As I have said several times, I encountered Watts decades ago and loved his roadshow of ideas. He considered himself an entertainer and many of us got our start in metaphysical religious thinking through him. Even today I'll listen to him on youtube - to actually hear his resonant voice is a buzz. The charisma leaps from my headphones. And he's often thought provoking. — Tom Storm

Pretty much the same story for me and I actually really like Watts. His ideas were ‘off-the-rack’ but he had charisma and was an excellent preacher man. His words gave me comfort and meaning in a difficult time, as I recall.

I support democracy and majority rule but I certainly would never suggest dissenters just 'suck it up.' Organise, protest, campaign, even engage in civil disobedience but I would also emphasise the importance of a non-violent strategy. Otherwise, you are not being true to yourself and agree to be like a carpet for those you don't agree with to freely walk all over. — universeness

I don't disagree with anything you've written. As I indicated, I am ambivalent about the issue.

Ok, thanks for replying to my comment.

I think Australians are moving inexorably in the direction of a 'monarchy-free zone.' I hope Scotland becomes independent eventually, then gets rid of the monarchy and joins Europe again and Unites with every other country it can, including England but not as something as colonial and empire soiled as Great ( :rofl: ) Britain. I have never felt British in any way at all. British means nothing to me. I don't think many Australians still feel allegiance to something as outdated as the British monarchy. Surely they see how such was rewarded in the inept and criminal way Churchhill used the Anzacs as fodder at Gallipoli — universeness

I understand your hope, and I agree there is a distinct lack of allegiance as such to the British monarchy in Australia. But I honestly don’t think we’re there yet. Our representatives still too often operate as if the ‘adult supervision’ has simply left the room, and I think they prefer the sense that if it does go pear-shaped there’s still a ‘grown-up’ around. I’d like to think we can get to the point where we don’t need that, but unfortunately I don’t believe that time is now. The ‘grown up’ is little more than a stabilising reference point or an empty threat at this stage, but it’s still useful as such.

You seemed to be claiming that the US struggles to recognize the difference between ‘freedom of’ and ‘freedom from’ religion. The separation of church and state facilitates both. — praxis

I agree that ideally it facilitates both. What I’m saying is that the dynamic driving ongoing discussions about separation of church and state in the US is in trying to resolve this distinction - drawn up as anti-theism vs anti-atheism - in a way that differs from the UK and Aus. Again, note this is an outsider’s perspective of American politics. I’m not claiming this is the intention, only an appearance. The neutral position in the US is the Constitution, in which the ideal ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is stated as “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”.

The neutral position is a logical ideal: separation of church and state enables freedom of thought and of sentiment. It’s a distinction in potentiality - differentiating power, significance and value systems. But there is no actual separation to be observed - ‘God’ is named in the Constitution and on all legal tender, and is called to bear witness in all court and parliamentary sessions.

I understand your hope, and I agree there is a distinct lack of allegiance as such to the British monarchy in Australia. But I honestly don’t think we’re there yet. Our representatives still too often operate as if the ‘adult supervision’ has simply left the room, and I think they prefer the sense that if it does go pear-shaped there’s still a ‘grown-up’ around. I’d like to think we can get to the point where we don’t need that, but unfortunately I don’t believe that time is now. The ‘grown up’ is little more than a stabilising reference point or an empty threat at this stage, but it’s still useful as such. — Possibility

Well, the recent victory of Anthony Albanese may change things in Australia for the better.
He is already talking about a referendum on the monarchy!

What I’m saying is that the dynamic driving ongoing discussions about separation of church and state in the US is in trying to resolve this distinction - drawn up as anti-theism vs anti-atheism - in a way that differs from the UK and Aus. — Possibility

I don’t see what you’re saying. Can you give examples that illustrate this difference?

The US is not anti-theist or anti-atheist, though it contains citizens of both.

The US is not anti-theist or anti-atheist, though it contains citizens of both. — praxis

What proportion would you say are neither?

According to Pew Research, about 3% identified themselves as atheist in 2014, so I imagine that antitheists (opposed to religion) must be less than 1%. Around half reported that religion was important to their lives. Unknown what portion of this demographic may be anti-atheists. That’s about all I can say offhand.

No examples?

According to Pew Research, about 3% identified themselves as atheist in 2014, so I imagine that antitheists (opposed to religion) must be less than 1%. Around half reported that religion was important to their lives. Unknown what portion of this demographic may be anti-atheists. That’s about all I can say offhand. — praxis

Thanks for the stats. It’s very different to external perceptions. There does appear to me to be a very vocal (or lobbied) push FOR religious intervention in US politics. And I can see that a perception of anti-theism is NOT the same as self-identifying as ‘atheist’. But would it be more accurate that it’s not so much anti-theism as anti- religious-intervention?

So no, no examples. I’m gonna go away and rethink this...

Pretty much the same story for me and I actually really like Watts. His ideas were ‘off-the-rack’ but he had charisma and was an excellent preacher man. His words gave me comfort and meaning in a difficult time, as I recall. — praxis

I have a feeling Watts' charisma is largely due to his voice (deep baritone, made more impressive by chain-smoking).

:snicker: