A well written article. However it does not mention certain dangers.

Many people become “religious” or follow a religion when they have a desire to believe in something greater than themselves.

Take away religion and it tends to leave a vacuum. That vacuum can then be filled with beliefs in such things as Marxism (or belief in the state), consumerism (or belief in spending on material goods), feminism (or the belief in denigration of the male gender), or forms of individualism whereby a person believes in the importance of themselves to the exclusion of all else.

Secularism is not without its dangers

You certainly have a rosy view of religion, vanna.

You make the desire to believe in something greater than one’s self sound like an inherently humble way of thinking.

But the belief in something greater than one’s self is often used to justify bad acts with divine reasoning or purpose.

Besides, the sheer audacity of believing that everything in the universe exists purely for the sake of such insignificant specs as ourselves is anything but humble. In fact, I would go as far as to say that it is by far the most incredibly arrogant state of mind any one could possibly be in.

<<Take away religion and it tends to leave a vacuum.>>

A vacuum of reality that allows science to flourish. But whether or not that vacuum is a good thing, it’s reality, so it wins out by default. Not all people need to have a belief system though. Many are quite happy with reality as it is.

Reality has all sorts of dangers so it is pointless to suggest that secularism is not without its dangers. That’s life, and simply making something up - like religion - is hardly going to fix anything.

I’d prefer to work towards no evils than settle for a [perceived, but by no means a] lesser of the evils. Using one absurdity as a preventative measure for others is a cop out.

Besides which, none of those other “evils” you mentioned are prevented by religion and on the contrary, can be exacerbated and radicalized even more by religion and the divine purpose it provides - through something greater than one’s self.

Vanna, you and people like you just don't get it, do you?

Secularism is not about taking away religion.

Yes, of course, McReal.

I got so caught up in responding to this notion that religion is a harmless, humble necessity that I forgot to mention the main point.

I would like political decisions to be based on verifiable reasons and demonstrable evidence. If this is possible without dismantling religion, fine: but as far as I can see the would-be theocrats are not going to relinquish power without a long and bitter fight.

It certainly takes more faith to believe the dogmas of secularism rather than the commonsense written in the Scriptures. The idiotic hysteria around global warming is a good example of that and of course guilt free baby killing and gross immorality. Secularism lacks any reason as seen also by the idiotic explanations and dogmas taught about our origins.

A J Phillips,

Most of my training has been in science, and I've also done a lot of sailing. When you are out in the middle of the ocean, with nothing around you except sea and air, you start to detect that there is something greater than oneself.

Get a boat and try it, or perhaps it would be too religious for your sensibilities.

runner, the "dogma" of secularism allows the Scriptures to persist, not resists them.
Your reference to global warming, etc are just red herrings.

Vanna, argument from personal incredulity is no argument.

When did feminism become 'belief in the denigration of the male gender', Vanna? Yes, there may be a few feminazis out there, but most feminists are reasonable people--and some of them are even of the male gender. If you'd grown up in the bad old days when getting married meant you lost your job because "you'll just get preganant and it will be inconvenient for us", or when you did the same job (and sometimes better) than the man at the next desk but got paid 2/3 the wage , because "he has a family to support and you're just doing this until you get married" , you might be a feminist also.

The author wrote: "But, I consider political secularism, as defined above, should be enshrined in the Constitution."

S. 116 of the Australian Constitution does enshrine secularism. It is almost identical with the references in the US Constition which has interpreted to mandate separation of religion and state.

The current government funding of the National School Chaplaincy and the subsidising of religious schools violate S. 116. There is a current court case initiated by Ron Williams which seeks a court ruling on the matter.

"common sense" written in the scriptures!

The "resurrection of christ" as "common sense"!

Try all the murderous inherently genocidal bits in Leviticus. Every one that I know would have been executed a long time ago. Or if they had lived in times past in christian Europe burned as witches, or monstered by the inquisition, or murdered as "heretics".

It is a myth to imply that Dawkins and Hitchens are not anti-religious.

21.05.2011

Runner, when are you going to get into your tiny brain, that the Old Testament was written by a bunch of geriatric schizophrenics to justify the existence of the Jewish nation. God (if he exists at all) had nothing to do with it.

David

That’d probably be the ocean, vanna.

<<When you are out in the middle of the ocean, with nothing around you except sea and air, you start to detect that there is something greater than oneself.>>

Understandable too considering how tiny we are in comparison to it.

There are a lot of things in this universe greater than ourselves, but nothing about any of it suggests that the greatness has a mind or is as described by any of the worlds religions.

I'm personally happy stopping politicians and religious lobbyists having the power to force their religious ethics on people, and also to prevent World Youth Day from ever, EVER, returning to Australia.

Oh yes- and also to stop religious advertisers from being allowed to doorknock and harass people in public;

I think those are at the top of my head.

Despite the article there still appears to be confusion about secularism.

Secularism allows freedom of belief. Do those who deride secularism so much prefer to live in countries that stone or persecute people for not adhering to the common belief system? That is barbaric and we have come a long way since the days of witchburnings and the like.

I would rather live in a secular nation like Oz than to live in those countries where women are stoned or Christians Churches are bombed.

What is not to like about secularism? I tend to think opponents of secularism are just as fanatical about forcing their religion as some of the less evolved societies.

Secularism does not stop you believing there is something greater than oneself or praying to a wooden idol, or dancing around a totem pole - whatever you like. That is the beauty of it - respect for differing world views. Secularism does not force you to anything.

I agree with King Hazza about the rights of individuals to go about their lives without being harassed or having taxes used to fund what is essentially religious and personal activities including atheist activities to the detriment of other government programs that are universally beneficial.

A J Phillips,
"greatness has a mind"

Why does greatness have to have a mind?

While various religions seem to be getting considerable condemnation, often from academics harboured by universities that ironically have policies of anti-discrimination, I have also seen societies so striken by poverty and hunger that the only thing keeping them going was their religion.

Without religion those societies would disintergrate completely.

Maybe our society is too comfortable and wealthy at present, and academics too well fed.

"21.05.2011"
Posted by 579, Monday, 25 October 2010 3:05:34 PM

Is that another Doom Day?

........................................................

Runner, when are you going to get into your tiny brain, that the Old Testament was written by a bunch of geriatric schizophrenics to justify the existence of the Jewish nation. God (if he exists at all) had nothing to do with it.
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 25 October 2010 3:23:39 PM

And the New Testament was based on the stories that were popular as they aligned most with the OT prophecies? Stories that were told in a multitude of versions? Stories that were invented because other stories did not produce the goods? (like the second coming which was supposed to be in the generation that the story was produced for?)

McReal

'Runner, when are you going to get into your tiny brain, that the Old Testament was written by a bunch of geriatric schizophrenics to justify the existence of the Jewish nation. God (if he exists at all) had nothing to do with it.
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 25 October 2010 3:23:39 PM'

Maybe when the alternative views such as the moral bereft secular view stop making up porkies that insist that its dogmas are somewhat rational. The Scriptures describe your heart very accurately. What you read in Scripture is very easily observed in the world unlike other fantasies are trotted out as rational and justified by pseudo science.

It must be really upsetting to you to see how hard so many have tried to destroy this tiny nation of Israel but all to no avail. Hopefully one day your eyes will be open to more than your puny worldview.

Runner,

There you go again making false statements.

Explain this one then...

"Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)

And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask ANYTHING of me in my name, I WILL DO IT. (John 14:13-14 NAB)

Seeing you are a believer (and I suspect have no doubt) can you pray for the end to fighting in all wars, the end of all hunger and the end of all illness & disease on my behalf and let us see it happen?

Or haven't you got a faith strong enough to believe it will occur as a result of your prayer? Jesus stated it categorically...Are you brave enough?

Hang on that's a bit tough...can you pray for understanding your Bible and show us it some time?

Vanna,

Did being stuck out in a boat get you to reduce feminism to this load of tripe?

"feminism (or the belief in denigration of the male gender)"

Are you that insecure as a male to actually believe this? Man up big fella, you are making us real men who respect feminism, sound like you!...lol

Where have all the Real men gone?...lol Obviously not sailing...lo

Runner, funny how you quote someone else's quote back to me; I was more philosophical about the NT.

Aspects of the Scriptures do resonate, runner. Especially the allegory.

Does your promotion of Israel express your worldview, runner?

I agree, dogmas are never rational.

Opinionated2 you write

'Seeing you are a believer (and I suspect have no doubt) can you pray for the end to fighting in all wars, the end of all hunger and the end of all illness & disease on my behalf and let us see it happen?'

The obvious corruption in yours and mine heart confirms that wars and hunger will not come to an end until the evil in all hearts are dealt with one way or the other. Peace protesters are often the most violent. You deliberately taking Scripture out of context again verifies the corrupt or deceived state of your heart. The fact that most can't even keep a marriage vow demonstrates the selfishness of mankind. How different the life and example of Christ than that of u and me. Thankfully His word and promises are to be trusted infinitely more than u.

We seem to forget that in secularism the church christian or what ever is not the enemy, they simply just don't matter.

Runner,
Why do you think secularism is an attack on your faith. Your faith is clearly strong and with the values that christians claim to have you should be content with a secular government. If we were to have a christian government we would end up in conflict with all other religions leaving us doing things agains't the faith.
Secularism aims to make room for everyone within reasonable boundary's. It will not make everyone happy but that is not it's point. If some laws don't suit well tough, they don't stop you living by your morals. Just because abortion is legal in many states doesn't mean you have to have one. Are you sure your not confusing secularism with atheists.

runner
How is secularism morally bereft? Secularism allows, unlike fundamentalism, people to practice whatever faith they choose without fear of favour. Secularism is about protecting people like yourself to practice without fear of being persecuted or worse, killed for your faith.

What does global warming have to do with secularism. Emotive statements that have no rationale or logic only do you and your beliefs whatever they are, a disservice.

nairbe,

You write

'If we were to have a christian government we would end up in conflict with all other religions leaving us doing things against the faith.'

