"Although there have been outbreaks of religious bigotry the United States has been fairly free of it."

This is not true -- and you can find plenty of evidence at

http://religiousatrocities.wordpress.com/

But what the US has largely avoided is government-supported religious bigotry, which produces the kind of paranoid, stagnant and backward-looking states which now dominate the Middle East.

Even putting human rights issues aside, it should be clear to any observer that secularism goes with economic growth; and for that reason alone it is worth supporting. Only a theist could be so unreasonable as to deny everyone else in their nation a chance at prosperity for the sake of pleasing an imaginary God.

I'm glad you finally give a mention to the disinterested. Disinterested people are forever marginalised in this world, and I'm glad you can find it in your heart to bravely declare they have a place, even if only in this country's relationship with god.

David; I found your article interesting and informative, all the more so because it was very well researched. I am a Christian myself; but also believe in separation of church and state. Without separation of church and state there's even the possibility of one ostensible Christian creed oppressing another; with religion an edifice behind which lies not faith, but ruthless pursuit of power.Thanks.

Tristan, I'm curious as to why you felt it necessary to include this sentence: 'I am a Christian myself; but also believe in separation of church and state'. The use of 'but' suggests that support for the separation of Church and State runs counter to Christian values, which could not be further from the truth. In the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, Jesus himself advocates for the separation of Church and State.

Riz; it wasn't my intention to suggest separation of church and state is against Christian values or scripture. The Old and New covenants are law - but only for those who accept them.

Also my belief is that liberal pluralism is actually in Christianity's interests. There was a time when Christianity was hegemonic in Australia- even if all over the world it was at times dreadflly abused; 'blessing of artillery' in the First World War etc...

But liberal pluralism can actually be a defence for Christians, with the prospect of our becoming a minority where once we were a majority, and many being hostile to the Christian faith.

That said I support liberal social democracy regardless of religion - as a compromise to protect our social and liberal rights, ensure a level of social peace - preventing conflict at a variety of levels descending into a brutal and desperate struggle for power; but allowing forms of dissent and resistance without the 'authoritarian iron heel'.

A good essay, especially as this topic is currently part of the shouting match in the USA culture wars, with right-wing religionists using arguments re the supposed Christianity of the founding fathers, in their attempts to re-"christianize" America.

It is often said that the USA is the most religious of countries, especially in the West.

Then why is USA culture altogether so awful--barbaric even!

It has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world--perhaps the highest. One of the highest rates of murder. Is saturated with pornography, including the pornography of violence. It is saturated with drugs--illegal, over the counter, and prescription. It still executes criminals. Is saturated with violence altogether, brought to one and all via its "entertainment" industry, and via the gun "culture" as dramatized and promoted by the NRA. It is easily the worlds largest maker, seller and user of weapons of all kinds, including WMD's.

Then why is USA culture altogether so awful--barbaric even!
Because it is a practising democratic capitalist Nation idolising the God of money..

It matters not what your believe,but how you treat your fellow man.The concept of god is just an expression of man's ego.

Only insecure,shallow people need a god to fill the void of their ignorance.When you've struggled long and hard enough,the nature of your being will be revealed.

The US is and always has been a travesty of what the founding fathers so eloquently aspired to; the separation of church and state is a formal ideal abused in practice there. This can only be attributed as a prevailing flaw of its popular democracy; originary "idealism" is never realised in reality or en masse, and so serves as imprimatur for "inspirational hypocrisy". Constitutional hypocrisy, at its advent, was modest (like the worm in the bud) and even rationalisable, but the incongruence of idealism and realism has carved American history and is today all-consuming and rank. Enlightenment ideals were often brilliantly conceived in the laboratory-conditions of the mind, but they've never been translated into consistent government policy and never given the mosaic of popular bigotries a moment's pause.
The juxtaposition: constitutional separation of church and state/religious infiltration and influence at all levels of administration, will only ever perpetuate inspirational hypocrisy. Washington and Jefferson and co were sufficiently intoxicated by their vision and in a position to thumb their noses at temptation in those comparatively innocent days. But like everything else in the modern world, leadership means compromise every step of the way, is dragged down by beaurocracy, and is corrupted by a solicitous materialism the founding fathers could never have contemplated.
So while I agree with separation of church and state in principle, I can't see how it can ever be realised in practice. Certainly it would not cure the far more sinister ills that afflict us all.
cont..

