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. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
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.
Posted by McReal, Saturday, 2 April 2011 3:27:20 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
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.
Posted by Dan Dare, Saturday, 2 April 2011 5:56:35 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
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.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 2 April 2011 9:41:58 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
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.
Posted by Atman, Saturday, 2 April 2011 10:06:48 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
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.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 3 April 2011 8:16:54 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
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.
Posted by Chrys Stevenson, Sunday, 3 April 2011 10:23:37 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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