's no more religious instruction in schools"

That may be Fisher's nightmare but would certainly be my ideal dream. Can you imagine a global society utterly free of religion? No jihadis, no mega churches, no Hillsong, no Brethren, no religious wars, no people justifying their poor choices in life based on belief, etc.

Also no religious organisations suckling on the taxpayer teat. I think Tony Abbott once said that the taxpayer shouldn't subside other people's lifestyle choices and I would certainly apply that in this case. Or if we are going to subsidise religion in Australia, maybe we should subsidise atheist organisations as well so there is some balance.

Maybe we can even score same sex marriage so it's forever taken out of the political equation.

I say bring this utopia on.

Alert moderator
- JoeBloggs:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:04:13pm
  
  Great post Chubblo.
  
  Alert moderator
- Alpo:
  
  22 Oct 2015 6:15:15pm
  
  Like Unions, that will naturally disappear when all workers will be employed and treated as deserving human beings by their employers, religions will disappear when the material and existential needs of all people will be fulfilled in a godless society..... I am still waiting.
  
  The belief in the big spaghetti monster hiding in the clouds is just the irrelevant surface of religion, it's the deeper material and existential needs that truly keep it alive.... Why do you think that rich people across the ages have always made sure to keep the poor destitute and insecure, and have been in cahoots with the local priest to strengthen their grip on social power?
  
  Alert moderator
  - Frontschwein:
    
    22 Oct 2015 9:12:34pm
    
    Unions won't disappear because they have become criminal syndicates, just in it for the money, just like every other so-called 'progressive' gang throughout history. And as for 'rich people across the ages have always made sure to keep the poor destitute and insecure, and have been in cahoots with the local priest to strengthen their grip on social power?'', delete 'rich people' and 'priest' and insert 'left wing government' and 'union' and you have the history of the ALP.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Nova4avr:
      
      23 Oct 2015 9:30:13am
      
      And what is so different with the LNP. They are just as bad if not worse.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Disciple of Rationality:
      
      23 Oct 2015 9:50:46am
      
      Considering that organised religion has been doing the same thing for so much longer that the unions, I suppose that we ought to start by dismantling those first.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Tina:
    
    23 Oct 2015 4:42:58pm
    
    Religion has been around for centuries despite all kinds of persecution and efforts to eradicate it. It survives and will continue to do so. It also fills a need in people's lives that an Atheist belief and materialism never will.
    
    What makes you think it's going anywhere Alpo? We even have atheist churches now. What does that tell you?
    
    Alert moderator
graazt:

22 Oct 2015 3:39:22pm

"We aren't advocating that you have to pay for evangelical atheists to preach Nietzsche and Dawkins to your children."

Great point; except for the Theory of Evolution which is communist propaganda.

But as you've intimated, atheists are increasingly becoming anti-theists as an outcome of mostly Christian privilege over-stepping the compact.

Best for secular Christians on the street to tell the ACL and the zealous parliamentarians who disproportionately occupy those chambers to pull their heads in.

Otherwise freedom of belief will get challenged by atheists as well.

Best of luck in your endeavours. I don't like your chances. You're up against people who argue against a Bill of Rights for Australia. Everything's tickety-boo just the way it is...

Alert moderator
- Nilbeliever:
  
  22 Oct 2015 5:44:31pm
  
  "Great point; except for the Theory of Evolution which is communist propaganda."
  
  1. Atheism and evolutionary theory are not causally connected, y'know. There were atheists long before there was Darwin.
  
  2. Even successfully debunking evolutionary theory (if you could) doesn't make religious origin stories correct by default.
  
  3. "[C]ommunist propaganda"... no really, what on earth are you talking about?
  
  Alert moderator
  - graazt:
    
    22 Oct 2015 7:16:47pm
    
    lol, sorry, I suppose that was a bit oblique. Put it down to Poes Law.
    
    Teaching The Theory of Evolution has come under a bit of stick by religious lobbyists in the USA as it contradicts scripture. It's been suggested by some that it should get removed from the public curriculum.
    
    We'll get more of that here in due time.
    
    btw Jesus rode to work on a dinosaur!
    
    Alert moderator
Zing:

22 Oct 2015 3:39:23pm

Freedom of belief doesn't mean freedom to incite. Nor does it mean freedom from reply.

Alert moderator
- ThingFish:
  
  22 Oct 2015 3:51:11pm
  
  "Freedom of belief doesn't mean freedom to incite. Nor does it mean freedom from reply."
  
  I agree, but nobody is advocating that is does, either.
  
  Alert moderator
- Budgie Smuggler:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:05:22pm
  
  Spot on.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Jungle Boy:
    
    22 Oct 2015 6:39:15pm
    
    Ditto
    
    Alert moderator
Son of Zaky:

22 Oct 2015 3:42:40pm

"We should be promoting freedom of belief, not religious freedom"

No, we should be accepting of freedom of belief and religious freedom, and not "promoting" anything. "Promoting" things is where the wheels invariably fall off - I would have expected a rationalist to understand that.

Also, I'm more than a bit confused as to why this type of argument is always run along these lines. These "freedoms" don't lend themselves to a simple, unified description that you can peddle as "good" and sound coherent - it would surely be far better to look at any regulation and/or societal standards which do (by accident or by design, for good or for evil) curtail what can and can't be done and argue for what SHOULDN'T be permitted rather than trying to push an unwieldy and nebulous concept and arguing that it SHOULD. Those pushing rights and the like seem to me to be making hard work for themselves by tackling the wrong end of the problem - focus specifically on defining what CAN'T be done and what's left over obviously can. Trying to structure an argument about what's good and right and necessary is a silly way to go - the "regulations" are all about stopping things, so structure your case from that perspective. Anything that isn't written-up as "bad" is by default "good". Legal people who charge by the hour would, I suspect, obviously disagree.

And just a quick point about Archbishop Anthony Fisher being perturbed about bishops being gaoled for discriminating against gays; Anthony, seeing as plenty of them should already be in gaol for their part in the perverse acts perpetrated on children, I hardly think one more charge on the charge sheet is really going to make that much difference.

Alert moderator
- JoeBloggs:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:10:01pm
  
  Son of Zaky,
  
  You suggest that we should be arguing "for what SHOULDN'T be permitted"
  
  A fair point.
  
  I propose that religious institutions/groups/cults/sects (and the like) should be prevented from being allowed to indoctrinate any human being who has not attained the appropriate mental capacity as defined as being an Adult (as defined by the state), or who suffers any mental condition which prevents them from having an appropriate mental capacity. After all the brainwashing of children and young adults is a terrible thing to do.
  
  As such if religions has to wait until the person was, say, 18 or 21 before being allowed to attempt to begin the indoctrination process we as a society would be able to divest ourselves of religious belief within a few generations.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Brian:
    
    22 Oct 2015 5:12:04pm
    
    People start believing things, to make sense of their world, from the moment they're born. The idea that religious belief is somehow separate from everything else you believe is nonsense.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Son of Zaky:
      
      22 Oct 2015 6:08:10pm
      
      Believing that what those people believe about "their" particular religion as an adult wasn't in any way manipulated by what they were fed back when they couldn't fight back and their brain connections were being stitched together is an even bigger nonsense. Way bigger.
      
      Presumably you're of a particular religious bent. Presumably you also don't like the idea of any kids of yours being subjected to insidious advertising manipulation because "they are easily led". Presumably you think that you just happened to be whatever religion you are because it was "natural" and "right" and "logical" and "meant to be", and that you being funnelled into it when you were still pooing yourself has nothing whatsoever to do with it. If so, then presumably you're the sort of person Joe (and I) are talking about.
      
