Dear McReal,

Thank you for your definitions of secularism.

* promoting neutrality/fairness in the public square,
* managing a society of diverse beliefs,
* separating governance from religion,
* opposition to religious or spiritual influences,
* a regime of religious regulation, and
* eliminating religion from politics and society.

I have defined secularism in my essays on the subject as religious belief or the lack of it being no business of the government. By that definition I do not consider governments which try to promote atheism or control religion as secular since religion is very much their business. Your last three definitions oppose the first three.

runner,

You seem to mention the word "righteous" often...but I'm a bit confused as to who you imbue with this quality. You say, "The simple fact is that no one is righteous apart from Christ", yet in another thread you claimed: ""...Like many others they go to their graves full of self-righteousness instead of those who have been given righteousness from the One who rose from the dead."
So, the question is, is righteous something that can be bestowed or something that comes from a confidence in ones belief and conduct being right?

What I find frustrating about this article and some of the replies is the underlying assumption that Christians are detached from society by their faith. Some Christians are guided not only by faith, but by common sense and critical reasoning. I am able to look at the policies of the major parties, as well as the promises of my local candidates, and make judgements completely detached from my faith. I suspect I'm not alone in this capability. Severin hit the nail on the head with the statement that "Christians are just people". We are. We make good decisions and bad decisions. We do what we think is right, and we sometimes do what we know is wrong. We can take our faith seriously and still engage with the secular world around us. Well, most of us can.

I do object, however, to briar rose's assertion that Christians have no right to call for morality in society when there is immorality within the Church(es). Once again, that assumes detachment from society. I am a part of the Catholic Church, but I am also a part of Australian society. I can call for morality in both parties, and can actively work (as I do) to achieve that end. To say that my belief and participation in a flawed human institution precludes me from being able to comment on broader society is akin to saying that, because some men beat their wives (and others work to cover this up and defend those men), my gender precludes me from calling for humane treatment of women.

The whole idea of the "Christian vote" is flawed. Christians don't vote as a bloc, just as men, women, doctors, cat-lovers or any other group vote as a bloc. Put simply, there is no such thing.

Christian citizens might well call for ethicality within society.

They might well call for it within their church.

The right of their "church" to call for extension of their faulty "morality" in the greater society is hypocritical when even the teachings of the church are no barrier to immorality within the priesthood, let alone the ranks. Beyond this, several "christian" denominations protect their debased priests rather than hold them to the higher standards they are (a) aware of, (b) publicly denounce, (c) expect others to be punished for and (d) present themselves as (somehow) above. The penalties for priestly malfeasance should be at least double, plus lifetime defrocking, with the church held liable to report it, to save society's valuable time and money.

It is the citizens call, not that of a failed church, and most certainly not that of a failed church to make upon their flock, or others.

Rusty.

Otokonoko, I know there are many men who speak out against male violence. I know there are many men's groups that address the issues of violence against women.

I have not heard or read of one single ordinary Christian (other than the victims and authorities) who has spoken out about child sexual abuse in their church.

I haven't heard of one single ordinary Christian group (not victims and authorities) that has formed with the purpose of addressing child sexual abuse in their church.

You all remain horrifically, bone-chillingly silent.

Therefore, I conclude you are detached both from the society in which you live, and from the dark side of your church.

And, I forgot to add "all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men (sic) to remain silent."

There isn't an institution on the planet that illustrates that maxim better than the Christian church.