Theists cannot be trusted, because they believe in a higher goal than achieving trust -- pleasing their deities. If a committed theist believes their god wants them to lie, steal, cheat or murder then they will do so without compunction. And since atheists don't have access to the content of the messages they are currently getting from On High, we can never know what their real goals are. So in dealing with theists, get it in writing and be prepared to invoke a higher power -- I mean the courts -- at any time.

Secularism is not the answer. Secularism is the death knell to a society that is already at the brink of going out of control. There is no moral standard and everything is relative and I am not surprised that the outcome of a report is so vague. We need to go back to basics and uphold the Ten Commandments and see society getting back to civility and not the abuse and and disrespect that we see played out in the media and on the streets.

Which ten commandments shall we uphold and from whose particular list Jeshua?

How about we just have laws to dictate how people should behave towards one another and property along with the consequences and make them apply to everyone no matter their belief system?

How about the laws are made with all people in mind and not any particular sect? It’s a radical concept and would be bloody strange for people to object – you’d think they’d have some weird ulterior motives for doing so. :P

Laws that affect everyone should be based on reason, evidence and compassion. People can believe whatever they like on the basis of freedom of religion, but basing laws on any religion is not "freedom" it is the imposition of that religion on the rest of us. Secularism is the only system that protects the religious and the non-religious alike.

Many perceive Secularism as a negative, when it can also be a positive by allowing an equal space for all beliefs and not allowing one to dominate over others.

The Ten Commandments are simplistic, with 4 repeating an order to obey a deity, and 2 more saying don't covet what your neighbour has. The other 4 are pretty basic tenets for any society.

Great points raised by this article.

jeshua, I take it you would favour Australia becoming a Theocracy (as this is essentially what using the Bible as law would entail).

Civility I will agree is needed, yes, but there has to be a common ground on which society operates. Religions, being distinct from each other in often quite fundamental ways, cannot form that common ground without alienating or persecuting others.

Secular societies allow religions as well as secularists to thrive.

The most revealing part of this post is that the author is identified at the end as an atheist, which is fine and her right to comment just as I as a Christian have that same right, but we all need to understand the implacable opposition of atheism to religion.

The point about Religious Freedom is that it was included in the first cluster of rights enshrined in British 1689 Bill of Rights, still part of the statute Book at least in Victoria. It came about in the first place because of the persecution of religious believers, mainly Presbyterians and other dissenters under the reign of the Stuarts.

There is very extensive international law in favour of freedom of conscience, thought and religion: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - read the preamble, Art 1 Art 18, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights read Art 2 18 (esp), 20, 25 and 27. If you look at Art 18.3, the limitation to religious freedom clause it is very narrowly focused limitation, especially when read in the light of the 1984 Siracusa Declaration.

The fact is the AHRC was overwhelmed by the quantity and quality of submissions from religious bodies and individual adherents of religions arguing for religious freedom and basically chose to back off on one very big bun fight.

Atheists just need to get over it. Religious people are not going to back down or back off trying to influence Government policy just in the same way we don't expect atheists to back off – we just expect that they should grow up!

In my view Bouma, Cahill, Dellal and Zwartz did a good job. BTW, for the record their report contains no recommendations.

This country needs "freedom FROM religion" incorporated into our Constitution, not just "freedom of religion"

It is not surprising that the motley collection of Human Rights puritans is down on religion in Australia, religions used to be the definers as to what consituted acceptable beahviour in any society, and every societies laws were very influenced by their particular religion.

So, it is natural that the HREOC advocates see religions as their competitors.

It is funny how today's human rights advocate has a very religious attitude to their own dogma, which claims that Human Rights as defined by the UN is the ultimate in moral virtue, clearly superior and taking precedence over any other belief system.

So, it is hardly surprising that Chrys Stevenson is an advocate for secularism as a way to ease her religious competitors out of their historically pre eminent positions, so that her own Human Rights religion can become the belief system which defines behaviour today.

As a retired academic, I was horrified to learn that two professors had lent their names to a document which severely misrepresents the results of the National Church Life Survey. I look forward to reading their explanation or, preferably, their apology.

