The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > If freedom of religion is the question, secularism is the answer > Comments

If freedom of religion is the question, secularism is the answer : Comments

By Chrys Stevenson, published 1/4/2011

The HREOC report Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century subliminally accepts Christianity as the default position.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
@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.
Posted by Dan Dare, Saturday, 2 April 2011 11:34:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@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.
Posted by Dan Dare, Saturday, 2 April 2011 11:42:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by David Palmer, Saturday, 2 April 2011 12:24:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"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.
Posted by McReal, Saturday, 2 April 2011 1:28:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by McReal, Saturday, 2 April 2011 1:36:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by David Palmer, Saturday, 2 April 2011 2:59:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy