A balanced view of a democratic multi world view society.

Well said, Philo. One of the best on-line articles I have read in a long time. Thank you Pablo.

The problem here is seeing religion as a philosophy of life, which it is only to a philosophically oriented few.

For most people, and to churches themselves, it has little to do with philosophy, but rather with telling people how they should live their lives according to dictates from an exclusive clique who claim knowledge of divine intentions.

Churches also make empirical claims about the origins of the earth, the causes of events and the validity of miracles which conflict with scientific method.

For all these reasons, religion is against independent thought, and therefore is incompatible with a true education. Religious education is an oxymoron, and for schools to promote religious symbols is a dereliction of duty.

Godo writes

'For all these reasons, religion is against independent thought' And yet I am sure he/she is happy for the ever changing evolution myth to indoctrinate our kids along with the global warming fantasy. No wonder private schools are bursting at the seems. The new atheist religion is more evangelical than most.

A thank you to Mr. Lobeira for taking the time to share his observations. Prof Weiler is a brilliant philosopher and tireless proponent of religious liberty and so conscience and human dignity. Very good news out of Europe that has been the source of so much of the bad kind.

Godo: thank you for your comment. It is that kind of bottomless ignorance that leads to these kinds of expensive legal disputes.

The Catholic Church is not a scientific body. When it teaches it shines it's particular light on empirical data giving to it the Christian meaning that is its duty. Atheists interpret material and social data through the lens of its own philosophy of nature - physicalism. You mean to imply that your philosophy is uncontested which is plainly false.

The scientific method is just that, it has nothing to say about the existence of miracles. An a priori commitment to methodological physicalism of course excludes miracles in principle, even if Jesus himself appeared to you right now, that philosophy would have to do violence to your experience to fit it into its schema. I suspect you hold the incoherent philosophy of scientism http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174

The Church in the West created the first universities, institutions of science, and the anthropology she preserves informed developments in human rights centred constitutions and political economy. Winner of 2010 Royal Society Prize for Science Writing http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Philosophers-James-Hannam/dp/1848310706. What kind of education would excise this understanding of our civilisation? but a politically motivated and culturally destructive philistinism

If you want to understand the philosophy of nature the Church embraces, with its origins in classical Greek philosophy http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html

If the enlightenment mythology (a myth of origins and creation) is the story parents want to tell their children fine, but it should receive the historical scrutiny any other mythology receives. For a genuinely liberal and humane education the whole scope of the Western tradition should be handed on as an inheritance to our children.

Thanks for the article.

In general I would rather the government stay out of decisions regarding religion, it should be a private matter. If it does intervene I would prefer it to err on the side of freedom. Forcing people to hide their religion is just as bad as forcing people to follow one.

Martin Ibn Warriq is a bit harsh criticizing Godo for "bottomless ignorance" based on the previous postings I've read by those on the other side of the fence. This sort of criticism is very minor compared to that dished out by christians against atheists and other religions. I suggest a thicker skin. The word 'university' was in fact created to describe a western institution for higher education, so you are technically correct. However there are many examples of higher education institutions that were not western or christian.

Runner: The theory of evolution continuously changes as new facts are discovered. This means that it is more likely to be correct than previous theories. If we just decided on a 'correct' answer and then defended it forever, then we would be guaranteed to be wrong. Just like the 'creation' myths. You just chose one of many and stuck with it.
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

Stezza

'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

Facts don't change Stezza. That is the point. Many of the evolution 'facts'have turned out to be frauds. People who teach frauds should be the last to criticize people's faith especially when they have been caught out so many times.

…Oh for that double form demonym, “Latino”. Gotta love em!

I also appreciated this article very much, thank you.

Godo, if you really support independent thought, then surely you must allow people to make up their own minds about religion. Your attempt to use redefine “true education” to exclude religion is simply backdoor censorship

The article demonstrates, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the European Court of Human Rights should be abolished forthwith.