..cont

In any case, how can a popular democracy in a country that "has the highest proportion of religiously observant people of any developed country", be administered free of religious influence when such influence "is" the electorate? Or when those influences are rampant within and without government? Moreover, in a country where the "eligible" leadership class, at the individual level, is obsessed with the accumulation of wealth, power and its own egotistical influence, rather than the Enlightenment ideals the nation is "foundered" upon? How conceivably can anybody rise above the general morass? Or rise at all without selling his/her soul along the way, when money is such a factor within campaigns? Indeed it's absurd to think that any individual or cohort resilient enough would be "permitted" to bring genuine reform, ideological or substantial.
Separation of church and state in the current system, however its legislated, would only go on, like the other cherished ideals in the US, as ceremonial observances and inspirational hypocrisy.
And Australia is no better.

Dear Squeers,

I am mainly agree with your post. The next essay on this subject will deal with the fact that the ideals have not been realised from the beginning. I will cite prejudice, slavery and genocide.

We can consider the questions of why the ideals haven't been realised and whether it is possible to realise them.

Ho Hum, "It is often said that the USA is the most religious of countries, especially in the West.
Then why is USA culture altogether so awful--barbaric even!"

I'd like to suggest a couple of answers to that question;
Firstly, there are one million registered religious organisations in the US...that's something like one in every 270 people. Personally, I like to think of it as one million registered tax-dodges, for as registered religions, they are also regarded as charities and therefore tax exempt. A good business for the charismatic.

Secondly, and less cynically, despite the prolfic excesses in pornography, violence et al on their media, their media IS entertainment. There is a very large and consequently very strong Christian under-current through Middle America, often referred to as the Bible Belt. Sex and violence sells to the more liberally-minded West and East Coasts of the US, and to the international markets, but not to their Bible Belt.

Deep down, America is an very conservative country, and what is exported in their "cultural" entertainment, is not necessarily reflective of the whole. They export what sells. And we buy it. But the two shouldn't be confused.

Thirdly, the American government is profoundly influenced by the Industrial Military Complex, thus trillions of dollars are directed towards it each year, and other large business interests pertaining to resources, as well as export markets. Business is amoral, and especially the business of empires and State. But this is government, and again, not a reflection of the remaining 270 million people, other than their impotance to change the status quo.

Ho Hum wrote: It is often said that the USA is the most religious of countries, especially in the West.

Then why is USA culture altogether so awful--barbaric even!

Dear Ho Hum,

The religion is Christianity, and Christianity to a large extents fosters barbarism. Some Christians recognise this and are trying to recognise the barbarism and cleanse Christianity of it.

http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/bishopspongon_theTerribleTexts.aspx

John Shelby Spong on the Terrible Texts of the Bible

RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY:
"No one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6)
This text has helped to create a world where adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another. A veritable renaissance of religious terror now confronts us and is making against us the claims we have long made against religious traditions different from our own.

ANTI-SEMITISM:
And the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children'" (Matt. 27:25)
No other verse of Holy Scripture has been responsible for so much violence and so much bloodshed. People convinced that these words conferred legitimacy and even holiness on their hostility have killed millions of Jewish people over history. Far more than Christians today seem to understand, to call the Bible "Word of God" in any sense is to legitimize this hatred reflected in its pages.

SEXISM:
For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1Cor. 8-9)
The message of the Christian church was once that women are evil to their core and it was built on the story of Eve. She was taken out of man and was not his equal, but his helpmeet. Evil entered human history through the weakness of the woman. She was made to bear the blame and the guilt. She was the source of death.

continued

continued

HOMOPHOBIA:

"...the men of Sodom...to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.'" (Lev. 18:22)

This story that portrays all of the men of Sodom as eager to gang-rape two heavenly visitors has been used to condemn faithful and loving homosexual relationships. A story in which a father, in order to protect the Middle Eastern code of hospitality, can offer his virgin daughters to be gang-raped, and still be regarded by both God and the author of this story as righteous, has been turned by the prejudices of later interpreters into an anti-homosexual text that feeds the basest side of our humanity. How is that possible unless prejudice overwhelms rationality and moral judgment?