I personally would not want a 'Christian' Government as I doubt there is any such thing. I do however want Government with enough fortitude to call good good and evil evil. Murdering the unborn is evil. Allowing people who hate freedom and Western values to settle here is idiotic and supporting the pervert industry destroys lives and increases child abuse. Even corrupt Islamic regimes can see this hence their justification for treating the West with contempt.

A secular Government in France, Germany, England and other parts of Europe are now reaping the stupidity of secular dogmas. We are not far behind. Just ask some of the ladies that jog in the Cronulla area (oh that's right secular dogma does not allow free speech because of the hot beds of conflict they have created.

Section 116 of the Australian constitution does not enshrine 'secularism'.. it merely prohibits any particular denomination from being advanced or hindered by an act of law.

-The preamble to the constitution includes 'humbly relying on the guidance of Almighty God'

-We open Parliament with the Prayer Jesus gave called "The Lords Prayer"

On the issue "If the country is not close to God these days".. we respond "Guess who moved?" (it was not the Almighty)

Pelly

You ask:

//How is secularism morally bereft? Secularism allows, unlike fundamentalism, people to practice whatever faith they choose without fear of favour.//

Runner means by that.(I think) that secularism has no basis for morality. (in the philosphical/logical/rational sense) Because of the absense of any fundamental basis for determining 'right' and 'wrong'... 'good' and 'evil' secularism can only comment on 'beneficial/harmful' or.. 'advantageous/disadvantageous'

This of course means no less than 'the law of the jungle' and we serve the lord Machievelli as we strive for oneupmanship and personal or family or clan supremacy.

You might benefit from a bit of study in philosophy about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Morality

QUOTE:
In Daybreak Nietzsche begins his "Campaign against Morality".[48] He calls himself an "immoralist" and harshly criticizes the prominent moral schemes of his day: Christianity, Kantianism, and utilitarianism. In Ecce Homo Nietzsche called the establishment of moral systems based on a dichotomy of good and evil a "calamitous error"
UNQUOTE

I prefer this myself :)

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, as I have loved you" John 13.34

Hey Runner,

Speak for yourself...and I quoted Jesus' words...How is that misquoting scripture?

Is it that you haven't got the conviction, or intestinal fortitude to even attempt Jesus' statement

"And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask ANYTHING of me in my name, I WILL DO IT. (John 14:13-14 NAB)

You need to go back to Bible 101 son. Did you sleep through too many lessons?...lol

You said "Thankfully His (Jesus') word and promises are to be trusted infinitely more than u."

Well go on big fella...trust Jesus' words...pray to end world hunger and let's see it happen. Pray to end disease and let's see that happen.

What are you scared of?

Does taking your do-nothing stance indicate that you are full of hot air?

Do you represent Jesus well?

Hey, forget the diseased state of my heart Runner, did you just fail Matthew 7:1-5 http://tinyurl.com/2gx8tx2 Do not judge others & First remove the log from your own eye?

I personally dislike the word secularism...It scares people like Runner and God forbid scaring him...lol

Every time I read one of your posts Runner I have to be physically restrained from racing off to the nearest church and screaming

"Sign me up I wanna be like Runner!"...lol

You may be making men of fishes rather than fishes of men...lol

Having looked at the news lately about the churches I suspect that they are more morally bereft than secularists.

What brand do you belong to Runner?

vanna,

Criticising something does not constitute discrimination. So I’m not sure what you think is so ironic about the long overdue criticism religion is finally receiving.

<<Without religion those societies would disintergrate completely.>>

Really? If we’re that feeble, then how did humans pull through before religion arrived on the scene?

You are right about one thing though: Religion offers hope in a world torn apart by religion.

vanna wrote: "While various religions seem to be getting considerable condemnation, often from academics harboured by universities that ironically have policies of anti-discrimination, I have also seen societies so striken by poverty and hunger that the only thing keeping them going was their religion.

Without religion those societies would disintergrate completely."

Somalia is currently the most disintegrated country. The disintegration is due to religion. Various militias all driven by various versions of Islam have torn the country apart. They are repeating the process that took play in Europe several centuries ago when various brands of Christianity: Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism etc. were slaughtering each other in the Wars of the Reformation.

runner wrote: "It must be really upsetting to you to see how hard so many have tried to destroy this tiny nation of Israel but all to no avail."

Dear runner,

There is a reason why Israel is so tough and smart. The Israeli Jews are descended from the survivors of Christian persecution. They are descendants of the Jews who neither converted nor were killed by Christians. They preserved their faith. Weaker Jews either succumbed to the Christian mumbo-jumbo and/or were killed. At the same time Christianity was dumbing down its population by taking the brighter people and making them priests or nuns who produced few children. Brighter Jews were encouraged to marry young.

The trouble now is they feel so tough that they can take on the world. They can’t and will go under eventually. Christian persecution has created a smart, tough people. If they are smart enough they will create a secular state with civil marriage and an integrated school system for the entire population.

