From the SMH letters

Why do proponents of religion think that one requires a god to live by the golden rule? It is simply common sense. It promotes a caring, compassionate and ordered society and can be taught to children without resorting to the ''holy book'', with its attendant contradictory and confusing statements.

Ion Morrison Darling Point

Its hard to believe Gus, but people like Galaleo and Darwin could have been burned at the stake for just thinking, reasoning and using logic.

"Here we could not agree more with the concept of "hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." But that's where it ends. And I would say this is a very selfish concept, because it is centered on "our desire to suffer no pain that we do not inflict pain".

All the rest of Joe lovely diatribe shows that nice Joe lives in fairyland. The letter page of today (11/11/09) show mostly where he is — wonderland...

Evolution and religion do not mix, science and god do not mix, no matter how one tries to spin then together.... But crossing the line is hard to do. Many people hang on to the skirt of god because they know of no other way and do not wish to acknowledge our true animal origins. As soon as we do (as we should when we understand "evolution"), the god illusion looses traction, and the concept of animalistic behaviour becomes enhanced with the evolved stylistic understanding of individuals in group culture... "

Joe is not alone in his beliefs that is - if he really believes them.  It seems to me that religion of any kind is a business started by those who were the first and only ones who could read and write. To achieve the position of ruling the masses required the need to play to the fear of death which we, as thinking animals, recognized but could not accept.

The way out was to obey the King/Queen; Pharaoh; Witch Doctor; Monk; Rabbi; Priest; in fact anyone who could tell a good story and back it up with the demonstration of having the power of life and death – to allow it or to remove it – even to suggest immortality.

Mythology and the origins of many religions are famous for their interesting stories, but none were as powerful as those which seemed capable of ensuring a good or bad time after death.

You say “Evolution and religion do not mix, science and god do not mix, no matter how one tries to spin them together…” Spot on.

How long would we have stayed in a wonderland of false beliefs if it hadn’t been for people like Galaleo?  And the ancient way of maintaining those false beliefs was to give the radicals the choice of absolute servitude or death.

The fear of death is a much mightier tool than the belief of being remembered with “the flag” over your coffin. The flag that is the symbol of servitude to the power of the Military/Corporate.

Cheers mate.  God Bless Australia. NE OUBLIE.

David Attenborough says a disconnection from the natural world means urban dwellers are losing sight of life's realities.

---------------------

David, one the major problems here is that this disconnection from the natural world happened many many moons ago, when humanity was still in its tree... and has been off its rocker since. by inventing credos of misunderstanding to justify its existence...

No doubt Steve Hambridge was being tongue-in-cheek. Many of the world's greatest scientists found their faith in a divine creator deepened as their knowledge grew. They possessed the combination of immense intelligence and humility, which made them open to all possibilities.

Fortunately, despite their being believers, we have not ignored the opinions of Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Johannes Kepler, Gregor Mendel and Samuel Morse.

Sophie York Turramurra

----------------------------
Gus:
Dear Sophie...

I do not know if Steve Hambridge was being tongue-in-cheek as he threw some funny burley in the pond... although you seem sure there is "no doubt" about it... Thus may I assume you are saying tongue-in-cheek what you propose... "Intelligence and humility, which made them open to all possibilities" sounds like the glorified nondescript rumblings of a budding politician (are you the one?) in springtime.


There is a 17th century French Christian/philosopher/scientist, equipped with his thermometer and barometer, Blaise Pascal, who, as a punter mathematician, proposed a bet on the existence of god. As a scientist, he decreed it at about a thousand to one... Yet even under these odds, with which one could be 999 times wrong, he proposed that it was worth leading an exemplary life, mostly according the rules of the doodah (popes, kings, queens, cardinals) of the times. Scientists like Pascal and Isaac Newton — also a "capitalist", money maker who worked for the Mint — were also having bets in different "beliefs" by being freemasons, anglicans, catholics and voodoo worshippers all at the same time, because the beliefs system of their day was very ingrained with the fear of god. Like Galileo they were walking the thin line of dismantling the literal dogma, bit by bit, thus fearing for their life under powerful rulers, including popes, who did not like new ideas. Study the Cathars, Sophie. Their view of god (and money) was so different that the pope decided to wipe them out. Nothing new...

I personally can't accept the notion of god... the notion does not make sense... Not that I do not know the notion... I was raised in a very strong religious family, but one which was aware of the failings of Pius XII... and a family that encouraged humanism.