The church has sought to portray Jesus as sharing an anti-female bias that includes a commitment to celibacy. But there is a repressed tradition that counters this teaching, in the story of Mary, the sister of Martha, anointing Jesus' feet (John 12:1-8). The only thing that would have made such an act acceptable in that day is the knowledge she was his wife.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT:

"Do not withhold discipline from a child....If you beat him with a rod, you will save his life from Sheol" (Prov. 23:13, 14)
It validates our own violence, since when we abuse others we are only acting after the example which God has set for us. God even required the crucifixion of the Son. The punishing God is thus replicated in the punishing parent, the punishing authority figure and the punishing nation. Violence is redemptive. War is justified. Bloodshed is the way of salvation. It all fits together so tightly, so neatly, and it justifies the most destructive and demeaning of human emotions.

continued

continued

ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION:

"Be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth" (Gen. 1:28)
We human beings are not some alien visitors who happen to be on the planet earth. Our human life is part of this planet. Heaven is not our home. The earth is. Once this supposed divine command was seen as necessary to enable the human race to survive. Now it must be seen as nothing less than a prescription for human genocide. If followed literally, this "Word of God" all but guarantees our annihilation.

end of extract from Bishop Spong

The record of Christian barbarism is exemplified by the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Reformation wars of religion, the persecution of non-Christians and the Holocaust. The ground for the Holocaust was prepared by centuries of Christian hatred. Current Christian efforts to fight condom use, population planning and the teaching of evolutionary biology in the schools endure that misery and ignorance will continue their reign.

Christians of good will such as Bishop Spong are trying to bring out the goodness in Christianity by recognising the evil inherent in it and eliminating it. One problem that he and others of his ilk face is that the Bible in toto and other Christian traditions regardless how dated and unreasonable they may be are so dear to the fundamentalists that none of it may be challenged.

Squeers

The purpose of separation of church and state is not to keep politics free from religious opinion and sentiment, but to avoid a situation where religious institutions have political rights and authority (and vice versa). There’s a world of difference between having a head of state who professes Christianity and acts accordingly, and an established religion with institutional powers and privileges

Dear Rhian,
of course I realise this and I'm in favour, as I said, of a proper separation of church and state; but that doesn't alter the fact that in many Western countries the dominant church enjoys "virtual establishment" in their tax-free status and their free reign in state schools and their privileged media attention. I find it galling for instance that the media clamours around Jim Wallace and the ACL, yet the Australian Secular Lobby, its asymmetrical twin, is ignored by the media--and this in an ostensibly secular country, or at least one that professes not to show favouritism. What a joke! This kind of ingrained bias is of course driven by populism, by a population not so much infatuated with "Christianism" as jaded by it! Though this doesn't prevent many people indifferently identifying with it. Which is the reason Gillard is forced to debase the precious values she loves to spruke about--because in a popular democracy she has to cultivate the broadest appeal--which is why we end up with leaders who stand for nothing!
A true separation of church and state has to purge religious influence utterly from the ethical administration of the state. Christian churches deserve no greater government or media attention or privileged access to schools than scientology does! This would still leave us with serious flaws in our way of life that need to be addressed, but it would be a start.

I don't claim to have said mine or "the last word" on this topic, far from it; there's a great deal more that needs to be said.
Of course the pseudo-Established church is well-entrenched, even complacent, and see their most advantageous tactic as remaining divinely impassive. I think they are justified in feeling smug.
As David Fisher is arguing, foundational and learned opinion are as one in favour of ejecting Tartuffe from the administration and the economy of the state!

Squeers
Like it or not, the churches represent a significant segment of the Australian population and the media are right to report their views, in much the same way the Conservation Council is consulted on environmental issues or business groups on economic issues. This is a pluralist democracy, and representative organisations matter. They should not be reported uncritically, however.