Have they never heard the expression, de minimis non curat lex? What business did they have - or even should they have - spending so much time and effort on a decision so pointless, so meaningless that it totally defies description?

And then - mirabile dictu - changing their stupid minds...?

Pathetic.

And a brilliant example too, of why a Bill of Rights is a complete and utter waste of space, with value only to an entire generation of lawyers, making parasitic megabucks from disputation on the number of angels permitted to dance on the head of a pin.

But apart from all that...

Stezza, runner is right. Facts don't change. Theories do, impressions do, ideas do. Information does. But facts are by definition... factual.

I think you will find that your "what do you do, sir" quotation, attributed to Keynes, is most likely to be apocryphal.

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/22/keynes-change-mind/

I particularly liked Paul Samuelson's observation, dating back to 1961, where he describes the generally accepted view that JMK wasn't ever particularly wedded to a single viewpoint...

"One of the jokes is that if Parliament asked six economists for an opinion on any subject they always got seven answers. Two from John Maynard Keynes"

Not much has changed over the past fifty years in the world of economics, has it...

A common sense decision.

"Secularism" was only ever intended to allow people freedom OF religion by making the public square a neutral space. As the article rightly points out, some fanatical secularists are now attempting to reinterpret the idea into meaning freedom FROM religion which is a totally different thing and is not neutral at all.

Now I get it. The crucifix is a "summary of Italian and Western values such as non-violence". All this time I thought it was a method of execution used by the ancient Romans to inflict a slow and agonising death on countless numbers of people who got in their way. But I was wrong. The crucifix is really a passive symbol of non-violence and forgiveness to one's enemies.

Vance,
It identifies on what side of the cross you stand; as the one inflicting the injustice, or the one willing to forgive your enemy. Life is identified by giving onself and forgiving one's oppressors, only in that context does it have meaning.

Interesting article.

Not being Italian nor having a great knowledge of cultural practices in Italy I can't comment on the idea of a crucifix being a neutral symbol in that context. It does seem an unlikely proposition. Agreed that it's used elsewhere and that the issue is complicated by how often the idea of a god pop's up in historical artefacts which continue on (God save the Queen).

I do think that there is a fundamental difference between the rights of individuals to exercise religious freedom and when the state promotes a particular religious belief.

I also don't agree with the idea that religious beliefs should get some kind of special treatment over other belief/value/cultural systems. Eg if people can get an exemption from dress codes/uniform policies then they should be able to get them for other reasons.

R0bert

The article reports some of the Court’s observations but conveys nothing of its line of argument. No wonder, for its approach was entirely wrong-headed. One would have expected it to start by examining - against the background of Italy being a secular state and the State’s “duty of neutrality and impartiality” (para 60), not least in teaching about religion and belief - whether there was a prima facie breach of Mrs Lautsi’s human rights under Article 2 of the first protocol. If so - highly likely given the Court’s original unanimous judgement - it could then have decided whether Italy’s margin of appreciation rescued it from liability.

But it did none of this. Instead, it inverted the question of neutrality into a test of indoctrination (saying in effect “nothing short of indoctrination can be a breach of human rights”). It then argued from a presumption of the Italian law being covered by the margin of appreciation unless indoctrination could be proved.

A more detailed critique on these lines can be found here: http://www.humanistfederation.eu/download/277-Critique%20of%20Lautsi%20appeal%20judgement.pdf.

Professor Weiler's argument enthusiastically espousing the collective rights of nations at the expense of the human rights of individuals was deeply disturbing: where is the logical break between the Italian nation’s denial of Mrs Lautsi’s rights in the name of national identity and the German nation’s denial of the rights of Jews in the name of its National Socialist identity? He would presumably be reduced to arguing that some other Article supervened to rescue him from the logic of his position in Lautsi.