      Given a different path in life Osama bin Laden would be chanting, shaven-headed, in Lhasa right now. The Marines actually shot the wrong guy - it should have been his father.
      
      Alert moderator
    - malb:
      
      22 Oct 2015 6:42:45pm
      
      It is the lack of evidence to support religious belief that separates it from so much else that we can / could believe.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Yarn:
      
      22 Oct 2015 7:37:14pm
      
      True Brian. To a new born child the 'world' is a swirling sea of lights; a cacophony of sounds sharp, jarring, melodious; shapes later to called faces that beam love and warmth, etc.
      As the years roll by, each one of us makes a story of how it fits together in accordance with our individual set of experiences. My summary so far - it is a circus or play, where adults think they know what is happening and where they are going . . .
      
      Alert moderator
    - Disciple of Rationality:
      
      23 Oct 2015 9:57:58am
      
      Brian was right to observe: "People start believing things, to make sense of their world, from the moment they're born.""
      
      However, it's a demonstrable fact that a functional education system will dispel all those fantasies about "the Divine Watchmaker" having created the universe, just for our delight and "His" own satisfaction.
      
      The fact that those beliefs have persisted is evidence either of the failure of the education system or that children are being systematically propagandised into accepting untruths when they're still too young to distinguish between fact and fantasy, or possibly both.
      
      Alert moderator
    - JoeBloggs:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:31:18pm
      
      Brian,
      
      Children are born atheists.
      
      They have to be indoctrinated into believing religious nonsense.
      
      Whereas a child is quite capable of learning that the presence of mass warps space-time and that other items of mass have a strong tendancy to want to fall into the space-time warp and that if you aren't careful to resist the pull of the this space-time warp and you let go of that really heavy thing in your hand it can fall towards the space-time warp and land on your foot ....which hurts.
      
      Thus the child proves to themself that Newton theory of Gravity was largely right after all and that the child can be assured they don't have to 'believe' Newton but are ablet to prove that he was largely correct.
      
      ps. yes you have to take Hawkings word for it about Hawkings Radiation until you can go and play with a black hole and some quantum fluctuations, virtual particle/anti particle pairs etc, for yourself to see if an actual particle can result from the effect gravity of the Black Hole can have on quantum fluctuations. Though, there are other experiments you could do to prove this (no doubt).
      
      Alert moderator
    - graazt:
      
      23 Oct 2015 3:56:53pm
      
      It depends how you define atheism.
      
      For intellectual rigour, I prefer to define atheism, and agnosticism, as things which have been considered and then rejected and/or deliberately undecided.
      
      If you think atheism is intellectually defensible by default, then you'd be suggesting a newborn has more intellect in their position than a Carrol Lewis, a Saint Augustine or a Copernicus.
      
      We are built to seek meaning from patterns. It's how our brains' work. Atheists often put their unfounded beliefs in other leaps of faith if they don't subscribe to some monotheistic entity @joe.
      
      Most atheists are only selectively skepitcal, as most theists are. We're all human. :)
      
      Alert moderator
- graazt:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:11:32pm
  
  @Zaky - rights discourse is basically concerned with ensuring that governments and the constituents who support their policies can't infringe said individual rights; which is often done in the bottom-up, incremental way you're suggesting we need more of.
  
  It is concerned with what shouldn't/can't be permitted to be undertaken by governments towards individuals.
  
  The rule of law already provides for what you've outlined. Everything is legal until it's not.
  
  The author didn't mean promotion in the sense I think you took it to mean. No compulsory Neitszhe classes for the kiddies. Or atheist chaplains. :)
  
  Alert moderator
Wott de Hecke:

22 Oct 2015 3:43:31pm

And the writer of the article, has conspicuously omitted any reference to the criminal power of the churches, and their having been protected by the parliaments, from being classed as banned criminal organisations, and, from having all of their assets seized to pay compensation, for the systematic raping and otherwise sexual abusing, of children, as rites of passage for priests.

"If you want to rape and molest children, with immunity, join the priesthood. The church will protect you."

Alert moderator
- JoeBloggs:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:11:31pm
  
  And if you successfully sweep everything under the carpet for decades (and even during a royal commission) you get a promotion from the pope....
  
  Alert moderator
JoeBloggs:

22 Oct 2015 3:55:16pm

Perhaps instead of terming the discussion as either promoting freedom of belief or religious freedom, we should add a third option of should be be promoting the deprogamming of those indoctrinated by religious organisations/cults/groups....

Alert moderator
- Yarn:
  
  22 Oct 2015 7:40:24pm
  
  Good theory JB, but can you name one person on the planet who has thus far not been domesticated by society of some kind? No matter what anyone of us would say, we are all a product of a Christian society or its equivalent, so where to start with deprogramming?
  
  Alert moderator
  - Optimist:
    
    22 Oct 2015 9:42:43pm
    
    So, is an aware society which embraces permaculture and understands nature and doesn't believe in a supernatural being equivalent to a Christian society? And do they need reprogramming?
    
    Children get reprogrammed away from Santa Claus, fairies at the bottom of the garden, wishes that come true and other things that parents use to amuse them, but some parents insist that the sky fairy really does exist. Belief in that is rapidly fading.
    
    Alert moderator
  - JoeBloggs:
    
    23 Oct 2015 12:33:48pm
    
    "so where to start with deprogramming?"
    
    A great question.
    
    Best place is to begin is in the home, and at school and by the state generally.
    
    Certainly not encouraging religion (or financially supporting it) in the same way we no longer encourage tobacco use is perhaps the right approach. We could even eventually ban it from restaurants, public buildings and even public spaces.
    
    Does that help?
    
    Alert moderator
al:

22 Oct 2015 3:56:20pm

The Left: "All religions are bad; they discriminate against same sex people"

Well it seems that not all religions are bad...just the Christian religion and the Jewish religion. The left support the right of all others to practice and promote their religions, even if some religions present an existential threat to Western societies.

Alert moderator
- Curious party:
  
  22 Oct 2015 4:34:56pm
  
  There is no religion that poses an existential threat to Western societies al. With cooler heads in charge actually looking to be inclusive of minorities rather than being exclusive we wouldn't have anywhere near the sort of problem we have. Well-adjusted people don't take up the extremist cause - maladjusted people do.
  
  Alert moderator
  - chalkie:
    
    22 Oct 2015 11:40:33pm
    
    Rubbish. I like the hope you have; pity it is misguided.
    
    Al missed the point: while there is no present existential threat, what is relevant is the extent a person's religion is correlated with a host of beliefs about the role of women, the ability of humans to determine truth and indeed whether freedoms of faith, expression and sexuality should exist.
    
    I don't know of any deeply religious person whose presence adds to our the net tolerance in these things.
    
    Al was implying Muslims are the problem. He is right, if you consider secularity important. Few other groups are as uniformly, persistently devout. Als point about existential threat is at least for now overstated, but lesser order threats are more likely.
    
    Alert moderator
- Andrew C:
  
  22 Oct 2015 5:05:37pm
  
  I'm a little confused.
  
  Are you criticising the "left" (which, by the way, is unrelated to religious views) because they oppose discrimination, or because they discriminate?
  
