Except that the original posts speaks of "nearly all governments"; besides, what's wrong with expanding the discussion to universal consideration? It's not as if I'm saying your figures from the UK are incorrect. I trust the BBC numbers.

As for the Jedi Knight numbers, that was the result of an internet campaign with the purpose of lampooning organized religion, making a joke of government, and to bug people. While it is possible that there are a few serious Jedi Knights out there, the fact of the matter is that the numbers represent people who were interested in making a joke, not practicing Jedi Knights.

Then again, if you can track down Yoda, I see no reason to bar him from a conversation of ethics. My gut tells me he will be hard to find, though. As I recall he died in one of the movies.

Why are you wiggling Tom you made a mistake just be honest,you tried to make me out as incompetent, admit it you have a problem.

Why are you undermining a religion?does it not live up to your normal believable standards.

Don't you realise for some of us they are all unbelievable.

I was wrong about church attendance in the US? I was somehow wrong when I said that your numbers, provided by the BBC, were correct? That's a stretch.

You assert that there are more Jedi Knights than Buddhists, which seems false given the evidence provided. But you did not respond to this. Nor have you explained the relationship between the disbelief of people and the relevance of that matter to census numbers and the ethical thought of people who happen to be religious. Nor did you respond to my question regarding your acceptance or rejection of those aforementioned religious teachings regarding ethics which are so universal as to be accepted by nearly every person alive, religious or otherwise. Nor have you responded to my point regarding the irrelevancy of church attendance with respect to the relevance of religious leaders' ethical considerations.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I want to "declare war" nor do I have a clue what that could possibly mean. Nor do I have the slightest idea as to what you think I might have done that was petty - I'm not the one describing a person's responses as "wiggling" nor am I the one demanding that a person admit some unidentified problem.

I read that nearly all government ethics panels have to include representatives from most of the major religion's of that country...

... What do you think? What is the value of including religious believers in ethical debate? Can their contributions be meaningful whether or not they can be universally applied?

Religious dogma has the individual not being able to rationalise on an ethical problem.The priest or CE vicar can not vocalize his own opinions or change the accepted dogma of his church.When attending such gatherings all he is there for is to reinforce his churches position.Any change in dogma requires the vatican or the CE synod permission.Ethics or morals in the public domain can be debated and altered by common consent and does not require like the faithful we see foundering in conflict over interpretation of scripture.Just look at the anglican division brought about by the subject of homosexuality.Look at the deep unrest in the Rc church over contraception.Flexibility in debate is the only way ethics can be duscussed,dogma of any description kills debate.

So you want me to provide figures for Buddhists and Jedi?is that it?

My response to active church goers and their influence on ethics, i thought was self evident.

As for the religious having a monopoly on ethics,now that is bigoted.

So tell me exactly whats your problem?

I can remember a certain proclaimed christian saying he never gets angry,if your posts are not filled with anger, i need a reality check.

Dogma and Doctrine are not the same thing, Doctrine is the official stance /practice/belief of a church, Dogma is the traditional corollary as actually practiced, these often do not coincide. Also, keep in mind no one as practitioners of any strain of dogmatic thought, which is everyone, has the ability and does exercise rational thought within the confines of their accepted rationality. Representatives of a church are simply figureheads, even if they could dictate action they don't. As you were fond of pointing out the 'low percentage of active practitioners', this would indicate that there is a variance between any sort of papal style doctrine and practice en mass. The dogma of tradition is still there in an entire cline of those who were raised and still somewhat believe. Aside from this I really don't see flexibility in debate from anyone on the opposite side of the argument, although there are the same styles and amounts of dogmatic principles expressed there. The same cultural castigations happen for people who do not practice the non-religious dogmas as for those who do not practice the religious dogmas. The main castigation being banishment from the mainstream group of which they desire to belong. What I see here is someone who is upset that others don't believe what s/he believes and is attempting to call those people biggoted because of it.

Hitler, no, because he was not a man interested in ethics in the least. Bin Laden, no, because his considerations are not ethics, but a fundamentalist reading of the Koran - instead of meditating on the Koran's message, he does exactly the opposite; he mindlessly accepts passages at face value, and only the passages he wants to accept.