You say that “Christian churches deserve no greater government or media attention or privileged access to schools than scientology does!” If you are arguing that they should not have tax or legal privilege different to other organisations that do similar things (charities, schools etc) I agree with you. If you’re saying that church leaders have no right to comment on public affairs, or politicians to listen to them, then I don’t

Rhian

>>> If you are arguing that they should not have tax or legal privilege different to other organisations that do similar things (charities, schools etc) I agree with you. If you’re saying that church leaders have no right to comment on public affairs, or politicians to listen to them, then I don’t <<<

Your comments apply to ALL religious leaders, not just the 'Christian' ones. And I don't have a problem with this, for every George Pell, I enjoy hearing from the Father Bob Maguire's or Father Peter Kennedy's, even Tim Costello.

However, secularism, which gives free speech to all varieties of Christians, also allow people like Sheik Hilali comparing women to trays of meat. An attitude towards women which, ironically, is shared by George Pell.

In conclusion, there is no one god in which we all trust and separation of church and state must remain a priority for all Australians. Given such a 'mixed bag' of values, I'm sure you understand that for many religious and non-religious alike we are alarmed at the level of influence that the Christian church has in Australian politics.

Yes, the USA eh?

I've never been there, and on the one hand it looks exciting, and on the other, I have a sibling that lives there, in Texas, and the tales he tells of mindnumbing ignorance and bigotry are a great shock.

Religion, of course, is not the least bit benign in the USA, and while the Feds may not fund it, like Gillard loves to, to pretend it does not have an unwholesome grip on the nations balls is to be a 'three monkeys' person.

Read the agony of the Irish president O'Bama struggling to garner votes from white evangelicals in the numerous Pew surveys, not that he backs away from his 'great faith' any more than any US president ever has.

Funny how their actions never quite seem to be in-line with their 'lurving Jesus' attachments though, isn't it.

Australia, of course, has no 'separation' at all, as outlined in the High Court case some years ago, and no desire on the part of our citizens to construct one either, although most seem to 'think' it exists, according to the SMH article by Marr in, about Dec 2009.

This hardly seems worth debating really. The grip organised religion has on our world is all encompassing, and quite toxic overall, and has absolutely nothing at all to do with 'soup kitchens', or lovely Tim Costello, or any of the usual fringe elements that are thrown up in defence, the 'good works' nonsense.

part 2....

part... 2

As our world as we like to live it today, disintegrates in a far more explosive manner than Dick Smith portrayed last night with his discussion of population (I did like the suggestion Dick sells some Dick Condoms) then we will, sadly, see the meteoric rise of the usual evils of religion, with CTF type ministries rising on the tide of despair, fear, anger and helplessness.

The Vatican will revert to type, even perhaps consuming the miserable Anglicans, never really sure if they believe in Jesus or not.

Our world is in danger of retreating into a pre Enlightenment age, such as Santamaria so loved, into some form of fascist Christian dictatorship of a modern feudal variety.

In this, maybe Islam has the edge on us, never having quite dragged itself out of that pit?

There will be not a hint of any 'separation' at all, as organised religion takes up from where it was displaced, temporarily, in 1648.

People are stupid, and always have been. Fear is a great motivator.

Those nauseating 'mission statements' of 'in pursuit of excellence', 'the smart state', the 'knowledge nation' and so on, are part of the 'joke' we play on ourselves, to help pretend we are on some economists upward graph-of-life, always improving at 4% a year, and churning out generations that are ever smarter.

If that were so, religion would be gone, our world would not be decimated, greed would not be the single most effective motivator, along with its ally, stupdity (did anyone watch that goose from Elders on the Dick Smith show?) and we would not bother to discuss this.

Our task, as our world implodes, is to shape some form of democratic feudalism to avoid the religious dictatorships that most will favour, in their fear of the unknown, and their grasping at straws... sorry, God.