  In one breath you correctly identify the majority of secularists views that discrimination against same-sex people is wrong. Then you immediately accuse them of discriminating against Christians and Jewish people, although you don't explain why you think they discriminate against these religions. Then you appear to criticise secularists for NOT discriminating against religious beliefs that are not Christian or Jewish.
  
  Do you believe we should or should not discriminate against religions?
  
  Either way I disagree with the sentiment expressed in your post. Secularists are not necessarily left-wing. Discrimination against same-sex people is wrong and all religions that do so are bad. All religions are nevertheless entitled to practice and promote their religion, provided they don't do so in a way that interferes with others, with children, or that takes taxpayer funds (either by tax exemptions or funding from government).
  
  Simple.
  
  Alert moderator
  - whogoesthere:
    
    22 Oct 2015 5:20:43pm
    
    It's the hypocrisy and double standards of some we'll call 'left'. They can happily say all sorts of nasty things about say a whist conservative Christian man, yet will defend a brown conservative Muslim woman, because she is an oppressed minority or something, even though both believe many of the same things.
    
    And a white person can be a horrible nasty racist - no question, no excuse, they are just bad, yet people from other cultures who do/say nasty things are 'victims' of something - white oppression, cultural brainwashing, lack of education etc.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Andrew C:
      
      22 Oct 2015 7:05:04pm
      
      That is absolute rubbish.
      
      Nobody holds those ridiculous views or expresses such patent hypocrisy.
      
      The principles of the "left", as you call it, hold every member of the community to the same standard of behaviour. Abuse and bigotry are unacceptable against anyone, and are unacceptable by anyone, regardless of their beliefs, gender, race or other personal characteristics.
      
      It is because people on the left are willing to call out such behaviour by members of the dominant social or economic group that they receive criticism from those people who are not used to being criticised or held to account. The retaliation by the powerful has not always been restrained, and many on the left have had their lives or livelihoods destroyed.
      
      Without the willingness of the left to call out the behaviour of these people, much of the progress our society has made in breaking down unfair barriers and reducing discrimination (especially economic, racial and sexual discrimination) would never have been made.
      
      Your complaints may stem from feeling unfairly treated because you are suddenly being held to the same standard of behaviour that is demanded of others.
      
      The left does not apologise for that.
      
      Alert moderator
    - A Former Lefty:
      
      23 Oct 2015 1:56:56pm
      
      No, the left never apologises. Something called 'insight' is required for that, something comrades on the left completely lack as you have just so ably demonstrated.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andrew C:
      
      23 Oct 2015 3:13:57pm
      
      Pot... something something... kettle... something something...
      
      I'm sure you are incensed at the idea of being held to any sort of standard at all, but try to understand that everybody else's interests are not necessarily the same as your interests.
      
      You simply cannot deny the appropriateness of holding everyone to the same standard of behaviour.
      
      Alert moderator
the yank:

22 Oct 2015 3:59:11pm

"we should instead be promoting the freedom of all beliefs, including atheistic ones" ... but we don't do we. At least in NSW where we have a government that only wants the Christians to have a look in teaching our kids.

I do my best to tolerate religion but boy that make it hard.

Alert moderator
Hudson Godfrey:

22 Oct 2015 3:59:20pm

I once heard a Muslim refugee who'd sought sanctuary in Greece interviewed by a young woman from the BBC, when asked through a translator how he felt if the Greek government education system placed his kids in schools where they were exposed to Orthodox religion he said the best thing. "I don't mind because there is no God but God."

In the best of all possible ways he understood, simply but completely that the line between faith and cultural allegiance can allow considerably more latitude if only one is willing to be more optimistic about others and their motives.

I who don't happen to believe in god don't treat my scepticism as a source of any activism against religion or any of its associated cultural tropes. I regard as crimes the misdeeds of those ordained individuals whose transgressions have been repugnantly cloaked in past hypocrisy which I now hope their institutions will join me in discarding.

Freedom of religion must always mean freedom from it, if only because circumscribing choice will quite unambiguously always compromise our very exercise of conscience. And to be construe society without a moral imperative is to condemn ideas like pluralism and tolerance to the half hearted practice of political correctness with only the pettiest incentives.

It would be a miserable failure to honour a Muslim stranger's generosity of spirit with the mealy mouthed attitude that the world is too hard hearted to overcome its own pessimism about others. That's bigotry, and the last time I looked NO religion actively promotes such a thing.

Alert moderator
Budgie Smuggler:

22 Oct 2015 4:04:37pm

"Freedom of belief" is precisely what needs to be propagated. It's not Catholoc vs Protestant, religion vs atheism, Hinduism vs Buddhism, Judaism vs Islam, Christianity vs gays etc etc etc. Everyone in the world is entitled to freedom of belief or freedom from belief. And everyone in the world is entitled to freedom from control and violence.

For example, during the 200 year Dark Age period, all across Europe Christianity systematically burned thousands of people to death who were accused of being witches (it was done specifically in the name of the specific Christian god). Therefore in a decent society, when a belief, or a misinterpretation of a belief, leads to violence then that "specific" belief /misinterpretation must be opposed ...... this does NOT mean that an "entire" religion or belief system (like the entirety of atheism or the entirety of Christianity for example) should be opposed.

Alert moderator
- al:
  
  22 Oct 2015 5:13:41pm
  
  Thankfully, the Dark Ages are over and Christians are no longer burning witches.
  Another religion still stones female adulterers to death. And throw gays from buildings. Or subjugates women as chattels. And kills non-believers as infidels.
  
  Alert moderator
- ThingFish:
  
  22 Oct 2015 9:12:50pm
  
  "Therefore in a decent society, when a belief, or a misinterpretation of a belief, leads to violence then that "specific" belief /misinterpretation must be opposed ...... this does NOT mean that an "entire" religion or belief system (like the entirety of atheism or the entirety of Christianity for example) should be opposed."
  
  If it does NOT mean that, then what DOES it mean?
  
  Alert moderator
- Richard:
  
  23 Oct 2015 4:47:01am
  
  Actually, witch hunts were more popular in the fifteen and sixteen hundreds. Basically the Renaissance and enlightenment periods. Not that people were necessarily nicer in earlier centuries.
  
  Alert moderator
Jasminity Fay:

22 Oct 2015 4:12:40pm

Right on!
It should be freedom of belief to discuss these issues on a level playing field.

Are the religious lobbies so powerful that every debate has to be discussed on their terms? It's like they've hijacked the debate, and community sentiment runs a close second to offending traditional sensibilities.
RAISE OUR VOICES.

Alert moderator
Sebastian:

22 Oct 2015 4:19:43pm

In the past, people have difficulty accepting that others could practice other religious beliefs and traditions than them. And big progress was done on that front. But almost everyone was associated to a religion.

Today, many have difficulty in accepting that others may just DO NOT have any religious beliefs. We are then in the process of fighting for this freedom: freedom to not believe in religious beliefs and freedom of not being associated with any religion. We still are missing that "freedom", so it is a nice sign of evolution what this article proposes: we want more than religious freedom, we should seek freedom of belief, brilliant!

Alert moderator
M:

22 Oct 2015 4:32:12pm

'Religious freedom' is an oxymoron.

As many of those in fundamentalist cultures who choose to query the accepted 'wisdom' of the prevailing view.

And how does freedom of belief work when one party's views clash with another's - even to the point of violence?

Alert moderator
rumpole:

22 Oct 2015 4:40:50pm

There is a difference between belief in God and belief in religion.

Religion is the idea that a particular set of people have exclusive access to God, and know what he wants and these wants are set down in religious dogma.