The legends, the rituals and the dogmas that humans have built around the idea of god are entertainingly ludicrous. Theatre of the absurd... In no way could they dictate our behaviour, unless one is carefully constantly brainwashed into these system of belief — in which the fear of individual death is the cornerstone for hope of the thereafter.

Sure, many lower forms of social order nearly always demand fear of something to achieve sustainability... But we have grown up, haven't we? Yup... Despite the debonaire Joe Hockey and his non-full of revenge god, we still go to war like the seven dwarfs go to work.

Science cannot accept the idea of god. Some scientists might, but many do not. Those who do, often act parallel lives rather than live in an illusionary concoction — a pseudo-religion-science that is full of contradictions, accepted with a wad of overstretched excuses that do not fit the religious dogma. Thus often, these scientists may accept the god illusion on their own terms.

------------------------

The idea of god is mostly a Judeo/Christian/Muslim (Abraham/Egyptian descendency) concept that has no traction in many part of the world (!). In some social systems, the multiplicity of gods makes more sense than a singular god  — like the Christian one — a god who lost his (her) omnipotence against a fallen angel. We then have to accept that in his (her) generosity, the lazy bum is employing us — we, the tiny street thugs living on a pinhead in a universe with no defined edges — to help him defeat this evil in our hearts. How sweet... This of course immediately underpins our justification for acts of war rather than properly help us fix family feud over the last piece of bacon or a new barrel of oil. And we teach our kids the meanest means, with a super stupid dose of the ugly "good and evil" fight with less and less humanist understanding... It's more fun that way. Yuck.

Being human is complex (read a bit about it on this site including here) but as soon as we include the god illusion in the equation, we dismiss our real belonging to this planet. I use the word illusion rather than delusion because delusion is mostly a disease while the god illusion is a self-inflicted cultural addiction.

Science has postulated and verified that timelines and real events do not fit the old fairy tales in the "good" book by a long shot. It takes massive stretches of the god illusion in believers' imagination to try to make the new narrative fit the obsolete irrelevant belief system.

We are way beyond that. In regard to global warming, read up there...

-------------------------

Surely I can't be the only one who laughs out loud every time I hear some "person of faith" wade into the climate change debate.

On both sides of the argument these people earnestly talk of science-based evidence (or the lack thereof). Sorry, guys, but by having blind faith in your god, your opinions on science really can't be taken seriously.

Steve Hambridge Balmain

------------------

There are few words to describe a visit to what is claimed to be the world's largest church congregation.

In just over 50 years, the Yoido Full Gospel Church has grown from five people meeting in its founding pastor's home in South Korea, to a membership of more than 750,000 people.

It means that the church, in Seoul, has more members than some entire denominations in Europe.

On a typical Sunday, more than 200,000 worshippers attend seven services in a building that feels more like a stadium than a traditional Christian structure.

------------------------

Gus: Lots people being wrong does not make it right... It might make a trend in an opinion poll, but this does not mean the outcome is right... And this premise could apply to global warming thus, yet the idea of global warming is more than an illusion. it is measurable. It is being measured (variabilities included). We see the effects of global warming now unless we refuse to see. That we, humans, want to accept the blame for it or not is for politicians (our illusionary representatives) to decide. That we are crapping on this plannet with rubbish, detritus, carbon dioxide, methane, insecticides, artificial estrogen, and are in many other ways destroying the natural place, is not hard to see unless we refuse to see.

Have a great day. Peace.

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.

It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's right to freedom of religion.

The case was brought by an Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to give her children a secular education.

The Vatican said it was shocked by the ruling, calling it "wrong and myopic" to exclude the crucifix from education.

The ruling has sparked anger in the largely Catholic country, with one politician calling the move "shameful".

The Strasbourg court found that: "The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities... restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions."

see toon at top and article above this link...

----------------

The Greek Orthodox Church is urging Christians across Europe to unite in an appeal against a ban on crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled last week that the presence of crucifixes violated a child's right to freedom of religion.

Greece's Orthodox Church fears the Italian case will set a precedent.

It has called an emergency Holy Synod meeting for next week to devise an action plan.

-----------------

see toon at top and article above this link...

Oh how I remember Bing Crosby and Barry Fitzgerald behaving in a manner so as to convince the viewers of their compassion to those not enlightened by the Roman Catholic doctrine.

Compare that with the era of the Spanish Inquisition.  One could say that those Papists actually destroyed (or reduced) the massive power of the Vatican.