In Israel all marriages have to be approved by clergy of one religion or another. That means people of different religions find it difficult to marry. Most Muslims, Christians, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Jews and secular Jews go to schools which have only people with the same religious background. The different groups grow up hating and fearing each other. Israel has a better chance for continued survival by becoming a secular state.

On another note about "without religion, a person/society collapses"
As it seems many of the richest and safest countries with the highest standard of living have low levels of church attendance, while there are plenty of ultra-religious societies closer to the bottom of the list, I would seriously insist some people re-evaluate that stance.

Dear David f,
I cannot seem to see any thing positive in the message you preach. It seems to me to be a very divisive message. On whose authority is it founded upon.
Regards Richie 10

The theocracy that Jesus preached had nothing to do with an earthly Kingdom and His authority has NOTHING to do with man made rules. The reason that the Jews crucified him was because he said He was I AM. Caesar and the Pharaoh's claimed to be Gods and their man made theocracy's have more in common with socialism than Christianity. True Christianity is not a political party but the Kingdom of God which Jesus revealed in John chapter 3. Give to Caesar what is Caesars and give to God what is Gods. Man cannot create life for if it where possible they would have done it. Secularism is about religious beliefs and their role in governing man. Christianity is about relationship with our Heavenly Father through the finished work of the cross . To be great in mans eyes you Lord it over others. To be great in Gods eyes our life is forfeit to God as a living sacrifice to serve others and is regarded by the world standard as foolishness, eg Mother Teresa and I am convinced that she never ruled over an earthly kingdom.

Richie 10 wrote: Dear David f,
I cannot seem to see any thing positive in the message you preach. It seems to me to be a very divisive message. On whose authority is it founded upon.
Regards Richie 10.

Dear Richie 10,

I am neither positive nor negative. I tell the truth as I see it and face reality.

I have a mind and use it. I live in a free society and am a free man. I don't need any authority to say what I think.

We do not have to be united. We can think differently, and apparently we do. There is nothing wrong in that.

You may be preaching. I wasn't.

You apparently have strong religious beliefs. You have a right to have them. However, I do not have such beliefs and feel they are not necessary. Religions come and go. Many who lived in the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago believed in Jupiter and the other gods. Now many people who live in this society believe in the Christian mumbo-jumbo. Two thousand years from now others may believe in some belief that will be accepted at that time.

However, there are skeptics who did not believe in the Roman gods, do not believe in the Bible god and will not believe in whatever supernatural that many people will believe in 2,000 years from now. I am one of those.

Yet another "article" about the difference between reality and fairy tales. AFAIC, be religious or not, it makes no genuine difference to anything at all and if it helps you to believe in sky fairies then go for your life.

You might like to read this link

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=3_TFQE_syJUC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=religiosity+neurology&source=bl&ots=sq0idMiC2H&sig=suVKbVUvohWHD8qx_nRxmdg2YL8&hl=en&ei=O9HFTL3uO4PBcaXVwdkL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=religiosity%20neurology&f=false

which contains an interesting explanation about the neurochemical basis of the religious experience. The fairy tales have little to do with the religiosity of individuals - they're mostly designed to justify the existence of a hierarchical power structure. The religious experience is only relevant to them as a useful tool to get people to "suspend disbelief" - all else is "do as your told by your betters without having to be told, or else".

Not my kind of thing at all.

Dear Richie 10,

If you are citing the Bible at least get it straight. Jews did not crucify Jesus. They could not crucify anybody. They did not rule the country. The country was under Roman occupation, and Romans decided who should be crucified. Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jew. Christians do not follow the religion of Jesus. Jews do. Christianity was invented by other people after Jesus died if he ever existed.

All theocracies are man made. All religions including Christianity and Judaism are human inventions. Christianity is whatever different Christians think it is.

Secularism is not about religious beliefs and their role in governing man. Secularism is neither for nor against religious beliefs. Secularism maintains that religious beliefs or the lack of them is no business of the government, and government should neither promote nor repress any religious belief.

I think you believe a lot of nonsense. However, those beliefs of yours are your own business.

Richie10:"On whose authority is it founded upon. "

As I said above...

Dear David f,
How do you split a hair as you seem to be the expert. I respect your right to believe anything you want. It is part of free will. I was just trying to point out to you in Gods Kingdom it is his way not our way. Religion most times is devoid of power But Jesus demonstrated raw creation power with the spoken word. Impossible with mans religions and beliefs but possible with God. The fact that you find it impossible to believe in the supernatural does not make it truth. Man can not create apart from God . If you are an observer of life you would find that order happens. Reincarnation is a belief that goes against the natural order yet I have never seen any one come back as a bug. Commonsense would tell you that the bible is true as it does not contradict the natural order except where God over rules with the supernatural to get mans attention. If an Ass spoke to you, you have 2 choices
1 It is impossible and you are crazy.
2 It is supernatural and God is trying to get your attention.
The traditions of man stop the power of God flowing and that is why Jesus taught us to pray not my will but thyne Lord be done on earth as it is in heaven. So to go against the natural order has unnatural consequences.

Richie10:"The fact that you find it impossible to believe in the supernatural does not make it truth."

Provide some proof and I'll happily believe in whatever you like.