David Palmer, 11:23:28am

Yes, religious persecution has been going on ever since religions were first devised, before 1689, including persecution of the non-religious. Special reference to Presbyterians is not necessary. Your holier-than-thou commentary towards others does you, or your advocacy for religion, no favours.

From the view point of the government, which is the publicity wing of real "economic" governance, it doesn't matter what belief system or morality we opt for, so long as it keeps things settled and the business of maintaining markets and making money is optimised. We are deluded if we think beliefs--religious, irreligious or secular--are of the least importance in the scheme of things. Beliefs are our private indulgences that we attempt to hold sacred amid the hurdy gurdy of the stock exchange.

Jon J,
Please expound your charge here with evidence from the teachings from the New Testament.
Claim, "If a committed theist believes their god wants them to lie, steal, cheat or murder then they will do so without compunction".

Squeers
By your own account, you are deluded if you believe your own theory. Or perhaps, like Marx

What's wrong with the Old Testament, Philo? Plenty of examples of lying, cheating, stealing and murdering for God there. And it's the same God -- isn't it?

As an atheist of long standing, I’m not inclined to defend ‘religion’. Nevertheless, I have to say that Chrys’s argument is fundamentally flawed.

Religion is ubiquitous, from prehistory to the present, in all cultures, in all places. The only human characteristic which might be considered comparably fundamental is language. Why?

The advantage of language is obvious: it’s an extremely efficient way to share useful information, and to facilitate action as a group. It’s also an expensive faculty for evolution to design and maintain, so the rewards must be enormous. Collective memory, capacity to cooperate, and ability to specialise, are incomparable incomparable evolutionary advantages.

Social relationships, however are very difficult to manage. They’re not logical, or consistent. Game Theory gives us the Prisoner’s Dilemma: even if it’s in our best interests to do so, we can’t always afford to cooperate. An optimal social strategy is to cooperate most of the time (share food, tell the truth, don’t steal, sleep with your designated partner) ... but not all the time. If you’re perceived by others as predictable, you’re vulnerable. Get it right, your genes/culture are conserved. Get it wrong ...

Human groups evolve ‘ethical systems’ to simplify, standardise, and promulgate rules defining what behaviours are appropriate, what sanctions for misbehaviours are allowed, and when/how the group should punish or reward certain behaviours.

That’s what we call ‘religion’. It’s generally preserved and promulgated as ‘story’ because it’s important that young children learn the local ‘ethics’ long before they’re sufficiently mature to make good use of rule-based logic. (Notice that a 3-yr-old can recall even a fairly long story after one hearing, but can’t abide an essay for 30 seconds). Story is also more memorable: many dumb people can recall most of the bible, few smart ones can recall Wittgenstein, or Kant.

Language, culture and ethical systems all exist in a Darwin Machine. They’re in constant competition. They interbreed. The strongest thrive, the weakest face extinction. Plumping for secular humanism, Catholicism, Islam or Scientology just powers the Darwin Machine. Preachers, by definition, are never right. The Darwin Machine is never wrong.

Jon J,
I said the New Testament because it is shorter and contains the teachings of Christ. Then start in the OT as someone has suggested the 10 Commandments - Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal are the principles of the Law. There are certainly examples of people who did not obey the Laws but they were not sanctioned by God. Understand the principles of the Laws as interpreted by Christ - demonstrate Love and forgivness to your enemy.

Philo -- one word: Jephtha.

Same God, right?

@David Palmer, whether Chrys is an atheist or not is neither here or there. You need to argue the issues, not the person.

Additionally "atheism" is not a movement, it is "not believing in deities" so it is incapable of having "implacable opposition" to deities. I am an atheist and I find my religious friends quite uplifting and we share a good deal of ethical consideration. My only "implacable opposition" is to the idea that one of us should be able to impose their world view on the rest of us with the weight of law, without the weight of proper secular argument.

Yes, the UN Charter on human rights is quite specific about religious freedom. I fail to see the relevance to the issue at hand. Are you asserting that secularism is anti-religion?