The judgement is seriously flawed, grossly illogical and unworthy of the Court. It was reached in the face of an unprecedented campaign of political and religious pressure on the Court, which seems to have tamely capitulated in the face of what looked like a ‘Holy Alliance’ of the Catholic and Orthodox states that backed its appeal urged on by the Vatican, the Greek Orthodox Church and other reactionary religious interests whose fears of losing influence in an increasingly secular Europe will have been abated by this judgement.

Dave Pollock:

…You could précis all your points with “A classic case of not what you know, but who you know”. Simply demonstration of loyalty at work IMO.

Pericles:

...You express a distaste for the “Antecedent”, but as in maths, discover the inequality; is the inequality to have a cross, or is the inequality not to have a cross? It is all too obvious, so why all the fuss?

...This decision is a small step towards the outcome the “world” awaits, stability and rest from the stupidity of a wayward and moralless Capitalism, and the rule by the Godless!

PS: you have my response re: “Hate session with Wall Street”. Thanks, have fun!

Thanks to David Pollock. I'll admit to not knowing what "margin of appreciation" meant until I read David's cited analysis of the judgment which clearly and convincingly illustrated its flaws. Diver Dan might be right in suggesting that the decision might owe more to the influence wielded by the appealing countries than to the worth of their case but to suggest, as I think he does, that David Pollock's analysis is unnecessary reading misses the point. David's pointing out that the court has effectively begun by assuming as fact the position it wanted to reach by "logic" is revealing and devastating. If you haven't read his cited analysis of the flaws in the court's judgment, I think you should. Even Runner.

By the way, doesn't "crucifix" mean not just a cross but a cross with Jesus attached? How can such a symbol possibly be judged to be merely passive when it is trumpeting as fact the hotly contested belief that the resurrection occurred?

Glen C

...It is interesting how life chooses to form us as individuals. Sadly I am intellectually lazy, and as water follows the easiest path down-hill, I always search for simplicity of applied experience and logic for evaluating outcomes. Since we exercise little control over most major decisions affecting our lives, this is but one example.

...I appreciate the outcome of a decision to allow the crucifix to adorn the walls of public schools in Italy is a decision with little effect in this country, but boy it makes me feel very happy. Should it? Yes I believe it should; is this the turning point against the idiocy of political correctness? If not a step forward, then it must rate as a stopping point in the least! The attitude I confess is not connected to the intricacies of the finer argument, but drawing on the excuse of a lazy intellect and passing the argument over for the priority of the outcome of the benefits of the decision, I believe ignorance is justified!

Martin Inb Warriq
"The scientific method is just that, it has nothing to say about the existence of miracles. An a priori commitment to methodological physicalism of course excludes miracles in principle, even if Jesus himself appeared to you right now, that philosophy would have to do violence to your experience to fit it into its schema. I suspect you hold the incoherent philosophy of scientism."

One could argue the opposite, that the belief in the existence of miracles has an a priori commitment to the rejection of methodological physicalism.

Methodological physicalism tries to refute the concept of miralces by showing cause and effect relations. While obviously it cannot answer all questions, it can debunk so-called miracles by showing them up to be little more than all too human projections or lies, or even natural phenomenological occurrences.

The term "miracle" is often used as a "stop-gap" solution when no methodology can explain a particular phenomenon.

Philo,

Nice try, but we already know that you're hate-filled bigot rather than a loving Christian from previous posts - attempting to shut the barn door of tolerance after the horse of intolerance has long since done his dash just makes you look disingenuous (never a good look).

Trav,

For many non-god-fearing atheists (and at least this pantheist), freedom OF religion is synonymous with freedom FROM religion. I'm quite happy for religious folk to believe in whatever, but I don't want to hear about it. Religion is a private matter, not a public one. For all I care, the religious are free to sacrifice virgins, have massive orgies and eat babies within the confines of their own temples. But I don't want to hear about it, or anything else to do with religion (if I want info on religion, I know how to use google). EVER. Unfortunately, many Christians (and in my experience, only ever the Christians) seem to derive some sort of pleasure from ramming their beliefs down other folk's throats.