The burden of proof rests with you, not me.

richie10:"If an Ass spoke to you, you have 2 choices
1 It is impossible and you are crazy."

Or 2 It is impossible and you are crazy.

Religious experience seems to be well-correlated with schizophrenia, OCD and the like, according to that link I posted earlier. Excessive dopamine production or an overly-sensitive dopamine receptor set seems to be the likely culprit.

Yoru talking ass would seem to be a perfect example.

Ritchie10,
This is not Gods kingdom this is Australia.

Runner,
Again, we have a secular system of governance, your views on abortion are yours and you are welcome to have them and live your life by them. Many people have very different views and they are welcome to those on this subject. Your view is based around your faith, abortion law is based around the science of multi celled organisms as well as the gravity of mental health and social justice issues. You may not agree, i may not agree but the right to choose is very important based on the science and associated matters that may bring someone to a place where they must decide on something so serious. If you had at some time in your life helped someone who faced that decision you may not be so hasty to judge others.

Opinionated2
No thank you for your abuse.

What secular Australian university taught you to be abusive. You can give the name of that university.

A J Phillips,
Due to the bigotry and discrimination of so many academics, they will only mention negative aspects of various religions, and not mention any positive aspects.

What is also noticeable, is that they rarely mention the concentration camps and forced starvation that killed millions under secular systems such as those enforced by Mao Tse-Tung and Stalin.

The idea that education should be science is totally dubious. After 20 years of feminist rule in Australian education, there is very little science left in Australian education.

Someone can now go into a teacher’s training college, after having studied almost no maths and science in grades 11 or 12, and I have personally been told by a lecturer at a teacher’s training college, that the average trainee teacher had such minimal knowledge of science that they would not pass a grade 10 science exam. Furthermore, they didn’t want to know about science.

I would think that the attempt to remove religion from education is being carried out, not to increase science in education, but to clear away any obstacles and make it easier to bring even more Marxist and feminism doctrine into the education system.

"Runner means by that.(I think) that secularism has no basis for morality. (in the philosphical/logical/rational sense) Because of the absense of any fundamental basis for determining 'right' and 'wrong'... 'good' and 'evil' secularism can only comment on 'beneficial/harmful' or.. 'advantageous/disadvantageous'. This of course means no less than 'the law of the jungle' and we serve the lord Machievelli as we strive for oneupmanship and personal or family or clan supremacy."

Al
If human beings did not have a natural capacity to determine right from wrong (or good from evil), religion would not have stood a chance from early on. People don't adopt a faith that does not ring true.

Religion was not only about a moral code it was about power as the Romans demonstrated by forcing Catholicism on the rest of the world.

The Chrisitian premise of love each other comes from the human not the supernatural or superhuman.

It comes down to whether you believe humans need a big stick to make good decisions about society that are fair and just. Religion has failed and succeeded in the same way that secularism fails and succeeds - human endeavour/achievement and human flaws remain the same. Churches are not the paragons of virtue, only the people who make up the Churches can determine the nature of their faith - not a supernatural being whose 'rules' are written and interpreted by those same human beings. Human beings have flaws and positive attributes with or without religion.

Faith is all about one-upmanship. That is one of the problems with religion - there are too many competing for holier than thou status each one believing they are the 'truth'. There is nothing like the Church (Muslim/Christian/Hindu etal) in the race for clan supremacy. Even within the Christian and Muslim faith there are sects within sects all claiming to be the chosen ones. I hope you can see that with further study.

Have faith Al that human beings can make good decisions without the need for Godfearing.

Prefer, Boaz?

>>I prefer this myself "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, as I have loved you" John 13.34<<

You may well "prefer" it. But actually understanding it is a different matter.

One thing is certain. For you as an individual, that idea of "love one another" doesn't actually stretch much further than your own brethren-in-religion. There is definitely no sign of it when it comes to people who do not share your views.

>>This [secularism] of course means no less than 'the law of the jungle' and we serve the lord Machievelli as we strive for oneupmanship and personal or family or clan supremacy.<<

On the evidence, it is crystal clear that you are actually referring to the "oneupmanship" and "supremacy" of your own religious views, are you not.

Which is fair enough, I guess, in your world. After all, you have chosen to follow one strand (the Brethren?) of one segment (the evangelists?) of one faction (Protestantism?) within one religion (Christianity). It must be very important to you that you attack all the others, simply to convince yourself that you have made the right choice.

But in doing so, you have convinced yourself that everyone else is bent on the same "oneupmanship" and "supremacy". Otherwise, your own struggles will seem quite meaningless.

If you ever do manage to look around you without the distorting lenses of your belief system, you will find that there is a whole bunch of people out there who are able to act ethically, exercise self-control and take responsibility for their own lives, without having to live with the confusion and mixed messages that a religious order imposes.

>>"Nietzsche called the establishment of moral systems based on a dichotomy of good and evil a 'calamitous error'"<<

Admit it, Boaz. You don't actually understand that quote, do you? You have simply picked it because it sounds deep.

Have you actually read any Nietsche, by the way?

His writings, that is, not his Wikipedia entry.

Thought not.

"Due to the bigotry and discrimination of so many academics they will only mention negative aspects of various religions, and not mention any positive aspects."
-vanna

Rather like people only mentioning negative aspects of Marxism & feminism then?

"concentration camps and forced starvation that killed millions under secular systems such as those enforced by Mao Tse-Tung and Stalin."
-vanna

Right, and why did Mao Tse-Tung & Stalin kill millions? 'Coz their regimes were secular? Well, no: for starters, their regimes were atheistic, not secular. And when they did snuff folk on religious grounds, the faith of the victims was merely a justification, not the actual reason. The reason Mao Tse-Tung, Stalin et. al. killed millions was 'coz they were homicidal wackos - precisely the same reason which has led religious leaders to commit atrocities. Homicidal wackos and the venially immoral can be found in both the theistic and atheistic camps, and do not constitute a sound criticism of either viewpoint.

"After 20 years of feminist rule in Australian education there is very little science left in Australian education.... I would think that the attempt to remove religion from education is being carried out, not to increase science in education, but to clear away any obstacles and make it easier to bring even more Marxist and feminism doctrine into the education system."
-vanna

Absolute rubbish. Where is your evidence? All my education has been during the past 20 years. I have experienced many, many hours of scientific education, at primary, secondary and tertiary level. I have experienced zero hours of Marxist indoctrination, and the same of feminist indoctrination. We didn't even look at Marxism & feminism much in our history classes; apparently it being much more important for us to learn the fairy-tales of the indigenous people.

Riz, a very cogent argument. Keep up the good work.

David

Vanna,

That wasn't abuse...It was sort of tongue in cheek. Never mind.

But if one types tripe aren't we ripe for a snipe at the tripe we type? Hey, that was almost poetic....lol

And what does the University name have to do with anything?

Can you defend your "feminism (or the belief in denigration of the male gender)"?

Does your comment make you look a little fragile on the subject of feminism?

Still if I hurt your feelings I apologise

vanna,

What amuses me about your comments on threads that discuss religion, is that you start out as though you’re fairly neutral (albeit a little naive), but then, when challenged, you show yourself to be as misinformed as any fundamentalist.

<<Due to the bigotry and discrimination of so many academics, they will only mention negative aspects of various religions, and not mention any positive aspects.>>

That’s because the negatives far out-weight the positives of religion. Religion has brought some positives, but what’s even more important to remember is the fact that there is nothing religion has brought that could not have possibly come via non-religious means.

<<What is also noticeable, is that they rarely mention the concentration camps and forced starvation that killed millions under secular systems such as those enforced by Mao Tse-Tung and Stalin.>>

Wrong. Those societies were anti-religious societies, not secular.

Despite Meg Wallace, McReal, Pelican explaining what secularism is, you still don’t get it. You are either slow, or you simply want invent your own definition of secularism that suits you.

And what on Earth does this mean...

<<The idea that education should be science is totally dubious.>>

It sounds to me like you’re suggesting that religious mythology be taught as though it played a just-as-important role as science does in understanding reality.

But then you change your tone a little by complaining that not enough science is taught...

<<After 20 years of feminist rule in Australian education, there is very little science left in Australian education.>>

After our little discussion on creationism and evolution a few months back (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10424&page=0) you certainly wouldn’t have a hard time convincing me of this.

But what do you think is missing?

<<Furthermore, [average trainee teacher] didn’t want to know about science.>>

But neither did you a few months back despite the attempts of many to explain it to you. Zeus only knows what branch of science you’re trained in that enables you to be blasé about whether or not the scientific method is applied. Obviously not biology.

Was it Truthology at Bible college?

Continued...

...Continued

<<I would think that the attempt to remove religion from education is being carried out, not to increase science in education, but to clear away any obstacles and make it easier to bring even more Marxist and feminism doctrine into the education system.>>

Firstly, what kind of religious education are you referring to? Comparative studies? indoctrination?

And secondly, how does that religious education prevent Marxist and feminist doctrine working its way into the education system?

This’d wanna be good.

A J. Phillips,

I will not answer any of your questions because of the amount of personalised name calling and abuse contained in your posts.

Education in this country is now of the greatest jokes in the country. Someone can actually complete a degree in a university, but still not pass the imigration department's standard test for English.

While various members of the education system say that education helps broaden minds, no one can state any different opinion to a teacher or lecturer without risk of being failed, or risk being abused or have various insults or names directed at them.

No wonder so many foregin students have left, and I think more should be going also.

I would also think many Australian students should be thinking of an overseas education, rather than an education in this country.

Dear Richie 10,

What hairs do I split?

Common sense tells me not to believe in stone age legends because they were in the Bible. Common sense tells me that accounts of miracles are fantasy.

There are many myths about miracle men who were born of a virgin. From "Origins of Pagan and Christian Creeds" by Carpenter:

"At the time of the life or recorded appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, and for some centuries before, the Mediterranean and neighboring world had been the scene of a vast number of pagan creeds and rituals. There were Temples without end dedicated to gods like Apollo or Dionysus among the Greeks, Hercules among the Romans, Mithra among the Persians, Adonis and Attis in Syria and Phrygia, Osiris and Isis and Horus in Egypt, Baal and Astarte among the Babylonians and Carthaginians, and so forth."