Compare it with the changes to the “absolute truth” and the way that the Popes have managed to adjust to the times. A business has to be flexible.

For a supposedly wise and forward thinking humanity, to suggest that the removal of only one religious symbol from the classrooms of a society which boasts of “freedom” of religion is so wrong and so clearly so, that one wonders as to the amount of “understanding” that those “religious” businesses have to one another.  Competition or compassion?

I remember the Salvation Army when I joined the Navy in 1957.  They were at the basic training Depots and provided us with the implements of writing and posting yet with the absence of any religious demands.

I remember my eldest brother telling me that he was in the second wave of the Australian invasion of Borneo in WW 2 – and the Sallies were with them!

I remember when women were obliged to cover their heads when attending Roman Catholic Church services.  Yet, wasn’t that denied to the Muslims in France?

It seems to me that the most un-forgiving religions are the most likely to succeed. And the “beliefs” which indigenous people can feel, like those in the abused states of Afghanistan and Iraq, will not be defeated – but that’s just not a worry to the US Military/Corporate who will win – no matter who wins!

The symbols of any religion should be chosen ONLY if no other religion is permitted or wanted to attend.  And to think otherwise is to abuse the concept of equality of citizens in the taxpayer funded schools of any supposed democracy.

God Bless Australia.  NE OUBLIE.

A US judge has ordered South Carolina not to issue a vehicle number plate with a Christian image and slogan.

The state legislature had approved a licence plate with a cross in front of a stained glass window and the words "I Believe" written along the top.

District Judge Cameron Currie said that the plate violated the First Amendment, which enshrines the separation of church and state.

A similar bid by a group in Florida last year did not pass state lawmakers.

From Annabel Crabb

....

And to his disciple and Mine, Joe Hockey: Joe, thank you for the sentiment behind your speech to the Sydney Institute, ''In Defence of God'', on Monday night.

As an omnipotent being, of course, I am fortunate enough not to have to rely on human defenders to keep my end up - particularly when the opponent is a white-suited mongoose like Christopher Hitchens - but I appreciated the thought.

My quibble is that, like Kevin, you adopt the bits about Me that you like, and don't mention the bits that you don't.

I am to be used as "an analogy of faith in all its forms"?

For goodness' sakes, Joe, man up!

Is that the best you can do?

Just as your old sparring partner, the Prime Minister, was very attached to the Good Samaritan parable right up until the point at which he found himself obliged to enforce it, I got the feeling you were making excuses for me in your speech.

I'm not always reasonable, you know.

And my ways are never easy.

That goes for both of you, Kevin and Joe: it's fine for you to worship the Sunrise.

Just don't forget Who created it - OK?

----------------

see toon at top, read comments and read more of Annabel at the SMH.

G'day Gus/John,

In my post I wrote: The symbols of any religion should be chosen ONLY if no other religion is permitted or wanted to attend. 

In simple terms, what I meant was that religious schools may show the symbols of their own faith (Just as in church but - if the school is funded by taxpayers, no symbols should be shown since the State and the Church are supposed to be separate.

Cheers Ern G.

From Unleashed

We occasionally pay lip service, as do the Americans, to the idea that in Australia church and state are separate, render unto Caesar and all that.

And we raise a good glass of red wine in a toast every time a new survey emerges showing church attendance falling or the number of people writing "Atheist" on the census rising. But the phrase "false sense of security" comes to mind here.

Just the other day the attempt by the ACT government to buy a hospital run by a church group was being blocked by the local Catholic bishop in consultation with the Vatican.

And the influence of the Catholic Archbishop, as well as Anglican and evangelical and Salvation Army leaders on government, and their involvement in social activities, education, health, drug laws, censorship of media, and their obtaining financial support for religious gatherings, is obvious to anyone who looks.

As is the presence of a group of fundamentalist Christian parliamentarians conducting prayer meetings in parliament house. And our current prime minister, like our previous one, attends church as ostentatiously as any American political leader, and offers, gratuitously, to pray for anyone, anywhere, anytime.

But there is an even more subtle process going on in which every day language is being "religised". And we seem well on our way back to the Middle Ages, when the language of home and tavern and street constantly evoked the threats of evil and demons and the need for the protection of a god.

It began, I think, with sports reporting, this infusion of religious language into the media, with the linking of sports crowds to religious ones, and we had the faithful, the true believers, making pilgrimages to shrines of football, sacred sites, watching games played on hallowed turf, seeing miracles achieved, or complaining of hoodoos and jinxes.