Amen

Dear TBC,
I agree with you completely, even with the note of millenarianism. The serious problems the world faces have to be assessed and dealt with rationally, but that's not happening. Why not? WHY NOT? Indeed, even supposing we were not confronted with the looming prospect of multiple global crises, surely a hallmark of human economy (in the full sense of the word) in the developed modern world, is its irrationalism? It can be compellingly argued that humans are decidedly NOT rational, nevertheless it is vital to our survival, let alone prosperity, that we DO ACT RATIONALLY COLLECTIVELY. This cannot happen because popular democracy ensures that policy is tailored to the irrational wishes of the majority, which one way or another manages to deceive itself that anything ought to be done if it compromises the lifestyle to which it is accustomed. It's a moot point whether collectives are capable of using the unique human ability (at the level of the individual) to foresee danger and act rationally. It seems the answer is no. Each one of us is capable of reading warning signs and acting rationally to counter it and save ourself. Group-think is another matter entirely. Especially when the "social animal" is beguiled with all manner of organised irrationality, competing for its attention and offering reassurance. There is ignorance and foolhardiness, as well as strength, in numbers. Surely we've all experienced this? It beggers belief that in our sophisticated modern reality huge percentages of our populations are seduced by primitive faiths in angry, benevolent and all-powerful supernatural beings, as well as promises of immortality and damnation (come again?), yet this is the reality! Moreover, this is the kind of lunacy that politicians are obliged to respect and pander to, or are infected with themselves!
Look at Bishop Spong's list of Bible-sanctioned madness that Davidf cites. The cultural mores of an alien race from an alien planet, invading the present. Truth really is stranger than fiction!

TBC

I suggest you seek counsel. You really do appear quite depressed.

Squeers,

The term you used in your post of "organised irrationality" is the best I've heard yet to describe religion.

Runner.. I am already a community chaplain, and am in communication with The Nothing, who has told me that I am On The Right Path, thank you.

I am concerned that my Truth should be taken as another form of 'millenarianism' as Squeers puts it, but I do understand why it might seem to be that, and in fact, I question it myself, in the hope that it is not merely another reaction to 'too much'.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to tell, until later, but it must be suspected, interrogated, and considered, very carefully.

I am not, I hope, falling into Runners eschatology though... I hope anyway.

The rise of religious stupidity is already underway in our nation, and in 'other religions', as well as Christianity.

How much is merely shysters making merry with the foolishly ignorant, and how much is the genuinely foolishly ignorant working through their fears, is almost impossible to measure, although Pew could probably be forensically examined for clues, and more detailed research could follow from there.

Runner, no doubt you will be at Mt Ainsley for the CTFM vs Sex Party stand-off soon?

I understand the Sex Party has quite an ability to mount a stand-off... so your mate Danny should look out, lest he get pricked in the eye with something unpleasant.

Dear davidf,

It is good to see you in what would appear to be fine fettle and form.

Thank you for your article. It was well constructed, well paced, and well concluded.

Yet in my humble opinion it lacked the recognition of a singular truth, that the religion practised by the majority of your countrymen is such a far cry from the traditional sense of Christianity that it struggles to legitimately retain that name.

Your Spongianisms addressed to HoHum, I contend, show that you are perhaps yet to make this critical distinction. I would invite you to read, if you have not already, Harold Bloom's 'The American Religion'. A poorly edited book but nonetheless a powerful critique of the uniqueness of the American religious experience.

One of the points he ventures in his introduction is “that while Judaism and Christianity are not biblical religions (despite all their assertions), the American Religion is indeed biblical, although its bible may be largely confined to Saint Paul (the Southern Baptists) or be an American set of replacement Scriptures (the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, among others).”

He further states;

“... I have taken our unacknowledged national faith which I follow Sydney Ahlstrom (and Tolstoy) in calling the American Religion. Mormons and Southern Baptists call themselves Christians but like most Americans they are closer to ancient Gnostics than to early Christians”...”most American Methodists, Roman Catholics, and even Jews and Muslims are also more Gnostic than normative in their deepest and most unwariest beliefs. The American Religion is pervasive and overwhelming, however it is masked, and even our secularists, indeed even our most professed athiests, are more Gnostic than humanist in their ultimate presuppositions. We are a religiously mad culture, furiously searching for the spirit, but each of us is the subject and the object of the one quest, which must be for the original self, a spark or breath in us that we are convinced goes back before creation.”

The light he shines on himself, Spong, yourself and your countrymen is illuminating and I commend it to you.

Christianity is based on Gnostic-like epistles of Paul that invoke a lot of Old Testament prophecies without invoking messages of the mystical central character, Jesus Christ. .. Claims those messages were already known by oral communication is fanciful, as the geographical areas claimed for that spread is too wide for a consistent message. Paul may be a fanciful character, too.

The Gospels build upon each other as variations of a single story, and their central character is unsupported by non-biblical literature.

Well, half right. Just should have stopped at the word "God".