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.