The word 'religion' comes from two Latin words: the prefix ‘re’ as in repay, return, etc., and ‘ligare’ which means ‘to bind’. A ligament, which is a fibrous tissue connecting bones or cartilages, stems from the same Latin root as ligare, from which comes the English word 'religion'.  In medicine a ligature is a thread used to tie or bind a vessel.

Therefore, when I think of 'religion' (the noun) I am thinking of a 'set of beliefs' by which a person is guided, a 'set of beliefs' which he 'binds back to' - and applies in his life (‘religion’ the verb).  One should clearly distinguish between the noun and the verb.

Even atheists and agnostics have their own 'religion', their own ‘binding back’ to a ‘set of beliefs’. Just because they don't believe in a higher spiritual Being, or a spiritual dimension of Life, doesn't mean they don't have their own belief system!  And what about the 'fruits' of party politics?

Fabian socialist labor prime ministers of Australia, Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating most certainly had a set of beliefs, out of which stemmed the policies they imposed upon this nation. They most certainly did apply their 'religion'! Just as liberal prime ministers Malcolm Fraser and John Howard continued with the very same set of beliefs and as Malcolm Turnbull’s ‘Liberals’ will now also do.

http://alor.org/Library/Hawke%20RJ%20-%20Address%20to%20the%20Fabian%20Society%20.html

 I came across another article about the poor financial status of the younger generation.
http://theconversation.com/stark-divide-between-young-and-old-as-australian-household-incomes-and-wealth-stall-62534

The article subliminally attempts to divide the young and the old, pitting the generations against each other, as if one generations good fortune is the fault that causes the other generation to miss out. This is the Marxist dialectic - the Marxist philosophy. It is the way the Marxist views the world, their reality. It is not my reality of an abundant world, a world where there is more than enough and my cup runneth over.

The article fails to realistically look at the abundance of the material world. The author presents their point of view (philosophy) that there is a shortage, that there is a scarcity, (of which there is not enough building materials, land, initiative and of course finance) so these young may never own their own home, and it is the fault of the older generation. This is a religious point of view, dialectical materialism or puritanism. Both capitalist and communist have this same point of view.

The article does not look at finance as a 'policy of a philosophy', but that is what it is. The financial policy is formulated to always present a shortage, a scarcity to the community in order to ensure they are always kept poor in order to control them.  Had the financial policy being based on a philosophy of abundance, then there would be sufficient finance to purchase what each community is capable of producing. The material wealth of each generation would be based on what is physically possible by that generation. The wages of the younger generation have stagnated and not followed the increased cost of houses. But have houses really cost more to produce (materials and energy), or is that an outcome of financial policy? There is no question of the disparity of wages and final costs of production - (A & B theorum), only of charts and trends.

With automation, advanced control technology, robotics, computer science and the like, we are able to set machines to do the tasks of many, many men. The curse of Adam has been lifted. We must open our eyes to see it, to place our Faith (our outworking of our philosophy) into a 'new financial system' that reflects the abundance, the wonderful provision that is before us.