I see no reason to believe that any religion knows the mind of God. Most of these religious teachings are shrouded in violence which is no way for any decent God to behave. This violence and threats is simply to scare slaves to religion into keeping the faith and to continually feed the priests and overlords of the religion.

If you ask most religious people why they are religious, the answer probably comes down to "it runs in the family". People are afraid of being ostracised by their families so they submit to the tradition without any real belief.

This religious inheritance is therefore self perpetuating and hard to get rid of. Only by secular society not pandering to religious nonsense by giving them tax free status or accepting "Holy Blessing" of foods, or even by saying the Lord's Prayer at the start of Parliament can we begin to dispel the myth of religion and the hold that it has over so many lives.

Alert moderator
oldfella68:

22 Oct 2015 5:06:07pm

Question is there a good religion ?.

Alert moderator
- rumpole:
  
  22 Oct 2015 5:41:13pm
  
  Buddhism doesn't seem to be as dogmatic as the others.
  
  Find your own path to enlightenment seems to be its philosophy.
  
  There doesn't appear to be any commandments, instructions or promises of paradise if you kill unbelievers.
  
  Alert moderator
- The weed:
  
  22 Oct 2015 5:48:52pm
  
  Religions are not 'good' when they lock people into the belief that humans are sinful and therefore must die, but if we believe we will come back to life in eternal bliss.
  
  As far as I am concerned, none of us asked to be born and no human will go to hell for eternity for not believing any particular religion.
  
  In fact for all who read what I wrote, what you see is what you get so live with it.
  
  Alert moderator
- Lyn H:
  
  22 Oct 2015 6:29:26pm
  
  Buddhism.
  
  Alert moderator
- Chris:
  
  22 Oct 2015 11:21:24pm
  
  Christian Science.
  
  Alert moderator
raymond:

22 Oct 2015 5:10:11pm

The United Nations anything safeguards nothing. A corrupt organization that is so useless it should be got rid of.
We are Australians,we run our own affairs and have our own laws that protect our freedoms that is where we look to.
And that is rational.

Alert moderator
- Andrew C:
  
  22 Oct 2015 9:33:37pm
  
  Unless of course those laws impact in any way on the profits of a foreign corporation. Then we must repeal that law and pay compensation to that corporation and issue an apology, as ordered by the shadowy ISDS Tribunal.
  
  So you are right, we are Australians, beholden to no-one and nothing except foreign corporations, to whom we are subordinate.
  
  Alert moderator
stephen jones:

22 Oct 2015 5:11:21pm

If Saudi Clerics behead heretics should we blame them, the victim or their God, because, don't forget, the first two are mortal and are of the same flock who manipulate and have abused children.
Such beings, too, wrote all the monotheistic Bibles, mistakes and all.

So flesh and blood is not innocent, yet we blame religion for causing wars rather than stupid people.
(The greatest irony, isn't it ... declaring yourself an atheist and then saying that God causes wars)

If you have a close look at history, it is the rise of the Nation State in Europe in the late 15th Century which gave rise to nationalism, and it it this State, specifically, the Political Classes that wanted what a new group dynamic was promising to the elites, which is the real cause of what is commonly known as 'religious violence'.
So politics gave a sacredness to feeling as the elites clung to the Church as a giver of license to hate and to subvert ... but again, Religion was/is not the cause of violence.

There's lots of silly stuff in all religious texts (did you know that in major Indian libraries an estimated 30 million texts, nearly all unread by modern eyes, lie on shelves) and I think that some of the misgivings about certain religions comes from The Book being considered sacred rather than The Spirit.

Alert moderator
starevich:

22 Oct 2015 5:12:07pm

Being an atheist of course I completely believe gods exist.

All of the countless gods created by the imagination of humanity and the needs of human society have had a very significant existence in those human minds. None of those gods have ever had an empirical existence but then none is needed to engender the passions and perhaps high principals and superior moral staus god worshippers tend to assign to themselves.

So it goes a bit like this - gods did not create anything - humans created all gods - god worship is the most pervasive and perplexing form of navel gazing.

Alert moderator
The weed:

22 Oct 2015 5:12:49pm

Hugh, you've made my day, I am really impressed with your rational thoughts.

I was brought up in the 1950's and 60's. In the 1950's the majority of people in Australia went to church on Sunday and most businesses were not allowed to open.

After "9/11" I threw out most of my ideas about religion and religious people.

Anyone who's beliefs include murdering their fellow humans, has completely trashed any religion in my once "spiritual" beliefs.

Is it true that the last time anyone was spoken to by god in person (and then made it become written), was 1500 to 2000 years ago?

May they be judged by any real god that exists.

Alert moderator
rockpicker:

22 Oct 2015 5:13:12pm

OK so your special belief gets your house of worship all manner of exemptions and you can run a business and hide behind dodgy rules to pay no wages (Cornerstone and a certain pizza chain come to mind) or undercut the opposition. Then you maintain the right to have more money for your schools. In addition you reserve the right to use religious exemptions to discriminate against staff because of religion or sexual orientation. I respect the right of religions to decide what their beliefs include, but not with their hand in the public purse. You want the money offered by the secular arm, obey the secular law. What is more we should have legislation top make the organisation pay up, not the secular taxpayer. Come on Cardinal Pell.
The author is correct. I would like to see the churches pay their dues. The exception might be the likes of Vinnie's which clearly do good.

Alert moderator
Doug:

22 Oct 2015 5:25:05pm

If religions enter into business, running schools, universities, hospitals, aged care, employment agencies, manufacturing breakfast cereals, whatever, then they must compete on the same terms as every other business, paying the same rates and taxes, and obeying the same laws, without special privileges. The law guarantees freedom of religion: the right of the individual to believe what they choose and worship how they wish. That is all. It shouldn't guarantee a free ride at taxpayers expense for what are in effect some of the largest employers in the country, simply because they claim to espouse a particular world view. That is simply bludging with a halo on.

Alert moderator
Brian:

22 Oct 2015 5:30:14pm

Everyone believes lots of things, because we don't have the time to investigate every single thing in our world ourselves. I find many peoples faith in men in lab coats as hilarious as any theism, atheism, paganism or animalism. I am continually frustrated by people growing up in historically Christian societies, absorbing Christian beliefs without attending any church, who think they have 'secular' or 'humanist' beliefs. Get over yourselves: if you'd grown up in another time or another place, you'd have soaked up other beliefs in exactly the same way. Belief systems and institutions come and go and evolve, but there is always going to be belief.

Alert moderator
- The weed:
  
  22 Oct 2015 5:56:26pm
  
  True Brian, there is always going to beliefs to fill in the gaps of our knowledge as well as those things we can never hope to understand.
  
  Alert moderator
ian:

22 Oct 2015 5:44:09pm

The nuances of this article are lost on me,but the phrase "religious freedom is often the trojan horse for religious privilege"was not.

cheers Ian

Alert moderator
Mister Mosman:

22 Oct 2015 6:05:04pm

It is NOT "freedom of belief" (whether religious or any other kind) that we should be extolling. People can (and unfortunately too many still do) "believe" in all sorts of crazy and totally unfounded things, such as a conscious existence after death, or re-incarnation, or alien abductions, or some kind of supernatural being like a "God' (whether just one - as in mono-theist faiths, or in many different types of "Gods" - as is Hinduism). Rather, there is a much higher standard that we humans should really strive for and value. And that's scientifically proven fact, knowledge and understanding of how the world, its nature and the universe works. Surely, the deeper we explore and learn those things, the even more interesting and wondrous we'll feel about it all, and the better it will be to discard "belief" as totally irrelevant and useless, and instead allow us all to focus more on making our lives better, happier, more creative, and ultimately treat each other with greater respect. "Beliefs" are frankly old-hat medieval mumbo jumbo.