There is no more reason for belief in Jesus than to believe in the above gods. You are one of the many gullible people who believe in the invention which is now popular. Gullible people in the past believed in the gods invented in the past.

Secularism maintains that you have a right to believe any nonsense you want to believe, and it is no business of government.

I find this interchange tiresome. Unless you can come up with something I find interesting and stimulating this is my last post for now. Enjoy your superstitions.

vanna,

I’m not surprised you are unable to answer to my questions. I realised quite early in the piece that you hadn’t logically thought through much of what you were saying. Your rantings sound more like a mish-mash of emotions and insecurities dressed as a coherent argument.

<<I will not answer any of your questions because of the amount of personalised name calling and abuse contained in your posts.>>

Your false accusations - mere slander - don’t fool anyone either. All they do is reek of desperation; red herrings used to divert attention from your inability to demonstrate any logic behind what you say - a very cowardly way of dealing with the situation. Show me once where I have called you a name.

I am well aware that there are problems in the education system. The question is, how can you demonstrate the truth of your Marxist-feminist conspiracies? Without the ability to do so, your claims amount to nothing more than mere assertions.

One of the dangers is the assumption that secularism can really work. It very unlikely to ever work really well, what it will do is work better than the alternatives.

The secularist can accept runner's right to believe what he believes but we hit issues when he insists on imposing those beliefs on the education of children. We hit issues when it comes to runners obsession with the sex lives of others (and there is plenty of evidence of how much time he spends fantasizing about that topic in his posts).

Secularism will never be an ideal framework because there are too many boundary issues. We should all be very glad though that our society is running with that model rather than any of the other's tried in other times and other places.

R0bert

2 myths about 'Secularism'

Myth 1 "it is Neutral"

Myth 2 "It does not secretly hate religion"

Ask CYC...it just cost them $5000 because of a corrupt and discriminatory 'secular' judicial system.

R0bert,
ALGOREisRICH,

Secularism ought to be neutral on balance, and allow religion and other belief systems space, while all stay in their own space. Pronouncements by runner & co. ought not upset the balance.

As far as CYC goes, perhaps they ought to accept the premise that sexuality is not chosen i.e. it is innate (God-given) including homosexuality. Hence, it is as unfair to discriminate on sexuality as it is to discriminate on the basis of religion.

ALGOREisRICH

Your attack on the judiciary as 'corrupt' because of a decision you didn't like is as offensive as it is ludicrous. There are laws against discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, and they apply equally to all Australians - having a quaint and outdated belief in imaginary friends and undead Jewish magicians does not put one above the law, and nor should it. CYC breached those laws, and were punished accordingly.

I’d like to know what Boaz and runner and co would suggest other than secularism.

If it’s a theocracy, then how would they justify the implementation of such a system given that we know from past experiences just how murderous and repressive those dictatorships - by shear necessity - turn out to be?

And if excuses such as, “the past rulers didn’t implement it correctly”, or “they didn’t follow the true teachings of Jesus” are used to justify the idea of giving it another crack, then how is that any different from modern day Marxists using similar arguments?

McReal while we have public institutions and any public/community life there will always be issues in those spaces. The issues around origin's being a case in point - whilst many christains are able to accept the weight of evidence favoring an old earth and developmental process called evolution others see a serious conflict with their belief structures. How should a secular society deal with cases such as that when it comes to childrens education? Add to that the struggles around discrimination vs the right to live by individual beliefs. It get's very messy around the borders - eg Boazy's point about CYC being fined effectively for discriminating on the basis of sexuality and others being allowed to do so.

In practice our secular society makes value judgments about those issues which give different weight to different needs. While we make those value judgments and enforce them with the law those same judgements will be impacted by the effectiveness of lobby groups and public perceptions. The answer's won't always be fair or even.

As I said not perfect but better than the known alternatives.

R0bert

In the end it may not matter.

With the massive increase in UFO's being filmed due the availability of phone cameras we may soon find out what is really expected of us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEtTl9cGrJc

The fact that we have mentioned GOD in our legal documents or that the great American experiment is coming to a close, due to greed, won't change the way we may have to operate in the future.\

If Jesus was an alien I can't imagine him being very happy with the Christians who have misinterpreted nearly everything put in front of them.

Could this passage apply to the secularists and athiests?

Matthew 20:16 "So the last shall be first, and the first last."

OR this

Matthew 7:20-23 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Afterall many secularists and athiests have done very Christian things and not corrupted the word.

Having chaplains in schools defies secularism, not because religious education is undesirable but because they have been charged with indoctrinating children in supernatural beliefs.
Teaching children that superstitious myths are historic facts is brainwashing - in my opinion a severe form of child abuse.

Firstly, I am not a Christian, therefore have no Christian barrow to push. However, let us be fair ....