I propose a truce, in the interests of secularism. Everybody takes a vow of silence regarding religion: atheists won't talk about the beliefs they don't have, as long all the Churchies shut the phuck up about their invisible friends and their Good Book. Seems reasonable, no?

PS: $50 says the Churchy evangelists crack and start preaching before the atheist evangelists.

GlenC,

Not sure about crucifix, but I just looked up crucify: no mention of Jesus of Nazareth. It seems anybody affixed to a cross fits the bill for crucifixion - not just Jesus of Nazareth, but every other poor bugger who pissed off the Romans enough.

So it seems that a crucifix is not a symbol of Christian resurrection, but instead Roman torture/execution. Nice.

I agree re the Keynes quotation was probably not suitable, however my point still stands. To scientists genetics was not a fact during the first formulations of their theory of evolution, now it is. Some may still be arguing natural selection at the individual level, but not those that are able to change their minds.At risk of going off topic If anyone wants to point out exactly what part of the theory they disagree with I'm happy to discuss it.

and yes the crucifix is a cruel method of execution and not a 'summary of Italian and Western values such as non-violence'. Talk about twisting the "facts".

Well said Rizla. Wooden crosses with a supposed wooden dead 'son of god' tacked to them, do not sound like appropriate adornments for public school walls in anyone's country.

To suggest that these religious symbols are actually passive symbols is laughable really, and I would suggest that a strongly Catholic country such as Italy did not choose to leave those symbols on public school walls because of their 'passive ' or ' historical ' qualities.

Philo I am shocked to see you extolling the virtues of this authors views, given that he is a member of the Australian National University?
Or is it just that you only support some University lecturers, such as those who support religious dogma?

Stezza,

I'm willing to stray briefly off-topic for a moment, with regards to this statement: "Some may still be arguing natural selection at the individual level, but not those that are able to change their minds."

It has been a while since I formally studied biology, but my understanding is that individual selection is still an accepted theory within evolutionary biology, and that it works alongside group selection. But the wording of your last post implied that group selection and individual selection are mutually exclusive. I'm more of a chem nerd than a biology nerd - can you expand on your point about natural selection?

The Acolyte Rizla,

I did not mean to imply that group selection and individual selection are mutually exclusive, rather that recent theories such as selection at the gene/molecular level may be responsible for the observations that could be attributed to individual/group selection.

i.e. if a specific gene becomes more successful, it means that individuals with the gene (the group) are more successful. This may be mistaken for group selection. I am interested if the gene/molecule theory also applies to non-DNA/RNA based molecules, thus selection may be explained through chemical equations, however this is outside of my expertise.

However, one thing science has taught me is that the only thing that we can truly be sure of is that we can be sure of nothing.

Note how The Acolyte Rizla and Suseonline spew out their intolerance of community diversity. They are a sad group of intolerant individuals indoctrinated by secular atheistic socialism that have nothing of real value to contribute to a society of families. Their agenda is to silence cultural diversity and opposition to their agenda in the public place.

The true hero of community is the one who gives their life for the true liberty and betterment of all people.

Pablo Jiménez Lobeira uses equivocation in the final paragraph to skew the concept of neutrality

In saying ".. in order to be "neutral" the [state] must be agnostic, which is not the same as secularist. An exclusively Secular Humanist public sphere would be no more impartial than, say, an exclusively Christian or Muslim one."

.... he narrows secularism into secular humanist.

He denies the view secularism per se can be equally inclusive of all belief systems. He also commits the reification fallacy by saying " .. in order to be "neutral" the [state] must be agnostic" - the state does not have to be anything.
............................................

Trav's post (Tuesday, 18 Oct, 4:27:43pm) overstates freedoms in relation to religion - secularism is about freedom of all belief systems and none, not just freedom of religion. Secularism means society (via the State?) includes all belief systems, by excluding any one belief system from dominating.
.........................................