Alert moderator
- Connie41:
  
  22 Oct 2015 9:32:59pm
  
  Mister Mosman, I gather that you are NOT a scientist. No scientist worthy of the name would refer to 'Scientifically proven fact'. Scientific investigation advances by setting up hypotheses, testing these against observations and determining which hypotheses have a high probability of being correct. Scientific investigation never 'prove' anything to be fact, only that something is highly probable. To accept the hypothesis as a proven theory is an act of faith, quite reasonable faith, but still an act of faith. And everything we scientists discover about the world leads to more questions than the one answered, which is part of why scientific investigation can be so wonderful. Unfortunately, believing that this knowledge will necessarily lead to a better world is an unfounded act of faith and contrary to evidence. That needs people of high moral principle with the power to progress justice and generosity. You sound as if you may be one of these people, not because of science, but because you are a decent person.
  
  Alert moderator
Observer:

22 Oct 2015 6:30:14pm

My religious experience includes no-one under 8 yrs old allowed to join, it must be their own free choice, and all who do should have a personal inspired knowledge of the truth of certain initial teachings, which will be expanded over time. The leadership is not made wealthy at the expense of the congregation, at any level. Any are free to ask questions, we will provide what answers we have, though some things pre-suppose faith and obedience over time to recieve them. Individually, we are failible, imperfect mortals, all seeking immortal perfection. We are idealists, persuing a perfect society, and doing what we can to personally qualify to join it hereafter. We believe in person freedom, and being subject to laws of man and God, where ever we live. We cover the entire political spectrum, the pulpit is not politically partisan.

Alert moderator
Martin:

22 Oct 2015 6:59:46pm

What I don't understand is the lack of faith demonstrated by those professing religious belief? God is stated to be omnipotent, able to overcome any obstacle or difficulty - yet he needs the assistance of puny humans if he is to achieve his goals! Surely some contradiction here?

Alert moderator
- ThingFish:
  
  22 Oct 2015 9:05:23pm
  
  "Surely some contradiction here?"
  
  Just one contradiction among millions and millions of contradictions!
  
  Alert moderator
- New World:
  
  23 Oct 2015 5:54:30am
  
  I am sure God is laughing at the comment.
  
  God is guiding human kind towards a greater understanding of life and the universe. You must remember since life goes on after death, no one is lost if they die. We are all on a journey into the infinite, life is just part of that.
  
  Alert moderator
Alan:

22 Oct 2015 8:05:58pm

What I want is freedom from religion. Religious groups have a belief that their views must be respected. I disagree.

Alert moderator
- ThingFish:
  
  22 Oct 2015 9:04:28pm
  
  "What I want is freedom from religion. "
  
  I already have that freedom. So do you if you so choose!
  
  "Religious groups have a belief that their views must be respected. I disagree. "
  
  I respect their right to believe anything they want provided that they do no harm to other people or the environment while they are at it. Having said that, I have no respect for what they choose to believe in, either in principle (ie: the superstitious and the supernatural) or in practice (old men in robes pontificating about "sin" while committing the most heinous sins of their own!).
  
  Alert moderator
Michael:

22 Oct 2015 8:15:29pm

We should be promoting freedom of belief and freedom from belief. What about promoting freedom to criticise religion? That is sadly lacking in Australia today as one religion in particular can not be criticised otherwise name calling starts such as racist and Islamaphobic.

Alert moderator
Christine:

22 Oct 2015 8:36:13pm

In my free world, my beliefs are mine alone. No one needs to know about them. In my not-free world, my beliefs are also mine alone, and still no one needs to know about them. But in case you do want to know what I believe, I believe your choice of religion is not always up to you - for example some people may wish to be in a religion that doesn't even exist. Religious freedom is a privilege. If you don't have freedom of belief however, you are probably a doormat to begin with. In lots of ways, religious freedom is what we should try to achieve and aim for just as we aim high for democracy. As for freedom of belief, if you don't have it in the first place, it might be time to run to a church or mosque or temple and learn how to pray there before learning to pray at home at some stage I would personally hope. Not that there is something wrong with praying in a church or mosque or temple or other public to semi-public places. Personally I am catholic but I hardly go to church myself so don't take my word as homily! Cheers.

Alert moderator
CF Zero:

22 Oct 2015 9:56:09pm

I think we should question the UN declaration of human rights itself and discriminate against some beliefs as people choose them or choose to retain them.

For instance, what the author should have said is - flogged and sentenced for insulting Islam, sentenced to beheading and crucifixion for insulting Islam (there is a pattern appearing here), hacked to death by Muslims for being atheist.

Maybe we should question this one particular belief system. For these reasons.
Number of Jewish terrorists attacks since 9/11 -Zero
Number of Christian terror attacks since 9/11 -Zero
Number of Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 - 26,855

Maybe the "religion of peace" is not what its claimed to be.

In this country we do apply collective punishments, for example the Port Arthur Massacre saw one individual kill 37 and automatic weapons were removed from the entire population.
It stands to reason then if Islam is responsible for multiple deaths then it too should be removed from the population. How many do we need to let the "moderate" terrorists kill before we come to our senses?

Unfortunately the majority of the planets population has little if any education and these ridiculous rights put forward by the UN the same UN that has appointed Saudi Arabia to the UNHCR (LMAO!) are to protect the beliefs of the ignorant and should be totally ignored by civilised society.

Succinctly put -

Know Islam, No peace
No Islam, Know peace

Alert moderator
- Dove:
  
  23 Oct 2015 9:47:18am
  
  You should consider running for a Senate vacancy in Western Australia
  
  Alert moderator
- mattg:
  
  23 Oct 2015 10:42:34am
  
  CF Zero - do the CF letters in your nom-de-plume stand for Confirmed Facts? Very clever if so.
  
  Alert moderator
Wayne:

22 Oct 2015 10:36:22pm

Freedom to Believe or what was it you said?
Freedom not to believe? was it?
Freedom from Belief?
Or was it freedom to believe religiously, IN nothing?
Why don't we change the language so that you may be more comfortable and at ease?
Have the Power to believe?
Have the Power to not believe?
Have the Power to believe in religion?
Have the Power to Not believe in Religion?
There, now doesn't that make you feel better?
Make you feel empowered?
Now don't forget to turn the light of when you go to bed tonight.

Alert moderator
Paul:

22 Oct 2015 11:27:39pm

I would have to agree with the thrust of what Hugh is saying with the proviso that atheism is not a belief. Atheism is a conclusion one comes to after assessing the evidence and arguments for the existence of a deity. Also the main reason for the persistence of religion in the world is the indoctrination of children and the sooner this pernicious practice stops the better for everyone. This is why the religion industry is so keen to protect this undeserved privilege.

Alert moderator
JKUU:

23 Oct 2015 1:55:46am

To paraphrase speculative fiction writer Jack McDevitt: Faith is conviction without evidence, and sometimes even in the face of contrary evidence. In some quarters, this quality is considered a virtue - just not among people who can reason, question, and challenge.

Better we promote "freedom of conscience."

Alert moderator
RealityCheck:

23 Oct 2015 6:50:22am

Thanks Hugh, ABC/Drum for your timely and informative and well argued, balanced piece on this issue.