---------------------

We have more individual consciousness than the entire universe... We can see the universe. The universe cannot see us. See toon at top...

I quote a part of your post above Gus.

“But there is an even more subtle process going on in which every day language is being "religised". And we seem well on our way back to the Middle Ages, when the language of home and tavern and street constantly evoked the threats of evil and demons and the need for the protection of a god.”

The irony seems to be that the civilizations/societies which continuously need the comfort of a “Church’s” guidance seem to be the Christians?

We know there are many religions – no, beliefs – in our multi-cultural planet and it is rare that an issue surfaces which is not offensive to any worthwhile religious bigotry and has an undeniable common interest to all of them.

I refer of course to the danger to the planet of climate change which, is even now conceded by the Howard “New Order” when he was Bush’s bum-boy.

The Corporations’ representatives in our Parliament, like the Coal-ition and the Barnaby Joyce National rabble - offer to us (and the world) a psuedo-religious attitude that WE, the human inhabitants, have nothing to do with the out-of-control carbon emissions and I am reasonably sure that Cardinal Pell will advise Tony Abbot that the “Lord will prevail”. 

This situation of religious bigotry versus scientific facts must seem as an enormous challenge to (for example) the ultimate control of the Roman Catholic Church in that the ingrained faith of their teachings are being challenged in the ever increasingly educated minds of their previously docile subjects?

The suggestion that the Church and the State are separate is false.

The US multi-national, multi-lingual, multi-religious society is the most unstable terrorist country in the world.  Is this one of the reasons why they selectively choose a nation to invade who can provide some more fodder for their insatiable appetite for the planet’s resources?  Why not Somalia?

And what is the result of their multi-invasions of people who cannot possibly attack the US mainland?

Perhaps it is the ceremonies of their sacrifices to the God of War, that “We will remember them” when it should be “Why did they have to die?”  Give them a wonderful send-off and tell their relatives that they will never be forgotten - thank you - Fair dinkum.

The quote of yours is so true but, should Tony Abbot take over the leadership of the Liberal/National coal-ition then I believe that Cardinal Pell will become his Richelieu in the State authority and – what then? (The reference to “coal-ition” is a copy of the address that Senator Brown gave in Parliament).

God Bless Australia.  NE OUBLIE.

Hi Ernest

Not "my" quote but my general sentiment... When I place text in italic with a link it's usually someone else's words... But nice one...

There is a survey by the Sydney Morning Herald about the beliefs that people have...

from the SMH

...

Hockey's cant about corporate sustainability put further into doubt any hope that the private sector can tackle climate change.

"Let's be fair dinkum, 99 times out of 100 businesses who are not run by one individual will inevitably focus on what is going to deliver a more profitable path into the future."

For company directors, he said, it was "their fiduciary obligation".

In response to questions from a representative of the animal rights organisation Voiceless, Hockey – who runs 300 head of cattle on his farm at Malanda, Queensland – said: "Let's not pretend business has a conscience [and suddenly it] is concerned it might be running the land too hard, in the production of beef, that it's using too many chemicals. Let's not pretend that is the case and it's a pang of conscience that is driving that decision rather than the fact that they do not see economic sustainability going forward."

For me, the clincher was Hockey's response to my question about what Australia should do about the coal industry, its biggest export earner and greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

"Obviously, as a member of the previous government, we invested heavily in clean coal research. The question is when will it deliver the outcome we all desire, and that is clean coal? And I think that's a fair way off. But the fact is that coal is energy. Something like two-thirds of the people of India have no electricity. Now what do we say to them? I for example don't understand the logic of us not exporting uranium to India. I really don't. Two-thirds of the people of India have no electricity, and we're so sanctimonious as to think that that's OK? We have a tremendous amount of energy in Australia but somehow we don't want India and China to have some of our energy resources? That's fine if we're in a nice place [like this venue] but if you're five people in a house and you're hoping that your children will be able to get an education and they're studying by candlelight – if you can afford the wax – um, I think it's a different set of priorities."

Now, where have I heard that line before? Oh, that's right, the Coal Association.

----

The combustion of fossil fuels is causing dangerous global warming and the world needs to move as rapidly as possible to renewable energy. Anybody who says different is ignorant, lying or has a vested interest. Australia is probably one of the few countries on earth rich enough, and well-enough endowed, to move away from fossil fuels: from coal to gas (where needed) to 100 per cent renewables. If our politicians will let us.

--------------------

See toon at top...