The views Posted by David Pollock, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 7:13:05 PM are worth repeating

>> The court "inverted the question of neutrality into a test of indoctrination (saying in effect “nothing short of indoctrination can be a breach of human rights”)

> The judgement - seriously flawed, grossly illogical and unworthy of the Court - was reached in the face of an unprecedented campaign of political and religious pressure on the Court. <<
..

You must be thinking of someone else entirely, diver dan.

>>Pericles:...You express a distaste for the “Antecedent”, but as in maths, discover the inequality<<

I don't recognize a single comprehensible statement in that sentence. I simply pointed out that the consideration of this issue - probably at considerable expense - by a court of any kind, ultimately brings the functioning of that court into disrepute.

For what it is worth, I believe that the original complaint, that seems to imbue a piece of wood on a wall with some kind of mind-altering significance, sufficient indeed to disturb the individual concerned, is the worst form of self-righteousness imaginable.

The whole thing should have been solved with a simple "it's piece of wood, for goodness' sake. Get over yourself."

By even taking the matter to court in the first place, the complainant tacitly accepts that the piece of wood somehow has supernatural properties. Which of course simply plays into the hands of the religious folk who believe exactly that.

Whatever next? A complaint that the presence of our coat of arms on the wall of the court is a violation of one's rights, because you believe it represents the fascist oppression by the country's elite of ordinary men and women?

Actually, on reflection, that sounds kinda fun.

I'm off to find a Human Rights lawyer who'll take it on. They love this stuff, it all helps towards their six weeks in Aspen.

Religion is a private matter not a public one, just as atheism is a private matter and should not be forced into public schools. All views are equally able to be expressed.

The beauty of a secular society is that many views co-exist unlike Philo's outraged attack above who only sees the religious conformist view as valid.

There are already religious schools who allow all manner of wooden symbols as they like, but please keep public schools religion free. It is just too expensive to have religious public schools that cater for every belief - Muslim public schools, Catholic public schools, Presbyterian public schools, Taoist public schools etc to accommodate everybody's belief systems. Public schools are about education they should not exist as tools for the religious lobbies in a civilised society.

Why do religious people like Philo have to make accusatory statements like that unfairly doled out to Suze and Acolyte. Religous people are free to live as they see fit within the law as any other person. Religious people are free to take their children to the local Church and Bible School.

Why do some religious folk think non-secularism is better when clearly around the world people are killed who do not conform to the primary religious doctrine. eg. Taliban. Coptic Christians in Egypt are rallying to be allowed to live in peace without being killed by forces allied to the prevailing Islamic rule. I cannot see how supporting secularism deserves the intolerance spewed out by Philo above.

Christian History is not persecution free when it was the dominating influence. Christianity has thankfully moved on from this bloody period thanks to a greater tolerance bought about by secularism.

The protections inherent in 'Thou shalt not kill' should apply to all not just to the prevailing dogma.

...How I love to see the secularists squirm under conditions of defeat!

The Acolyte Rizla,

There is simply no democratic , neutral, and fair reason for this presupposition that, automatically "religion should be kept private".

If we allow the views of secularists to dominate then effectively they are allowed to dominate the public square, and that is no more fair than simply deciding upfront that the public square should be covered in religion symbolism! That is the whole point that the Law professor from New York was making.

The fair answer is to make the public square neutral- ie: No one view dominates by default, but instead the public square is shared according to the views of the people whom share that public square. That is a democratic and reasonable solution, unlike your totalitarian and intolerant presupposition that one view is automatically excluded from the public sphere.

"...How I love to see the secularists squirm under conditions of defeat!"

Diver dan
Are you referring to the Egyptian Coptic Christians who cannot practise their religion freely in their own country?

Philo,

Huh? How on earth does pointing out what crucifixes were used for make me intolerant of community diversity? There aren't even any Romans about who might regard such comments as intolerant.

Trav,

I assume, in that case, that you won't have any problems with me banging loudly on your door at 6am after you've had a big night on the turps to share with you the awesomeness of atheism. Nor will you take any issue with me haranguing and harassing you about my lack of faith, and why you are A BAD PERSON if you don't agree with me.