Australia is a predominantly Christian country. Christian charities have an army of unpaid volunteers who raise money and help many of the disadvantaged. If they stopped doing so, do you really think that the government could step in and provide this aid without massive hikes in taxation ... and, knowing government jealousies and hierarchy, they would do it much less efficiently, with less positive effect, and much more interference.

Again. If every religious school closed its doors, what a monumental disaster it would be. The financial load on the public sector ... just for erecting new schools ... Parents pay tax, and if their tax goes to supporting the private school at which their child attends ... why not?

Children who attend a state school are not compelled to undertake religious studies; they can be excused.

Religious organisations also help asylum seekers with no thoughts of conversion.

If one seeks to volunteer to a charity, the available charity is most likely to be a religious one.

Those who make endowments to institutions, or even set these up themselves, are often motivated by their religious backgrounds. This is especially so in the USA.

So let's be fair ...

... some may be fundamentalists ... and I detest fundamentalists of any persuasion ... but I doubt if they are prepared to help anyone other than their 'own' - that is certainly what I have been lead to believe.

Dear Danielle,

The two people who have given the most to charity in the United States are the atheists, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. They have not attempted to use their contributions to draw people away from their belief. The same cannot be said for missionaries whose avowed aim is to get people to accept the missionary's belief.

Danielle, Sat 30 Oct, 9:18pm

Yes, let's be fair ...

Australia has been a predominantly Christian country.

Christian charities may have an army of unpaid volunteers who raise money and help many of the disadvantaged, but how efficient are they?.

If they stopped doing so, do you really think that the government could not step in ... or, provide this aid without massive hikes in taxation . - yes

If every religious school closed its doors, .. there would be no need for erecting new schools as the existing religious schools facilities could be used, even by lease

Children who attend a state school do take general religious studies; in a lot of cases they can only be excused special religious education by fighting a very religious Principal.

If one seeks to volunteer to a charity, the available charity does not have to be a religious one.

Danielle wrote: ‘Christian charities have an army of unpaid volunteers who raise money and help many of the disadvantaged ... If one seeks to volunteer to a charity, the available charity is most likely to be a religious one.’

There are in fact numerous non-sectarian as well as religious charitable and humanitarian organisations, and thousands of volunteers who work for them (as I happen do for two of them), but such statistics are in the end simply a matter of historical circumstance and not one of moral consequence. In any case, no obvious or useful inferences can be drawn from any such statistics in judging whether some political regimen other than secular democracy is better able to allow the maximum possible freedom to individuals to hold any worldview, religious or otherwise, and to pursue its implications in ways and through practices that do not harm or restrict the freedom of others.

Respect for those specific human rights and values is the best single reason for the structural principle which obliges governments to keep their constitutional distance from religious and philosophical life-framing worldviews by providing no funding, subsidies or institutional endorsement to any one of them. In spite of the widespread assumption that this principle prevails by virtue of the Constitution, Australian governments fail to observe it in a number of significant ways. This is a shortcoming in need of a remedy, since it remains the case until it can be clearly demonstrated otherwise that freedom of religion is better guaranteed by secular democracies than by alternative political regimes.

'Political secularism means government independent of, and thus separated from, matters pertaining to personal moral life-stances, religious or otherwise; neither favouring nor disfavouring any of them; hearing all but preferring none.'

Meg has given a pretty good definition of the secular ideal, to which most, I think, religious or not, would want to espouse. Unfortunately she is inconsistent, contradicts herself several times, and displays a thinly veiled antagonism towards religion not worthy of the secular ideal.

I believe goverment is supposed to build roads and infrastructure, police the borders, uphold Laura Norda, etc. etc. They are not supposed to tell us what to think or what to or not to believe. Secularism is a principle upheld by most Christians who don't want to be told by governments what to believe.

Meg doesn't seem to realize that there is a form of secularism already upheld in the constitution.

Others' flags, such as GB, Denmark, Greece, have Christian crosses. All flags are a rich mixture of historical colours and symbols. We can change them if we want, but to change them simply because they touch on religious sybolism displays a discrimination which is not neutral. 

That Meg assumes that pro-life advocates, whether religious or otherwise, only have religion (and not other concrrns) as their basis displays her prejudice.

All community based organizations, whether sporting, charitable, religious, or whatever (even commercial) are often taxed at different rates according to what is deemed to be their contribution to society. That Meg objects to churches' contributions displays her duplicity.

When she mentions Dawkins and Hitchens, are we allowed to critique their views openly in educational settings? I would suspect that she'll say no, for she wouldn't have mentioned their names unless they were her favourite sons.

Though she louds secularism, she consistently gives evidence to her first myth, that the modern secularists are quite the antagonists to religion.    

Look at the contradiction (perhaps hypocracy?) between the first paragraph and the last. Wallace begins by saying secularism is not anti-religious. Secularism is -  

" neither favouring nor disfavouring any [religious stance]; hearing all but preferring none."

She finishes by speaking of:

The "failure of religionists to accept responsibility for their own shortcomings," and their other 'failures' and 'problems'.  

She starts off saying "The state is not concerned with what you believe." She finishes very concerned to show her own judgements and preferences against religion.