These things are irrefutable realities demonstrated by history and the facts:

- There is no 'merciful god' of any kind, as the sufferings, tortures and killings en masse of the innocent children throughout history and to this day around the world in 'religious wars' clearly proves.

- The only reason many 'subscribe to and follow' any religion is because of the threats, both overt and covert' that 'non-believing' will either get you killed or 'ostracized and disadvantaged' by those exploiting the 'dominant religion' for power and wealth.

- The wealth built up by 'religious entities' via exploitation and tax-exemptions comes from the people, and hence any 'religious private schools' are already being funded by stealth; and any further direct subsidies from the public purse to such schools only adds to that 'indirect subsidy'; meaning that 'religious schools' funding is actually much higher cost to the public purse than is being reported.

- As to the 'effectiveness and value' of 'religious private school education', we have only to see what it produced in the form of "Team Abbot" craziness and incompetence, most of whom were 'religious' education/indoctrination 'products'; not a ringing endorsement when comparing the efficacy and return on investment for the nation!

- Predatory 'Age of entitlement' religious private schools can legally decline from having to enroll troublesome and/or low-performing and/or impecunious students who cannot pay the fees; whereas the nations public schools cannot avoid doing so, en masse; hence adding to the funding/capacity problems of our public schools which religious private schools can avoid/minimize.

In short, just as 'predatory capitalist' BUSINESS PLAN is to exploit the people and the system to 'privatize profits and socialize losses' by leaving the broken pieces of their inevitable regular 'crashes' for society to clean up and foot the bill, the 'predatory religionist' BUSINESS PLAN is to exploit the people and the system to take 'religious advantage/profits' and evade taking their fair share of the 'more troublesome/less profitable' student demographic (much as 'predatory private health enterprises' skim the cream of the most profitable 'cases' and leave the less profitable ones to burden the pubic health system which cannot 'skim' likewise because they must treat all comers no matter how expensive or troublesome).

Time to begin to phase out ALL 'brands' of religious crap which is polluting the young minds of generations and leading inevitably to cognitive dissonance and wars that never end while those in the higher eschelons of these old and new 'cults' exploit it all for their own power/wealth/craziness agendas. Let the 'gods and demons' of ancient ignorance, fear and superstitions 'die away' from the human psyche

Alert moderator
Grandma:

23 Oct 2015 9:01:24am

I have come to believe that all gods are man-made, for reasons I know longer comprehend. I know that all religions in the past has given some level of social cohesion in smaller societies, and earthly sense of belonging for individuals.

But realistically, we have many clear examples of religion in the last century and in a modern global world, continue to backdrop wars, persecution, discrimination, and abuse by some people who have individual and institutional power or a wish for power. Using religious belief (and it IS only belief) to reinforce one's sense of superiority over others is crazy stuff, since all religion is designed by men, not by any god or gods.

For me, religion (any religion) being a man-made entity, is not only fallible but also rather fanciful. I don't believe for a minute, that the Jewish/Christian "God" was responsible for designing and creating the earth and everything on it. I don't believe for a minute that Jesus was the son of that "God" or that he died on the cross to save all of us for ever in future history from our inevitable "sins" if we happen to be born into that particular religion, or fall into its allure during our lifetime.

Alert moderator
Elizabeth Morgan:

23 Oct 2015 9:19:00am

Excellent and thoughtful piece of reasoning Hugh Harris. Gives a new and more respectful perspective which many of us will find refreshing in what is often a polarised and polarising conversation. Have you thought about submitting it to the Australian, SMH, The Age and a shorter version to the tabloids? Everyone needs the opportunity to consider this option and the issues you raise - and it might contribute to keeping the more respectful tone which has remarkably crept into the public discussions.

Alert moderator
splod1:

23 Oct 2015 9:20:28am

The biggest threat posed by private schools has nothing to do with their religious orientation. It is the negative effect that they have on local public schools that we should be concerned about. Parents who are consciously supportive of their children's education, and have the funds to do so, will often send them to private schools, thus skewing the demographic of the local public school student cohort. Yes, parents who actively support their children's learning will still send them to public schools, but a core of talented and/or supported students will be missing, and the tone of the public school is distorted. I've taught in both the public and private sector and have seen this effect again and again.

Alert moderator
- Unknown Industrial Prisoner:
  
  23 Oct 2015 9:57:25am
  
  Not to forget the best and brightest teachers, who get recruited by the private schools, who can offer higher pay.
  
  I know several teachers who have do just that - proven their talent in the Public School system, then moved to a private school and doubled their salary.
  
  Alert moderator
Waterloosunsetdd2016:

23 Oct 2015 9:44:55am

We should teach people to be intolerant to religion.

Religious mores are largely born out of the ignorance of the family ( and region) and the indoctrination.

It's pathetic really, but shows how humans want to belong to groups, just as Labor Party members do: it's a club for disgruntled humans.

The only way to help your fellow men, is to put the oxygen mask on to assist others.

Alert moderator
Unknown Industrial Prisoner:

23 Oct 2015 9:48:30am

In Public schools in NSW, the churches have a veto on alternatives to religious education.

They are given time for scripture classes, and have opposed secular ethics classes, and have vetoed the option of any child using the time for furthering their own education.

The way the churches see it, if a child is not in scripture class, they have to be totally idle and unproductive.

When will the governments and churches give children their freedom?

Alert moderator
MA:

23 Oct 2015 9:53:07am

"Notably, many of these organisations are government funded, which means that our taxpayer dollars go directly towards buttressing these beliefs."

"Tax exemptions are enjoyed by charities"

The author conveniently makes it look as though the religious organisation are living off the tax payer.

However he seems to forget that the private school system is part funded by govt as the public school system could not cope with the volume of kids that would enter it if private schools closed down. The govt part funds the education as the cost to fully fund all those kids would be much greater.

The same argument can be said for private health insurance rebates. Its not about religious promotion its about costs and benefits provided by these institutions.

Simile religious organisations are tax exempt because they funnel the money back into the community through various means such as charitable work etc. Same thing happens for sporting or other voluntary organisations.

I am sure Hugh would be quick to stand up for the religious organisations that help refugees, however where does he think the money comes from (E.g. Salvation Army.)

Alert moderator
- RealityCheck:
  
  23 Oct 2015 10:25:59am
  
  Hi MA. :)
  
  I am atheist since age nine, and have given to charitable causes and directly to needy neighbours/families. Charity is not 'religious' but 'humane' act. Just because some religious orders/institutions do it too doesn't mean we 'need' them to do it. We could and do do it in Secular context from govt programs/policies (ie, unemployment/family/age-pension etc benefits) funded via Secular taxation revenue.
  
  Also, you write: "...the public school system could not cope with the volume of kids that would enter it if private schools closed down. The govt part funds the education as the cost to fully fund all those kids would be much greater."
  
  That is forgetting that much of the wealth/resources of religious schools were accumulated via 'tax exempt' profit-making activities; effectively meaning that the Secular govt has 'forgone' vast amounts of tax revenue which could have gone to fund public schools and thus accommodate all students and not 'needing' religious schools at all. So your argument is 'circuitous'.
  
  The 'rationale' for govt part-funding of religious schools is because religious schools make profits from 'tax exemption' activity which would otherwise be taxed and that revenue going to fund public schools; so the govt foregoes revenue from profit making 'religious activity', and THEN govt ALSO pays even more on top to part-fund religious schools!
  
