Philo
Thanks. You actually have reduced the number of things I (stupidly) worry about. But you have also now made it necessary for me to find the time to read that other article and its comments.

Actually though I am a Christian I do not display religious icons or have Crucifixes, however I see no reason why Catholics and others desire their display.

Posted by Philo, Thursday, 20 October 2011 4:13:53 PM

Yes! Thank you for that!
Kind Regards.

GlenC, your question is very idealistic and for that you deserve some credit. Unfortunatly though, the presupposition of your question shows that you've missed the entire point.

The point is that people do not agree with each other about which worldview has a "probability of being false (of) 99%" and which view is likely to be true. Therefore, there has to be a way of sharing the public space that functions to allow these disagreements by not automatically priveliging some views over others by default. My proposal achieves this by being fair and democratic. The proposals of many modern day secularists (who would completely banish religious ideas from the public square if they had their way) are not fair and democratic- they are the totalitarian dreams of thought police wannabes.

"As Habermas has pointed out, in order to be "neutral" the sate (sic) must be agnostic, which is not the same as secularist."

A state may profess a religious faith but still accept pluralism. Respect translated as an acceptance of the other's and a non-imposition of one's "worldviews" is the key factor.

Agnosticism by definition does not affirm nor deny the existence of God holding that the phenomena could not be proved or disproved by material means. An open mind is thus maintained until "proof" could be had, stance quite apart from neutrality's impartiality -- essentially a chosen indifference amidst cognisance of opposing arguments.

A state may profess a religious faith but still accept pluralism.

Posted by shawn, Sat 22 Oct, 12:12:10am

A governing entity may profess a religious faith, for itself or for the state, yet it is unlikely all members of the state will follow it or even accept it.