I don't know why you wouldn't have a problem with this - I regard such behaviour as irritating at best, and frequently downright offensive.

As I said, I don't mind religious folk being religious in church. I only object when it is forced upon me. All I'm asking is that I can go unmolested in the public square, without having a pamphlet thrust into my unwilling hand by some irritating God-botherer.

Go back and read my post for yourself (if you are sufficiently literate). I think you'll find that what I was arguing for was that ALL views be excluded from the public square, and that people be allowed to conduct their town-square related business free from the ideological impositions of ANY sort of evangelist.

Your example is a red herring. Private citizens could actually knock on each other's door, that has little to do with public spaces or public discourse generally.

I know that it is your view that ALL religions should be kept out of the public square- you need not clarify. My objections remain. There is no democratic reason to retain this totalitarian principle, and it was not the original intention of secularism.

Trav,
I support your view. True democracy allows public expression of diverse ideas. Ancient Greece had the Areopagus Sydney has the Domain. I in my youth loved the public spruking of ideas and diverse philosophies. I say Bring ot back!

Trav,

So then you'll have no problem with providing me with your address, in order that I might practise a little evangelical atheism?

Yeah, I thought so.

Like all Christian apologists on this forum, you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is. You're quite happy for your 'Christian' mates to evangelise at us godless heathens, but I have little doubt that you'd get your nose seriously out of joint if a heathen were to evangelise at you.

Hooray for double standards! (sarcasm)

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (not sarcasm)

Enough with the red herrings, please.

I am talking about public discourse and which views should and shouldn't be allowed to exist in the shared public arena

Despite your comment being irrelevent to my ideas about the public sphere (you are using a broader definition of public), I will bite anyway as you raise a good question nonetheless.

I plead not guilty to your charge of hypocrisy (in this particular area anyway!).

No, I wouldnt complain if an atheist tried to convince me of their views.

I'm all for freedom of speech. It is an important concept for Christians, based on the dignity of human beings and their standing as agents made in the image of God.

I wonder where naturalistic atheists could find a comparable basis for the idea, within the resources of their own understanding of the world?

GrahamY

He refuses to discuss evidence around God, and uses red-herrings and rhetoric all the time.

It is Craig that makes bare assertions constantly uses fallacies like "the argument from ignorance".

The problem is that trying to debate reasonably and honestly with W.L. Craig is fraught for people without his rhetorical debating skills.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-reasonable-people-should-not-debate.html

"Christopher Hitchens does a perfectly fine job of defining his version of atheism... Watch how Craig then present Hitchens with a false trichotomy. He demands that Hitchens choose between three beliefs, none of which correspond to what Hitchens has just described. Finally, Craig gets Hitchens to say that there are no gods. Then he pounces, demanding to know how Hitchens can prove a negative.

"This quickly morphs into a discussion of whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Hitchens, to his credit, does not view that as an open and shut proposition since, as we all know, absence of evidence is, indeed, part of the reason for not believing in gods. But to a slick apologist like Craig, that can be a devestating admission.

>> The point is that William Lane Craig is a typical Christian apologist who would prefer to focus on rhetoric than on truth. Most atheists will find this method of debate frustrating and aggravating.

>> They have to be constantly on their guard against a "gotcha" moment, knowing that Craig will pounce whenever he gets a chance."

He constantly uses fallacies like "the argument from ignorance".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmS5oVBfJY&feature=player_embedded

Silly analogies like teapots and santa claus provide him with further rhetorical ammunition, though. "You can see the trick. He simply refuses to accept the analogy being made and prefers to twist it around to make his point." (from the first URL link above)

Can someone please explain what the last post (by McReal 11:19 today) was prompted by or in response to? It seems to have been addressed to Graham Y but it does not seem to relate to any of the preceding posts.