  A two-pronged con job and circuitous rationale in one 'package' to sustain the 'religious schools' at the expense of the pubic schools. Much like the private health system skimming off the most profitable cases and leaving the least profitable/troublesome cases to the pubic health system.
  
  Time to have a good hard re-look at these 'iffy' rationales for throwing money at religious schools to help sustain and entrench their religious indoctrination of our young minds, don't you think? :)
  
  Alert moderator
  - MA:
    
    23 Oct 2015 11:37:07am
    
    Hello RealityCheck :),
    
    "We could and do do it in Secular context from govt programs/policies (ie, unemployment/family/age-pension etc benefits) funded via Secular taxation revenue"
    
    Yes we could and I didn't sat we couldn't however the 'reality' is we won't. Governments will always slash aid programs first up as they are doing now. Have a look how the FTB has been affected recently. So the 'reality' as opposed to the 'theory' on this aspect are poles apart.
    
    "The 'rationale' for govt part-funding of religious schools is because religious schools make profits from 'tax exemption' activity which would otherwise be taxed and that revenue going to fund public schools; so the govt foregoes revenue from profit making 'religious activity', and THEN govt ALSO pays even more on top to part-fund religious schools!"
    
    And how is this different to Universities? Should they also be made taxable. You obviously have an anti-religious perspective however my argument is, if you replaced the religion with something different like evolution studies most people wouldn't have an issue.
    
    I also doubt at the age of nine you would have been intellectually aware of all the arguments surrounding your atheistic choice. It sounds like you may have been brain washed by someone. Perhaps you need to revisit the issue and make a proper informed judgement rather than condemning those who may have!
    
    Alert moderator
    - RealityCheck:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:06:35pm
      
      Hi again, MA. Thanks for your response. :)
      
      Actually, I was a migrant family child who was precocious enough to learn the new language quickly from age 8, and was already helping family and friends in translating/dealing as intermediary in many areas of official/medical/legal etc situations which needed more personal/frequent help than then available through translation services etc. So I was quickly on the path of learning reality and reason, habits which quickly led to me seeing through the 'lies to children' fairytales by religions of all sorts which did not deal with the realities and facts becoming self-evident even to me a nine year old child able to compare both facts and cultures/religions...and that is why I became a-theist. It was the opposite of 'brainwashing', because it opened my eyes and mind to what the real brainwashing was...religious indoctrination from an early age....unless you could think for yourself and saw through it and survived to science and reason and humanity and compassion without the need for religious mumbo-jumbo designed to exploit/control by those (usually abusive/hypocritical etc) 'priests' in charge of the religions.
      
      And Universities for Secular science and Reason should and are Secular funded so that they may contribute to advancement of society/economy/culture without religious inconsistencies/exploitation involved. And 'tax exemption' for any 'religious activity' which profits one segment of society at the expense of all others is in effect the govt funding religion and superstition and all that coms from that....see the middle east today; and recall what craziness, hypocrisy and reality-denying 'policies' of the "Team Abbott" product of religious indoctrination! Religions have had THOUSANDS of years easy ride in one form or another...let's let Secularism have it's go for at least that long a run, hey? Cheers, AM. :)
      
      Alert moderator
    - RealityCheck:
      
      23 Oct 2015 12:25:19pm
      
      Hi again, MA. Thanks for your response. :)
      
      Actually, I was a migrant family child who was precocious enough to learn the new language quickly from age 8, and was already helping family and friends in translating/dealing as intermediary in many areas of official/medical/legal etc situations which needed more personal/frequent help than then available through translation services etc. So I was quickly on the path of learning reality and reason, habits which quickly led to me seeing through the 'lies to children' fairytales by religions of all sorts which did not deal with the realities and facts becoming self-evident even to me a nine year old child able to compare both facts and cultures/religions...and that is why I became a-theist. It was the opposite of 'brainwashing', because it opened my eyes and mind to what the real brainwashing was...religious indoctrination from an early age....unless you could think for yourself and saw through it and survived to science and reason and humanity and compassion without the need for religious mumbo-jumbo designed to exploit/control by those (usually abusive/hypocritical etc) 'priests' in charge of the religions.
      
      And Universities for Secular science and Reason should and are Secular funded so that they may contribute to advancement of society/economy/culture without religious inconsistencies/exploitation involved. And 'tax exemption' for any 'religious activity' which profits one segment of society at the expense of all others is in effect the govt funding religion and superstition and all that coms from that....see the middle east today; and recall what craziness, hypocrisy and reality-denying 'policies' of the "Team Abbott" product of religious indoctrination! Religions have had THOUSANDS of years easy ride in one form or another...let's let Secularism have it's go for at least that long a run, hey? Cheers, AM. :)
      
      Alert moderator
    - MA:
      
      23 Oct 2015 2:12:39pm
      
      Wow, however I hardly see the connection with a broad based intellect and learning a new language. Also I am sceptical that people would get an 8 year old to discuss legal/medical matters just because they did know the language. Interpretation is difficult enough without combing it with adolescence.
      
      Your argument that religious schools are exclusive is also incorrect. I know for a fact the local Lutheran school near where I live has Muslims, Catholics, atheists (parents view) and Sikhs attend. Yes they may attend Christian studies but they do not have to, and I know they are quite happy to be involved with a schooling system based on Christian philosophies of tolerance and acceptance as proposed to the local high school, which has no ethos it promotes. Basically every person for themselves.
      
      So we can agree that your ideals for a better society seem to be one based on a capitalist view of look after yourself and mine is look after your neighbour, as Christian principles are about helping others and not what atheists constantly try and portray of one about intolerance.
      
      Alert moderator
- Big M:
  
  23 Oct 2015 10:38:20am
  
  Thanks, MA, for the Sunday School approach to the discussion.
  
  Private Health Insurance has nothing to do with 'beliefs'. Private hospitals are run to make a profit.
  
  The Salvation Army would be the exception that provides community support. The rest just keep double dipping into the government coffers.
  
  Alert moderator
  - MA:
    
    23 Oct 2015 11:45:44am
    
    "Thanks, MA, for the Sunday School approach to the discussion"
    
    Thanks for making such an incorrect judgment as I have never been to Sunday school and was educated at a public school.
    
    I agree private health insurance has nothing to do with beliefs that's my point. It provides a cost saving to the govt in real terms as does private education. So get over your anti religious brainwashing issue and look at the financial aspect in isolation.
    
    And as you are a bit ignorant on the issue, other Christian examples include World Vision, Compassion Australia, Australian Red Cross and St Vincent De Pauls. Tax them as well?
    
    Alert moderator
    - Big M:
      
      23 Oct 2015 1:24:52pm
      
      The Australian Red Cross is not a religious organisation.
      
      Your example of religious organisations helping refugees is false. Most help comes from non-religious organisations.
      
      No religions in Australia pay tax, or council rates, yet none are asked to prove any evidence of the community services you claim they provide.
      
      Alert moderator
    - MA:
      
      23 Oct 2015 2:01:21pm
      
      Duh, it was founded by Christian people whom without a helping hand from Govt could not have made it into what it is today! All that it wasn't, was controlled by a Church.
      
      "or council rates" Wrong again.
      
      You also need to maybe have a look at who is helping refugees in the country. You might learn something.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Big M:
      
      23 Oct 2015 3:06:57pm
      
      'Duh, it was founded by Christian people whom without a helping hand from Govt could not have made it into what it is today! All that it wasn't, was controlled by a Church.'
      