My understanding of secularism is merely that law and governance does does not accept purely religious argument in its deliberations. So if the proponents of one religion claim that all women should have their feet bound compulsorily then the government would ignore those claims. Only non-religious claims regarding foot binding and its necessity would be considered. That does not mean that those putting forward such non-religious claims have no religious intent or passions, merely that the arguments must be considered on secular grounds.

The fact that the AHRC "chose to back off on one very big bun fight" is, in fact, dereliction of duty. That fight and identifying its constituents and boundaries was an important part of their charter. They were supposed to properly lay out the landscape.

@donkeygod

You state Chrys' argument is "fundamentally flawed" and then fail to address her argument, which was that the meta analysis failed to do a proper job and that for religion to flourish the functions of government need to be religious stance neutral, even if the membership of the government are not.

Instead you give us some waffle about the role and nature of religion in society and some pseudo Darwinian stuff about memes, all of which is debatable but off topic. My only comment on that is that "religion" is not the only device by which ethics are enacted and morals formed.

Hi Dan Dare,

I'm pleased you enjoy friendship with religious people

You missed my point about Chrys' article She had a particular point to make. I found it relevant, and it certainly explained why she wrote this particular article that she was a self identified atheist. As a religious person, if I enter debate, the fact that I am religious is constantly thrown in my face as if that disenfranchises me from expressing any viewpoint that might be derived from my religious faith. If others find it pertinent to what I say that I am a Christian then it can't be too surprising that I find, say, that the person expressing a particular opinion does so on the basis of an atheistic mindset.

It was highly relevant for me to raise the international law in favour of freedom of conscience, thought and religion because there were people like Chrys argued in their submissions to the enquiry against any rights for religion and religious people in public life. Chrys herself failed to mention the protection afforded freedom of conscience, thought and religion, a rather telling omission in my opinion.

Secularism as expressed by those who use secularism as an offensive weapon to curtail the right of, say, religious schools to employ staff who share the religious faith of the community do so for anti religious reasons, no question. Foot binding in an Australian context is neither here nor there, but imposing restrictions on the choice that religious bodies can make in respect of their employment policies certainly is. In this case 'secularism' can become very coercive, intolerant and anti religious.

"those who use secularism as an offensive weapon to curtail the right of, say, religious schools to employ staff who share the religious faith of the community do so for anti religious reasons, no question."

There are those who propose that, but there are not those explicitly use "secularism as an offensive weapon". For what it is worth, I don't have a problem with "the right of religious schools to employ staff who share the religious faith of the *school* community".

" .. 'secularism' can become very coercive, intolerant and anti religious."

yet it shouldn't and shouldn't be portrayed as such. Proper use of and description of Secularism should protect the rights and spaces of religions

Please do not conflate secularism with anti-theism or even just atheism.

correction/addition

there are not those *who* explicitly use "secularism as an offensive weapon" - no-one can under the true, positive definition of secularism.

Plenty take offence under the guise of being attacked by it, though.

You may be right McReal that some may not use "secularism as an offensive weapon", if you say so, but experience has a way of teaching otherwise.

Historically, there has always been a distinction between the religious and the secular which can be quite neutral. Unfortunately with the rise of the strident anti religious, specifically anti Christian voice, the word secular has acquired new meanings as in secular humanism and secularism which are terms used in distinction to, and increasingly in opposition to a Christian worldview, and unfortunately at times can be distinctly nasty. On blogs such as this people use the anonymity of names like McReal or whatever which gives them the license to say what they like, the nastier the better. On the basis of your two posts I can see you are a person who is willing to engage in conversation, but there are all too few of you which is why I’m an infrequent visitor to the comments section.

I sign by my own name, David Palmer

David,

I would equally contend that there are religious people who call themselves secular - secular Christians, secular Muslims, secular Hindus, etc, and there are other religious people who ascribe a narrow negative definition to secularism increasingly in denial of, or opposition to, a truly belief-neutral worldview.

True secularism should allow equal space for all religions, and all divisions with each religion (eg denominations), to have equal space regardless of the [relative] numbers of their adherents.

As far as my anonymity, I assure you I would get a really hard time in my career and employment if my colleagues knew I posted pro- positive-secular views online.