Diver Dan, in neglecting to put in the "would" before "love", you have completely altered the meaning of your wish: "How I love to see the secularists squirm under conditions of defeat!"

GlenC,
The post should have appeared on another thread: Article: 'There's probably no Dawkins. Now stop worrying…'

I think it demonstrates why there should be NO European Court;
It's really not the business of anyone else except the country or sovereign nation at hand if they want to be inclusive, exclusive, theocratic or kemalist- it is definitely not their job to make concessions to their preferred system to please the morals of some uninvolved (and unelected) organization.

Trav and others

You suggest that there should be no constraints on the teaching of any sincerely held beliefs in the public square, or in schools inclined to teach them. Would you support the right of believers to press upon others, especially children, theories whose probabilities of being false are 100%? What about those whose probability of being false is 99%, or 50%?

Do you see a big difference between, on the one hand, teaching children that there ARE people who believe things that most people find untenable, and, on the other, REQUIRING THEM TO BELIEVE those things?

Do you agree that when a government mandates the display in all public schools of an icon depicting the crucifixion of Christ, and implying as a certainty that the crucifixion was followed by the resurrection, that they are at least contributing to a strategy designed to make children believe something that most people in the world reject?

Philo
Thanks. You actually have reduced the number of things I (stupidly) worry about. But you have also now made it necessary for me to find the time to read that other article and its comments.

Actually though I am a Christian I do not display religious icons or have Crucifixes, however I see no reason why Catholics and others desire their display.

Posted by Philo, Thursday, 20 October 2011 4:13:53 PM

Yes! Thank you for that!
Kind Regards.

GlenC, your question is very idealistic and for that you deserve some credit. Unfortunatly though, the presupposition of your question shows that you've missed the entire point.

The point is that people do not agree with each other about which worldview has a "probability of being false (of) 99%" and which view is likely to be true. Therefore, there has to be a way of sharing the public space that functions to allow these disagreements by not automatically priveliging some views over others by default. My proposal achieves this by being fair and democratic. The proposals of many modern day secularists (who would completely banish religious ideas from the public square if they had their way) are not fair and democratic- they are the totalitarian dreams of thought police wannabes.

"As Habermas has pointed out, in order to be "neutral" the sate (sic) must be agnostic, which is not the same as secularist."

A state may profess a religious faith but still accept pluralism. Respect translated as an acceptance of the other's and a non-imposition of one's "worldviews" is the key factor.

Agnosticism by definition does not affirm nor deny the existence of God holding that the phenomena could not be proved or disproved by material means. An open mind is thus maintained until "proof" could be had, stance quite apart from neutrality's impartiality -- essentially a chosen indifference amidst cognisance of opposing arguments.

A state may profess a religious faith but still accept pluralism.

Posted by shawn, Sat 22 Oct, 12:12:10am

A governing entity may profess a religious faith, for itself or for the state, yet it is unlikely all members of the state will follow it or even accept it.

Actually, Trav, I don't think I'm the one who missed the point. You seem to assume that there are no questions that can be regarded as settled. I suggest it is effectively settled that things alive today evolved from earlier forms. Even the Catholic Church now puts it members on notice that the physical parts of human beings evolved from earlier forms when it cautions that while they are free to believe this, they must still believe that souls did not evolve but were created by God in their present form, whatever that is. I suggest that evolution of living things is a truth at least at the 99 level. My question was about the acceptability of people encouraging, even forcing, children to reject evolution as a myth. I'm suggesting that nobody has the right to treat children like this. Do you think that they do?

" ... yet it is unlikely all members of the state will follow it or even accept it."
Posted by McReal, Saturday, 22 October 2011 10:31:40 AM

Precisely what pluralism is all about; nobody is coerced into a confession. The state respects and does not impinge on the others' right to practice a religion; this respect extends to the defence of others who may be prevented from their just exercise.
It is expected to find crucifixes & statues in a Catholic school, just as it is expected to find emblems associated with the jewish faith in a jewish school.