No, we should not consider every view. There are some people who argue that ethics should be overthrown entirely - they argue that people should be unethical. Inviting arbitrary and anti-ethical views to the table for sake of diversity is not going to help us have a valuable conversation about ethics.

By accepting that title, he made public his status as an enlightened being; as an enlightened being, he made it quite clear that one should not accept his words on authority - again, he explicitly states this:

Quote Details: The Buddha: Do not believe in... - The Quotations Page

The Buddha was concerned with establishing a spiritual order that could stand the test of time and help as many people as possible achieve enlightenment. This is why he set up a monastic order.

The Buddha's enlightenment means that his teachings are wise. However, each person should consider those teachings for himself before accepting them.

"Buddha" is only vague if we have not looked into it's meaning. A Buddha is someone who is enlightened. The historic Gautama Buddha was a Buddha who taught in India sometime around 400 BCE and founded Buddhism.

People cease to be religious when they think for themselves? I see no reason to make such an assertion. History is filled with a great many renown individuals who thought for themselves. The Catholic Church has made Saints out of people who thought for themselves, people who came up with new ideas about religion.

I fail to understand that. Situation: The Catholic church is against abortions. I am Catholic. Should I be against abortions. Or am I not catholic anymore since I am for them?

Hitler did not have ethical theory?.. Nietzshce also?..

Why art thou not ready to hear bin Laden? If a christian fundamentalist has a view that he must "turn the other cheek" because Jesus said that, and that is the only way how the kingdom of God may be established on earth, wouldst thou bar him? Bin Laden would try to substantiate his views also...

What??? I think that the purpose of ethics is to become happy, and thou seemedst to agree with that (may be I understood thee incorrect, I don't know). Now thou art approaching this question with beliefs of should that ethics i.e. be, art thou not? Thou art lost and if some one says thee: "If thou wantest to come home, go westward", and thou instead of asking why replying him : "No, I shall never even consider that I probably should go westward?"
I wonder at this view. Hast thou never heard of evolutional theory which teaches that the struggle is a normal state and it is natural to kill for food or rape? Hast thou never heard of psychology? Freud? Should all this be banned from discussion of what is our true good? See that thou art not afraid of truth?

Look here. I am telling thee things I consider to be truth (maybe they are truth:)). Dost thou need to know who I am? How does it contribute to our discussion? If I said: I am buddha, enlightened, awakened, anointed... what does it change? Does it make words truer? If not, what's the point?.. (I hope thou understandst what I am driving at)

Well, I think we should first agree what it is to be religious. What is it for thee?

A great many Catholics do not oppose abortion rights.

Hitler's ethical theory, if we can even call it that, was anti-ethics. Nietzsche did have an ethical theory, a theory that Hitler did not embrace; the Nazis tried to use Nietzsche's ethics, but their understanding of it was confused and twisted.

Neither fundamentalist should be present as, for fundamentalists, there does not exist room for discussion.

I am saying that people who disregarding ethics entirely have no place at a table for the discussion of ethics.

Buddha is a title bestowed upon people who are fully awakened. The historic Buddha taught that people should not believe something simply because the Buddha teaches it.

To be religious is to have a spiritual practice.

I notice that you automatically equate 'dogma' with 'bigotry'. Dogma really just means 'agreed opinion'. It is a formulaic way of expressing an agreed religious truth or ethical precept. What is problematical is authoritarianism, the vilification of dissidents, the enforcement of dogma on pain of persecution, and so on. Fortunately due to the separation of church and state we no longer have to suffer that and are free to act according to our conscience. But dogma itself, is not necessarily bigoted. If you want to propogate basic moral truths, if you are a religious institution, it is much easier to find a standard way of codifying and expressing them than to spend your entire time re-writing and re-formulating them for each new person or situation.

Obviously abortion (in particular) and several other issues of contemporary morality are extremely vexed and very difficult issues to make judgements on. But one can understand why the Catholic church has to make a judgement on such issues. It can't be all things to all people, and it must needs take a conservative view of the matter. We are, fortunately, able to make up our own minds on the matter, but I still understand why the catholic church will have the attitude it does. The fact that it holds firmly to a view that I and many others don't like doesn't make it bigoted, as the position is in my view defensible, even if I don't agree with it.

