Rusty,
I’ve asked several times for what is the legal or definitive basis surrounding this word ‘secularity’. Since we haven’t come up with anything yet, I will assume for the moment that there isn’t one.

However, as best as I can follow your last post, I can find a fair bit there to agree with. But to answer your question, why are religious leaders not behind secularity? I believe they do see the value in secularity. However, I’m guessing they won’t want to align with the ASL as they sense the antagonism towards religion in that article.

I agree with you that most religious leaders currently feel that it is not the place of the church to run the government or to be too closely aligned. That kind of political situation came about (putting a simplistic spin on history) when the Roman Empire fell and the dominant religion (Christianity) filled the void of leadership. That kind of arrangement was seen as unsustainable as the centuries progressed, especially as society has become more pluralistic.

The church is supposed to serve and encourage but not dominate. Theologically, some have looked at the conversation between Jesus and Roman governor Pontius Pilate as a guide (John 18). Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world. Otherwise his followers would fight to avoid his arrest. Jesus more or less declared he didn’t want to be a political leader. Yet Christians are called to action in this world, to promote good deeds and good example.

Dan

I post because I am.... and was at the computer doing a range of tasks, is all.

"I know very little of the chaplaincy program. When I said it was a positive initiative with community support, that was supposition based on the idea that they wouldn’t have initiated it otherwise"... yes, well that seems to be the status of most people when it comes to this topic, ill informed, uninterested in questioning, assuming that because it involves 'good people' they will be honest and respectful in their actions.

I suggest you ask a few questions then.... particularly about where the Feds ideas came from.... and who, how, when and where the 'community support' came from at your local schools.

Ask to view the DEEWR documentation that spells out the consultation process, they are always good for a laugh.

The mixing of RI/RE/SRE/SRI into the chaplaincy bag is a Furphy.

Two quite different beasts.

Also, foolishly, Victoria has actually had chaplains in legislation for quite some years, so their long presence in public schools has dulled Victorians to the proper role of secular public schooling, rather like the lobster that goes into the cold pot and gets warmed up doesn't seem to notice the change that comes over him/her as the water superheats all around.

Scan the Access Ministry (for Victoria) sites on chaplaincy, and you will see just how openly connected it all is to evangelising and proselytising, unashamedly so, in fact.

Rotary is "called upon" to do good works too.

Like the church they use altering ethics in differing times to justify this, though far less shifty in my opinion. Rotary never had witch hunts.

The common law is what is regarded as reasonable by the common man, and all other law is regarded as being informed by this, with the possible exception of statute law.

I know that a certain type of "christian" will want just the letter of the law, complies with said letter, to the letter, and expects the pretense from others.

Others just act reasonably.

So, a literary tradition with zealous fans wants more legal status? On what grounds? Truth?

Rusty

Th

Frankly, Rusty, I’m not convinced you understand what common law is. I’m less convinced you have much knowledge of Christian Scripture and its literary tradition.

When you mention some specifics, we may be able to have a more objective conversation.

Common law:
Yeah, whatever. go check.
In the meantime, thanks for confirming the stereotype.

Literary tradition:
And you probably aren't up to date on star trek? so what?

Some of what you believe is optional, get over it.

Rusty

Rusty,
I may not up to date on Star Trek. But I’m not aiming to debate Star Trek.

You critique what I believe. I don’t think you know all that well what I believe. And the core of my faith is not really the subject of the discussion. I came here to discuss the issue of secularism.

But while we’re on accompanying issues, why would an atheist like you be concerned with what is core and what is optional for the Christian faith? For an atheist, isn’t everything with regard to faith pretty periferal? Why should you care?