Blackcatter: Thanks for your comment; that "trenches" platitude always bothered me.

I think it was Little Hawk who said, above: "That out of which all observable manifestations arise cannot properly be spoken of as "dead" since it is itself the source of both life and death, which would not exist as concepts in someone's mind had they not arisen out of the unmanifest in the first place."

Hmmm... I would've thought the concepts of life and death existed in someone's mind because that person had observed other people, animals and plants that lived and died. Until that person sees anyone or anything die, he couldn't form a concept of "death" in his mind. He would form, at best, an inaccurate concept of "life" until he sees life end and renew itself.

What about this concept that life and death "arose out of the unmanifest" and that it is the "source of both life and death"? Sorry, but I think that's just something someone thought up to explain life and death before the era of scientific research answered at least some of his questions about life and death. It may someday answer them all, it may not; but I think that man's experimentation is a better way of finding answers than man's creation of belief systems that didn't exist before he invented them. The proclamation of a "divine mystery" only intimidates some people from solving the mystery.

So why does man think there needs to be a source of life and death, and why does he invent deities and "the unmanifest" and such? In order to prolong life and improve its quality, and in order to die at peace with himself (whether at rest or at war!). To make himself feel better physically and emotionally... and for the person who believes in what he or another person has invented, that often does make him feel better (how do we know? Through scientific research into the ways in which the brain can be trained to trigger the release of chemicals in the body, and even to deprive itself of certain chemicals in order to achieve a "prayerful" or trance state).

Some may assert that it is "God" or "the unmanifest" or the "DMATCOTU" that/who created man so that he would seek a creator and find that physical and emotional comfort in it/him/her, but I think that's just part of man's invention (an excuse for believing, if you will: "I believe because God made me believe... I believe so, anyway").

So, to answer the question "Where is God?" I think that "God" is "in" the believer (in that "God" is in the believer's mind as the believer's invention, or as the invention of someone else who has convinced the believer of its validity). As to which invention is the "right" one: whatever works! (In other words, if your belief is helping you be the best you can be physically and emotionally, that's the invention that's right for you) (or, to use Amos's chef analogy, some think the food is better with more garlic, others with less).

To answer the question "Any views on proposed legislation to make incitement to religious hatred a criminal offence" Of course, if a person feels better after persecuting someone else for a differing religious belief and inciting others to hate that someone, the persecutor may believe even more strongly that his "God" is the "right" one (for having increased the persecutor's sense of well-being). So now his invention of "God" is an excuse for hatred. The problem is in not accepting that others must invent their own concepts of "God", and sometimes in not even allowing others to invent a different "God". Sooner or later this will fail; people will eventually succeed in resisting that kind of morally criminal force. But in the meantime, is the persecutor a criminal in the legal sense?

Well, I guess I would need a legal definition of "incitement". For instance, I hate what the Taliban has done in the name of religion, and I would certainly like to convince anyone else that what the Taliban has done is hateful, but would I be charged as a criminal if I spoke out against the Taliban??? I think the criminal charges should be reserved for inciting to perpetrate a crime (murder, assault, etc.) upon someone, whether for the reason of religious intolerance or any other reason. But that's just my "God" talking. ;^)

(BTW, my "God" isn't an invented deity at all, just a set of conclusions that I've reached and morals that I am happy to adhere to. Here again, I think man invented morals – in order to exist in a society – but invented deities to give credence to those morals and to reinforce the desire for society members to live by those morals, by turning them into commands to be obeyed.)

Sharon