... but nevertheless they remain Catholics, right? It seems to me that the very name "Catholic" as well as "Orthodox" implies that one believes in all what pope/patriarch says.

But still it was, that is they had ethical theory, let's call that "confused and twisted Nietzsche's one"...

I like this statement. But it seems to me that now thou agreest with ElAleph because I think that was exactly his point. So to sum up, we need only those people who are free from their dogmas and if they appeal to "writs" only we should not invite them, right? That is man is relevant to such a degree that he is free from his religion. So all catholics and orthodoxes and a great deal of protestant will be outboard, since for them the words of the bible are revelation, the only truth.

We agreed that the purpose of ethics is to become happy, didn't we? In this case there are no people who disregard ethics, since "happiness is the only thing we want for its own sake".

Now what if all our happiness is satisfaction of animal needs as evolutionists say?

What if the only way to be happy is to eat, drink and copulate with every pretty girl one meets. Regardless of what others think and want. That's what the theory of evolution teaches. So my question is: "Is it right to ban from discussion those who believe that human is animal, Darwin, Freud, Jung, Marx etc., etc.?" In this case I think many, almost all the scientific world, will be outboard.

And Gautama modestly bestowed that upon himself... Again, my question is: "What's the point of calling oneself Buddha, Christ etc.?" To satisfy one's vanity? If one knows truth is it not better just to speak it than emphasise that thou art "supreme being" which leads to stupid worshipping only.

What is the purpose of spiritual practice? To become someone?

Except that one can disagree with the Pope and the Patriarchs. Despite the absurd attempts by strange bigots, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches do allow for a variety of opinions on a number of matters.

Even if we call Hitler's ethical views an ethical theory, his views do not allow room for discussion. If one doubted his opinion of the Jews, he sent you off to a camp. Thus, he is not the sort of person who could possibly make a positive contribution to an ethical discussion.

And yet there are people who prefer to be unhappy - there are people who mistakenly think themselves happy when they are engaged in the destruction of others. Such people have no place in the discussion.

Evolution does not make any such claim regarding human happiness.
Again, you are incorrect about evolution's teaching on happiness. The theory of evolution makes no positive statement regarding happiness.

Actually, others first gave him the title.

But when the Blessed One approached in a dignified manner,
they involuntarily rose from their seats
and greeted him in spite of their resolution.
Still they called him by his name and addressed him as "friend Gotama." [2] When they had thus received the Blessed One, he said:
"Do not call the Tathagata by his name
nor address him as 'friend,'
for he is the Buddha, the Holy One.
The Buddha looks with a kind heart equally on all living beings,
and they therefore call him 'father.'
To disrespect a father is wrong; to despise him, is wicked. [3]

To become an increasingly better person; and if one manages to be the best person one can be, to maintain one's goodness.

O.K. my freiend. Now, explain me please what it means to be catholic or orthodox.

Let us imagine that Hitler has no power to send us off to a KZ but it's just that he comes and says why we should do certain things.

And tell me please, why, if thou art afraid of his threats, thou agreest to hear what say the others who allow violence. They say: "Thou shalt not kill, or steal, and if thou dost not agree, thou wilt be imprisoned!" Is it not the same? Or what about military service or paying taxes? If thou dost not agree, thy place is prison...

No one prefer to be unhappy, that's just nonsense, since again we do everything for the sake of happiness. Some people dost not understand, and that is another question.

Well, thou art welcome to propose another explanation to the evolutional theory. That would be interesting to hear how through the years of surviving of the fittest, which means struggle, violence etc., etc. we can find another name for happiness than the rudest physical pleasures, which are tasty food, comfortable bed, sexual intercourses etc. Through years of killing and animalism there appears as deus ex machina that our happiness is compassion, that it is better to give thy food to the poor which exactly contradicts natural breeding... Isn't that ridiculous?

And apart from all that, wouldst thou not invite, say, Freud to an ethical discussion? He taught that pleasure is the only good and all the other things like compassion are caused by violence that is they contradict to our nature.

Well allow me to refer to the text called the Gospel of Buddhawhich is compilation of Pali canon texts

Thou didst not answer my two questions...