David,

employers do not have a right to require anything of their employees outside of their ability to do the job and obey the law. Having some religious, philosophical or political bent gives no employer the right to impose conformity to that employers ideals. It may or may not be possible to enforce neutrality rules on employers but that does not change the ideal.

Again, this is off topic.

You mention failings in Chrys' presentation but once more you do not give a detailed account, your give no argument in support of your case.

As for on line anonymity it does not matter who people are in an discussion if you focus only on the issues. There is no room in such a discussion for personal attacks and smears, they are of no consequence to the discussion and should be refrained from in any case.

Theocracies are more likely, as history shows, to instil dogmatic and dictatorial regimes than any secular nation to date.

Secularism is a concept embraced by all Christians I am acquainted with so to argue, as some posters do, that secularism is an atheist concept is just plain wrong.

Secularism is not perfect. How can it be? Look at some of the more extraordinary groups secularism has allowed to benefit from taxation exemptions or allowed some latitude in abusive behaviours (slave labour, withholding of family members, isolation etc). Many religions are listed officially despite some pretty shaky claims.

Truth is often stranger than fiction and there are all types of listed religions - those who are into alien influences, mysterious plaques found in a wooden box that by chance only one man can interpret, groups that believe in a vengeaful God that will only take a handful of 'true' believers when D Day arrives, those who treat their womenfolk as lesser than animals...the list goes on. In a secular world no one sect has any more validity than any other. How is a religion defined? What is the criteria? Could anyone start their own sect or religious order and be proclaimed as such - clearly they can.

So secularism is not perfect, once you make a place for all religions you will get all manner of groups. The trick is being firm in expectations as regards to common protections under Common Law.

The test of secular societies is not only to make a place for all manner of belief systems, but to sever those ties between religion and State in matters of undue influence over Common Law.

Secularism has a greater chance than theocracy - it allows options, provides consistency and stablility in the judiciary, and in worst case scenarios an escape route from the more restrictive and terrorising belief systems.

Atheists spend a lot of time talking about Christanity. They have a particularly primitive view of Christianity, focussing upon the idea of what they see as the 'the supernatural' putting Christian beliefs in the same category as belief in ghosts etc This is a very unsophisticated view of Christian beliefs.

It is no accident that 20th century despotic regimes are characterised by the banning of religious practices. Religion is a threat to despots and others who want to control the behaviour of the populace.

Forcing religion out of the population is no less damaging than forcing religion on the population. Freedom to believe or not, is an important thing to maintain in society.

David Palmer,
I totally agree with the view that secularism has taken on a totally new and recent definition of meaning i.e. atheism, opposition to spiritual. When I went to school 60 years ago "secular" meant affairs of Government compared to affairs of spirit as served by the Church. Secular was defined as attending to physical needs like getting food, water, body health, employment, transport etc. All people need these natural things, and we all have a human responsibility to each other to assist in gaining them, not all people have a need or responsibility to the needs of another's spiritual beliefs.

Update: If only Professor Bouma's Freedom of Religion and Belief report had been as frank as his assessment of religious education in Victoria. See Michael Bachelard's report in "The Age": http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/priest-slams-religion-curriculum-as-appalling-20110402-1csld.html

"THE way Victoria offered religious education was ''not on'', the Christian curriculum was ''crap'' and the education department was ill equipped to stand up to religious ''bullies'', according to Melbourne priest and academic Professor Gary Bouma."

"Professor Bouma described the Christian curriculum developed by Access Ministries as ''just appalling''. ''Now, unfortunately, most of the Christians out there trying to train the next generation are putting them off with the kind of crap they serve,'' he said.

I'm for secularism; separation of Government, Judiciary, and Religion. I think Obama put the case pretty well.

There is surely much to be derived from an understanding of the teachings, practices and mores of a variety of the world's mainstream and not so mainstream religions - Christian, Islamic, Hebrew, Hindu and Buddhist, etc. It could serve our students well, and hence our society, to be exposed to the tenets of behaviour upheld, and the foundation of these. Hence I believe a well-founded course in Inter-faith studies is an essential mandatory addition to our national curriculum, and should include ethics and philosophy.

Whatever set of social mores is practiced in Japan has got to be worth studying - the stoicism of the survivors of the recent hell on earth demonstrates an enviable outlook on social behaviour. Their school system also, given the quality of its output.

It is certain that there needs to be a system of social norms established to govern acceptable conduct. In Oz we are sadly lacking.

I agree that religion has played this role in the past, but, as has been pointed out, that influence has been losing sway in leaps and bounds. Also, in an increasingly multicultural mix, there is need of greater sensitivity to diverse needs, but an equally great need for a standard set of rules to apply to all. Such rules therefore must be established in law and by, and for, government.

There is a decision to be made:
.Whether individuals should be expected to make choices in the common good and national interest, even though contrary to their own individual self-interest; OR,
.Whether "dog eat dog" and "survival of the fittest" is to prevail.

There is an increasing need for order in the world, and it all has to start at home, in school, in our streets and workplaces. From there the long climb to the halls of government and the international scene.

Someone had a view of "get your genes out there" being his great life philosophy. I say to them "get your brains off your balls" or p-off.

I'm new here.

On the topic of freedom of religion and secularism being the answer; for my mind, this speech given by former High Court Justice Kirby at Tedx Sydney last year sums it up perfectly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26c56A9-ac0

Welcome to OLO, Chance.

Micheal Kirby's speech provided an excellent summary of the protection that secularism provides to both the religious and non-religious alike.

>>Posted by lockhartlofty, Friday, 1 April 2011 11:28:22 AM

>>This country needs "freedom FROM religion" incorporated into our Constitution, not just "freedom of religion">>

Amen to that brother!

Welcome Chance.

I agree with Ammonite - Kirby's speech beautifully encapsulates the spirit and protections inherent in secularism.

Barrracudaaa,
The article is useful but not respects the tradition of belief.
People enjoy their wills is before the grave. But I am strongly believe in Christian so that I will not ;
rename my religion name to Islam,
use to call Allah as my God,
accept Prophet Mohd as Jesus,
retitle Kuran as Bible.
No human could compromise the religious guide-lines by interpretation or other means.

Very many of us agree with both i) secularism, as the preferred foundation of government, law, and national identity, and ii) the right of each individual to practice (or not practice) his or her chosen religion - as long as it is in a manner which does not impact or could not impact deleteriously on the rights and freedoms of others, or on the state.

That being said, the problem (or question) is HOW to convince the vast bulk of humanity to adopt similarly enlightened views and attitudes. By this I don't mean that anyone should try to convert others to any particular religion (or to no religion). No! Just to the proposition that the separation of religion and state is essential for the effective and harmonious conduct of national and international affairs, and that no religious, or irreligious, practices should act to interfere with that harmony.

Some would argue that no-religion is the best religion, and there are many sound reasons for such a viewpoint - the damage done by some convert-seeking enthusiasts, the radical world view held by some movements, the excessive zeal demonstrated by various fanatical, and not so fanatical, fringe (and not so fringe) elements.

However, though there are various conflicts of religious doctrine causing a variety of problems in the world today, there remain some valuable teachings in the mainstream religions for the harmonious and ethical conduct of interpersonal and business relations. Such teachings are worth building upon.

Additionally, it is unrealistic to think that somehow all humanity could experience some universal catharsis or revelation whereby all become committed to some universal and infinitely ethical, compassionate, tolerant and just set of teachings and truths.

Oh, for the achievement of humanitarian humanity!

I believe the focus should be on freedom and justice for all, whilst actively pursuing the preservation of the planet, AND that this can only be achieved by capable nations pursuing these objectives through exercising true brotherhood towards all humanity.

Saltpetre,
I totally agree with your opening paragraph. However values cannot be excluded from a secular Government. Different religions have different values, and if government does not accommodate them then the government does not govern for this person.

Examples, the blasphemy or honour laws of Islam,
The Government funding of abortion for convenience that violates the social conscience of "right to life" belief that taxes should not fund such. The Government funding of Catholic Youth Celebration, or the funding of Gay Mardi Graz.

All these are values that are held by some sections of the community that are based in moral religious values. They are not based purely upon secular decisions.