>Nathan's right: anti-clericalism fought the _established_ church. >Now we don't have that any more. It's fine as far as I'm concerned >if some people have religion. That doesn't alwsys always mean >that they're closed to reason. > Jim: religion is one of things that it is difficult to have choice over. the Roman catholics particularly get innocent minds when they are young and lay heavy guilt trips on them with the most preposterous range of mystical claims about things more reasoned people call natural - including natural body functions. even when they grow older and see beyond it, the guilt often remains to haunt their sexuality and other personal areas of their lives. it is not okay to do this to children. so while Nathan says being anti-religion (read anti-anti-people-and-freedom-religions) is tantamount to being anti-democratic, i have to disagree. democracy requires an equality of choice, and it cannot exist properly when all these loons from the catholic church are behaving as they do. even the liberationist theologians in south america know that. kind regards bill ************************************************************************** William F. Mitchell Telephone: +61-49-215027 .-_|\ Department of Economics +61-49-705133 / \ The University of Newcastle Fax: +61-49-216919 \.--._/*<-- Callaghan NSW 2308 v Australia Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html **************************************************************************
