Note how The Acolyte Rizla and Suseonline spew out their intolerance of community diversity. They are a sad group of intolerant individuals indoctrinated by secular atheistic socialism that have nothing of real value to contribute to a society of families. Their agenda is to silence cultural diversity and opposition to their agenda in the public place.

The true hero of community is the one who gives their life for the true liberty and betterment of all people.

Pablo Jiménez Lobeira uses equivocation in the final paragraph to skew the concept of neutrality

In saying ".. in order to be "neutral" the [state] must be agnostic, which is not the same as secularist. An exclusively Secular Humanist public sphere would be no more impartial than, say, an exclusively Christian or Muslim one."

.... he narrows secularism into secular humanist.

He denies the view secularism per se can be equally inclusive of all belief systems. He also commits the reification fallacy by saying " .. in order to be "neutral" the [state] must be agnostic" - the state does not have to be anything.
............................................

Trav's post (Tuesday, 18 Oct, 4:27:43pm) overstates freedoms in relation to religion - secularism is about freedom of all belief systems and none, not just freedom of religion. Secularism means society (via the State?) includes all belief systems, by excluding any one belief system from dominating.
.........................................

The views Posted by David Pollock, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 7:13:05 PM are worth repeating

>> The court "inverted the question of neutrality into a test of indoctrination (saying in effect “nothing short of indoctrination can be a breach of human rights”)

> The judgement - seriously flawed, grossly illogical and unworthy of the Court - was reached in the face of an unprecedented campaign of political and religious pressure on the Court. <<
..

You must be thinking of someone else entirely, diver dan.

>>Pericles:...You express a distaste for the “Antecedent”, but as in maths, discover the inequality<<

I don't recognize a single comprehensible statement in that sentence. I simply pointed out that the consideration of this issue - probably at considerable expense - by a court of any kind, ultimately brings the functioning of that court into disrepute.

For what it is worth, I believe that the original complaint, that seems to imbue a piece of wood on a wall with some kind of mind-altering significance, sufficient indeed to disturb the individual concerned, is the worst form of self-righteousness imaginable.

The whole thing should have been solved with a simple "it's piece of wood, for goodness' sake. Get over yourself."

By even taking the matter to court in the first place, the complainant tacitly accepts that the piece of wood somehow has supernatural properties. Which of course simply plays into the hands of the religious folk who believe exactly that.

Whatever next? A complaint that the presence of our coat of arms on the wall of the court is a violation of one's rights, because you believe it represents the fascist oppression by the country's elite of ordinary men and women?

Actually, on reflection, that sounds kinda fun.

I'm off to find a Human Rights lawyer who'll take it on. They love this stuff, it all helps towards their six weeks in Aspen.

Religion is a private matter not a public one, just as atheism is a private matter and should not be forced into public schools. All views are equally able to be expressed.

The beauty of a secular society is that many views co-exist unlike Philo's outraged attack above who only sees the religious conformist view as valid.

There are already religious schools who allow all manner of wooden symbols as they like, but please keep public schools religion free. It is just too expensive to have religious public schools that cater for every belief - Muslim public schools, Catholic public schools, Presbyterian public schools, Taoist public schools etc to accommodate everybody's belief systems. Public schools are about education they should not exist as tools for the religious lobbies in a civilised society.

Why do religious people like Philo have to make accusatory statements like that unfairly doled out to Suze and Acolyte. Religous people are free to live as they see fit within the law as any other person. Religious people are free to take their children to the local Church and Bible School.

Why do some religious folk think non-secularism is better when clearly around the world people are killed who do not conform to the primary religious doctrine. eg. Taliban. Coptic Christians in Egypt are rallying to be allowed to live in peace without being killed by forces allied to the prevailing Islamic rule. I cannot see how supporting secularism deserves the intolerance spewed out by Philo above.

Christian History is not persecution free when it was the dominating influence. Christianity has thankfully moved on from this bloody period thanks to a greater tolerance bought about by secularism.

The protections inherent in 'Thou shalt not kill' should apply to all not just to the prevailing dogma.

...How I love to see the secularists squirm under conditions of defeat!

The Acolyte Rizla,

There is simply no democratic , neutral, and fair reason for this presupposition that, automatically "religion should be kept private".

If we allow the views of secularists to dominate then effectively they are allowed to dominate the public square, and that is no more fair than simply deciding upfront that the public square should be covered in religion symbolism! That is the whole point that the Law professor from New York was making.

The fair answer is to make the public square neutral- ie: No one view dominates by default, but instead the public square is shared according to the views of the people whom share that public square. That is a democratic and reasonable solution, unlike your totalitarian and intolerant presupposition that one view is automatically excluded from the public sphere.