      No, it wasn't.
      
      "or council rates" No they still don't.
      
      'You also need to maybe have a look at who is helping refugees in the country. You might learn something.'
      
      Yes, I have had a good look. In my community it is the Refugee Action Network, and the local branch of the refugee Council. None of the religious organisations are ever present at any of the local meetings.
      
      Alert moderator
AndrewH:

23 Oct 2015 10:20:42am

Finland has the right idea. Only state schools are allowed and it is reported to be one of the best education systems in the world. There are in my opinion at least three major benefits from this system, equal education for all, children learn mix with all layers of society and no dogmas are taught.

In Ireland during the "troubles" children brought up in secular school did not have the traditional hatred of people of a different faith.

Alert moderator
blax5:

23 Oct 2015 10:26:44am

All systems prefer their population to be religious because they are more easily influenced via the leaders of religious organisations. Admittedly that can be good influence but it can also be bad influence.

Regarding Tim Wilson, I would be less interested in his ideas of faith, belief and religion than what he meant in The Drum yesterday when he said we were in Afghanistan to create (or maybe promote) a 'free market economy'. I found that concerning.

Alert moderator
- Waterloo Sunset DD 2016:
  
  23 Oct 2015 10:38:34am
  
  That's what the Romans did.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Erika:
    
    23 Oct 2015 3:35:21pm
    
    What, the Romans promoted a free market economy?
    
    Alert moderator
pingo:

23 Oct 2015 10:53:30am

However, the proposal of freedom of all beliefs fails to explain how you are going to deal with clashes between these beliefs. We are seeing those clashes already in other countries like where a Christian minister wants the freedom to not marry a gay couple which goes against his conscience and beliefs, yet the gay couple believe they should have the freedom to make this person marry them. They then sue successfully against the Christian. I can see this happening in Australia soon. This is just one example. Also, shouldn't Christian schools have the freedom to employee a Christian to teach classes on Christianity? Apparently not according to your article. Freedom of all beliefs doesn't work as not all beliefs are the same and there will be clashes. Who will be the judge when this happens?

Alert moderator
franjulie:

23 Oct 2015 11:59:12am

Wow. Excellent. Maybe I've missed other articles in the past, but this is the first time I've read on ABC website an article promoting a rationalist secular viewpoint, & bringing the notion that the non-religious in our society should be given equal consideration under our so-called 'religious freedom', as those of the various religions.

ABC has been very adept at browbeating us to accept Islamic inclusion in society; & also at times, in representing the Christian viewpoint. But rarely do we see such consideration being given to those who want, (& should have the right to), freedom FROM religion, & a more rational society to live in.

A secular society should provide the same consideration for atheists as is given to religious followers. Places at the roundtable for a start, is a no-brainer. But more than that, we need ethics classes taught in schools - not by those who believe in fairies in the sky, but by intelligent, rational people of good character. We need non-religious palliative care, which recognises the end of life choices of the terminally ill. ...And so much more. Religion has infiltrated every aspect of society, & it's power, control & it's privileges need to be curtailed somewhat.

Alert moderator
Early Grayce:

23 Oct 2015 12:01:44pm

Promoting freedom of beliefs through something akin to the Religious Freedom Roundtable is a stupid idea in the same way that having an I Own a Brain Roundtable.
We all know we have brains but the only ones who need a Freedom roundtable are the ones who do not use it.

Alert moderator
RealityCheck:

23 Oct 2015 12:15:43pm

Hi again, MA. Thanks for your response. :)

Actually, I was a migrant family child who was precocious enough to learn the new language quickly from age 8, and was already helping family and friends in translating/dealing as intermediary in many areas of official/medical/legal etc situations which needed more personal/frequent help than then available through translation services etc. So I was quickly on the path of learning reality and reason, habits which quickly led to me seeing through the 'lies to children' fairytales by religions of all sorts which did not deal with the realities and facts becoming self-evident even to me a nine year old child able to compare both facts and cultures/religions...and that is why I became a-theist. It was the opposite of 'brainwashing', because it opened my eyes and mind to what the real brainwashing was...religious indoctrination from an early age....unless you could think for yourself and saw through it and survived to science and reason and humanity and compassion without the need for religious mumbo-jumbo designed to exploit/control by those (usually abusive/hypocritical etc) 'priests' in charge of the religions.

And Universities for Secular science and Reason should and are Secular funded so that they may contribute to advancement of society/economy/culture without religious inconsistencies/exploitation involved. And 'tax exemption' for any 'religious activity' which profits one segment of society at the expense of all others is in effect the govt funding religion and superstition and all that coms from that....see the middle east today; and recall what craziness, hypocrisy and reality-denying 'policies' of the "Team Abbott" product of religious indoctrination! Religions have had THOUSANDS of years easy ride in one form or another...let's let Secularism have it's go for at least that long a run, hey? Cheers, AM. :)

Alert moderator
Ronk:

23 Oct 2015 12:19:16pm

"We aren't advocating that you have to pay for evangelical atheists to preach Nietzsche and Dawkins to your children. Nor should your children grow up to face discrimination by government funded secular businesses.

We think this would be unfair. We hope you can acknowledge the obvious asymmetry."

You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge that all of these horrors are already happening on a vast scale in Australia and have been for many decades. Your mindless proposal would greatly increase these offences
against the basic human rights of those who dare to publicly acknowledge that the truth may be other than the mindless atheist materialist relativism that is near-universally espoused by those in all positions of authority and influence in our society, often backed up by force of law and financial penalties.

Alert moderator
Orion:

23 Oct 2015 1:14:18pm

I'm a lifelong atheist but have no problem with other people being religious. Many of my friends are religious - various brands - although none are very devout or strict about it as far as I know. I do think one positive thing about religion is that it gives society a code of moral behaviour (whether or not you agree with the particulars of any one code is another question) which is otherwise difficult to substitute for. The laws and social conventions of secular society don't seem to have the same authority over many people, unfortunately, although I freely admit religion is no guarantee of good behaviour. I would advocate for freedom for everyone to think, say and publish anything they like with very few exceptions (child pornography and inciting others to violence for example).

Alert moderator

Comments for this story are closed.

We should be promoting freedom of belief, not religious freedom

Comments (284)

DaveR:

ThingFish:

DaveR:

Demac:

ThingFish:

Trev:

Disciple of Rationality:

Tom1:

Demac:

DaveR:

black belt:

DaveR:

black belt:

wizeowl:

Demac:

Cyn:

bob:

chalkie:

DaveR:

Demac:

DaveR:

Demac:

Tom1:

Sam:

DaveR:

Early Grayce:

DaveR:

Demac:

franjulie:

DaveR:

Bev:

ThingFish:

Bev:

graazt:

Early Grayce:

DaveR:

Disciple of Rationality:

CF Zero:

Orion:

splod1:

ThingFish:

Edina:

Early Grayce:

Tom1:

Tom1:

Edina:

ThingFish:

franjulie:

Sam:

Grommo:

M:

The weed:

Early Grayce:

Edina:

Chris:

Sam:

Dove:

Early Grayce:

Dove:

Meredith Doig:

Mitor the Bold:

Sam:

Early Grayce:

Sam:

Boutros Boutros:

Desert Woman:

Himself:

Bev:

Boutros Boutros:

Desert Woman:

Boutros Boutros:

Desert Woman:

Daniel:

leafygreens:

Mitor the Bold:

Zing:

bob:

Dr Who: