"Christianity is the critique of all religion including the secular kind that declares that it is not a religion. In the final analysis, secularism does not really exist."

Waffle.

Secular mythology beautifully articulated by the authour. Seems so obvious to younger Christians why separating christians from the state was bogus from the get-go and its so hard to believe why church leaders thought it was a good idea two centuries ago, what with the almost constant war, genocides and addiction to usury that has followed :(

Peter, your articles are great examples in the kind of gymnastics loops and distortions your mind needs to go trough to hold religious beliefs these days.

Secularism is a simple concept it's the idea that no one religion is favored by the state. Paganism is not equal to Secularism, Paganism is a label Christian invented for non Christian religions, generally animistic in nature.

"A key function of the Church is iconoclasm, the destruction of idols." this is the funniest part, I regulatory observe Christian carting Idols around. Islam is far more Idol free then Christians Peter.

«Religion is that which, after the Latin, binds.»

Extending this definition out of context is unwarranted.
Religion is that which binds us to God - and in so doing, releases us from the bondage to the world.

What a hoot - the Christian church as an iconoclastic institution.

But does conventional exoteric "religion", the kind of "religion" that Sells advocates, have anything to do with Truth and Reality?
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/noface.html

And what if it is based on the same three mind-based myths as the secular world view, and as such is patterned and controlled by the same narcissistic doubt-mind that (mis)-informs the now world dominant secular paradigm in which we are now all trapped - Weber's Iron Cage
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/three_great_myths.html
http://www.dabase.org/doubt.htm
http://www.beezone.com/narcissus.html

I am an atheist and I am a very good man :)

So which "christians" are right ones sells? You seem to think they are all the same.
Is it the mormons, the catholics, the adventists? Maybe its the clappers, or one of those snake sects in the US. Is it them fellas I see on TV all the time asking for money? What about those orthodox folk, hillsong, the jehovas or the protestants?
The jews think it is them.

See how stupid your babble is now. You dont speak for ALL xians.
You dont even speak LIKE most xians.
You just rant garbage in the hope that we wont notice your glaringly illogical argument which you cant back up with anything better than "I feel it" or "I want it to be true".

And what has "idolatry" got to do with he real question behind secularism? Whether your god is real or not?
Stop with the baffle them with BS method of proselytizing and just be honest.
Do you believe and worship the god of the bible and why?

.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« Secularism is an ideology … »

Not according to the Oxford English Dictionary : it is “the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions”
.

You also wrote :

« Secularism … tells us that … there exists a neutral and rational sphere of knowledge … to the exclusion of any religious knowledge »

No, it does not.

Religious knowledge is “knowledge about religious matters” (OED definition). An obvious example of “religious knowledge” is knowledge of the history and beliefs of the major world religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Animist Religions, etc.

What you call the “neutral and rational sphere of knowledge” does not exclude religious knowledge. It includes it.

Acquiring knowledge of religious beliefs is perfectly neutral and rational. But actually adopting such beliefs is far from neutral. Nor does religious belief find its justification in reason. It is an act of faith.
.

Allow me to add that, to the best of my knowledge, Peter - but please correct me if I am wrong - there is nothing in Christian doctrine to prevent you, as an Anglican deacon, from advocating (and adopting) secularism, yourself, respectful of the neutrality of the State as regards religious beliefs or lack of them.

I imagine you would not be very happy if the State decided to impose some religion on you that was not of your own free choosing.

In my humble opinion, Peter, a little tolerance in this domain, on your part, would not go amiss. It might even be preferable. Don't you think ?

.

Dear Milena,

The article did not mention or discuss atheism - it was about secularism.

You can be an atheist, yet religious and good; or conversely you could believe in God, yet be secular and bad.

Churches and similar establishments have no monopoly on God, religion or goodness.

A person could believe in God and whatever else their church teaches, but if for example, they do whatever they believe it takes, including killing others, in order to attain heaven and obtain 72 virgins there, then they are a perfect example of secularity, because what they seek is not God, but sexual gratification.

---

Dear Banjo,

If 'secularism' is only about separation of state and church then I also fully subscribe to it. Certainly, churches need to be protected from the corrupting influence of worldly power.

However, one of the uses of the word 'secular' is derived from the Latin 'saecularis', or "worldly" - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular
I think that this is the sense of the word which the author meant.

Yuyutsu,

Milena is a spammer. You’ve just replied to a spammer. They're not going to see your response, I'm sorry to say.

OLO’s getting a lot of these lately: they post short, pointless, semi-relevant comments in the hope that some click the little house icon to visit their webpage so that it gets more hits.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You suggest :

« … one of the uses of the word 'secular' is derived from the Latin 'saecularis', or "worldly" - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=secular I think that this is the sense of the word which the author meant »

You could be right, Yuyutsu, but I’m afraid we’ll never know.

The dictionary also indicates another meaning for “secular”, dating from the 1850s :

« In English, in reference to humanism and the exclusion of belief in God from matters of ethics and morality »

In fact, the word Peter employed was “secularism” and the same Online Etymology Dictionary indicates the following meaning for “secularism” :

« doctrine that morality should be based on the well-being of man in the present life, without regard to religious belief or a hereafter, 1846 » :

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=secularism

However, we should not lose sight of the fact that Latin is now what is known as a “dead language”. It is no longer spoken and has ceased to evolve – though, theoretically, it remains the official language of the Holy See and the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

I do not see why we should presume that Peter, who is, apparently, a deacon in the Anglican Church and holds a university degree in biology, is attributing a sense to the word “secularism” which is different from that of the Oxford English Dictionary, the recognized authority in the English language.

He has every right to do so if he wishes but, in that case, he should indicate his own definition. As he didn't, I can only presume that he is employing the word as it is generally understood.

Anyway, whatever meaning he attributes to the word “secularism”, Section 116 of the Australian Constitution is quite clear on the matter :

« The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth »

That's fine with me.

.

Dear Banjo,

«I can only presume that he is employing the word as it is generally understood.»

Personally, unless in a political context, I understand 'secular' to mean "worldly", or "one who has regard for things of the world" (and to the extant of their secularity, for nothing else). How about the others here?

«The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth»

What a joke! It's like expecting a blind person to observe the traffic lights. How could they possibly tell what's religious and what's not? There are only two ways they could follow this constitution, either:

1. Allow everyone to do anything, including murder (as is the case in Islam) and fraud (as is the case in Scientology), just in case it may be religious; or
2. Employ a perfect sage/seer that would tell them what's religious and what's not - but then, how could they possibly tell who is a perfect sage/seer (if even there is one in the land who is willing to do that job)?

Yuyutsu asks: “Personally, unless in a political context, I understand 'secular' to mean "worldly", or "one who has regard for things of the world" (and to the extant of their secularity, for nothing else). How about the others here?”

No, I agree with Banjo Paterson. If Sells was using an archaic and obsolete definition of the word ‘secular’, then he needed to state that from the outset. Otherwise he is committing the Equivocation fallacy and the Etymological fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

So, no matter which way you frame it, there was something terribly wrong with his article.

I think we are rather pagan but your point of view is interesting.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … I understand 'secular' to mean "worldly" … »

That is what you indicated in your previous post : « the word 'secular' is derived from the Latin 'saecularis', or 'worldly' ».

An English newspaper editor by the name of George Jacob Holyoake coined the term “secularism” in the mid-19th century to denote : “a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life” (cf. page 60 of his book “English Secularism”). He felt that the Latin term “saecularis” resonated reasonably well with his idea and invented the English term “secularism” borrowing on that Latin term.

Here is the book :

http://archive.org/details/englishsecularis00holyiala

There was a lot of confusion at first as to what “secularism” actually meant. Religious fundamentalists and conservatives declared that it was simply another term for “atheism”. Holyoake explained it more explicitly in “The Principles of Secularism”, published in 1870 :

« Secularism is [that which seeks] the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point, as the immediate duty of society : inculcating the practical sufficiency of natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism or Christianity » (cf. page 11).

Here is the book :

http://archive.org/details/principlesofsecu00holy

Holyoake was a “free thinker”. His basic idea was to free the individual and society from the shackles of religion. He placed the focus on the material and upon this world rather than the immaterial, the spiritual, or any other world — but he never claimed that secularism involved the absence of religion. The concept of secularism was developed as a non-religious philosophy focused on the needs and concerns of humanity in this life, not the possible needs and concerns associated with any possible afterlife.

The concept evolved over time - despite continuous opposition from religious fundamentalists and conservatives – to its present meaning as defined by the OED, which I already indicated in a previous post :

« the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions »

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

You ask :

« How could they [the Commonwealth] possibly tell what's religious and what's not? »

It’s not easy, Yuyutsu. It’s up to the courts to decide. There have been a number of court decisions and precisions on this subject.

Here are a couple of links that may be of interest to you :

http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/common-law-1

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1266.0main+features102011

.

Dear Banjo,

I think that we can agree that "secularism" and "atheism" are quite different.

I was also unaware of the origins of the word and that "secularism" has, this way or the other, become an exclusively political term, hence I should henceforth use "secular" or "secularity" instead. Either way, a word is still needed to describe, outside of a political context, that which is only concerned with material results.

Both atheists and believing-church-goers can be either secular or religious. Certain coatings of beliefs tend to support and protect their respective secular or religious attitude and behaviours, but this is neither strictly necessary, nor necessarily effective.

As for the political realm, thank you for the links:

(continued)

I can see them stumbling in the dark, to the extent that the best judges in the land approved Scientology as "religion". Members of that terrible cult are tortured, locked up, robbed clean, enslaved, made scared to death and beyond, denied sleep and contact with their families, but technically they have some supernatural believes, a code of conduct and group-affiliation - and that behaviour, in the learned judges' view, is supposed to bring them closer to God ?!?

No, I cannot blame the judges - they only had secular university education, how could they possibly know what leads to God and what doesn't?

The same can be said about those who wrote the Australian constitution:

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance"

This statement is empty, thus unnecessary, because religion cannot be established or imposed on others anyway. There is simply no way whatsoever that one person can cause another to come closer to God (I wish there was!).

What the authors probably meant is that the state should not impose church-like structures on people: I would heartily approve that, but that's not what's currently written.

"or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion,"

Then simply state: "No law shall ever stand in people's path towards God".

"and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth"

Including high-court judges? Then who would interpret the constitution and even vaguely begin to estimate which behaviours lead to God and which do not?

Appointing as guides people who have not traded this path themselves, at least to a significant extent, is a sad joke.

OK, I understand this revised constitution to be of lofty standards, so if the state either cannot or would not distinguish and uphold religious freedom, then alternately it should not prohibit any behaviours whatsoever, lest they accidentally tread over someone's religious path!

Does it matter what you class yourself as. It,s your choice. And no one else's business.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« ... "secularism" has, this way or the other, become an exclusively political term, hence I should henceforth use "secular" or "secularity" instead. Either way, a word is still needed to describe, outside of a political context, that which is only concerned with material results »

According to the OED “secular” means :

« Not connected with religious or spiritual matters. Contrasted with sacred »

It indicates as an example of the usage of the word : “secular buildings”. Another example is : “Nowadays, of course, Christmas is a largely secular affair”.

“Secularity” is simply the noun for which “secular” is the adjective. Both have exactly the same meaning.

They both apply to purely worldly, material matters.

To complete the picture, as you correctly observe, at the difference of “secular” and “secularity”, “secularism” has taken on a distinctive political connotation, meaning : « the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions ».
.

I find it regrettable that Peter seeks to create confusion in the minds of his disciples between the neutrality of “secularism” and what he calls “anti-religion”. It is deliberately misleading.

As the inventor of the word clearly indicated in his two books of explanation, “secularism” is not “anti-religion”. In Australia, as in all modern democracies, secular States guarantee freedom of religion.

According to Peter, “religion” simply means “belief”, belief in anything and everything – belief, in general. He writes :

« Thus, religion cannot be restricted to the known and recognised religions but exists as the common human desire to trust in something and to be bound by that something. Indeed, it is impossible to live without unsupported assumptions and the belief that is derived from them. We are all believers of some kind ».

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

From this, it derives that all belief is “binding” and that all belief is “religion”. Really ?

As AJ Philips commented :

« So, no matter which way you frame it, there was something terribly wrong with his [Peter’s] article ».
.

I share your indignity regarding Scientology being confirmed as a valid religion by the High Court of Australia in 1983 in which it won exemption from payroll tax.

Though Peter makes no mention of it in his article, the High Court decision opens the way for many non-mainstream religions to claim the legal status of a church and all the financial and other privileges that go with that status.

I have no objection to that development, but I do regret the High Court's decision on Scientology.

You ask :

« … who would interpret the constitution and even vaguely begin to estimate which behaviours lead to God and which do not? »

It is not the judges’ duty to “estimate which behaviours lead to God and which do not?”. It is their duty to decide whether the case in hand constitutes a religion or not.

And you observe :

« Appointing as guides people who have not traded this path [presumably, “that leads to God”] themselves, at least to a significant extent, is a sad joke »

A judge is not a “guide”, Yuyutsu. He is a « public officer appointed to decide cases in a law court » (OED definition).

Also, it is not necessary to be an atheist in order to be a judge.

To my knowledge, the only known, declared atheist judge in Australia was Sir John Greig Latham who served as fifth Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia for seventeen years, from 1935 to 1952. He was a prominent rationalist and atheist, after abandoning his parent's Methodism at university.

.

Dear Banjo,

OK, so we agree on the term 'secularism', but then you state that "secular states guarantee freedom of religion": They could be well-intending, but how can anyone guarantee something that they cannot even identify?

You are correctly saying that it is not the judges’ duty to “estimate which behaviours lead to God and which do not?” and even if it were their duty, they still wouldn't have the training, yet this is what the current Australian constitution unrealistically expects them to do because deciding (or at least estimating) what is a religious observance and what is not, is one and the same as deciding (or estimating) whether or not behaving that way leads one to God.

Is it easy to estimate? No, it can be quite hard, there are no solid and infallible indicators and shortcuts because whether or not one is coming closer to God depends on the direction from which they come: to reach the same destination, one may be told to "first cross this valley" while another is told to "climb this hill", all depending on their current position.

But just because it's hard, would it be right to look instead at superficial signs (such as supernatural beliefs, behavioural codes and group-affiliation), just because it's easier? wouldn't this be like the drunk who looks for his keys under the lamppost because the light is better there, rather than where he lost them?

Of course there are also those who believe that "no way leads to God", but if that's the case, then wouldn't you find it strange to have such clauses in a constitution which prevent the state from doing things that cannot be done and protect people's rights to perform things that cannot be done? As a judge, what could you possibly make of it?

(continued...)

(...continued)

Perhaps the constitution never intended to protect religious freedoms, perhaps it's always been a lie or a lip-service, perhaps the whole idea was to to create a coalition/alliance between the powerful state and other powerful organisations (i.e. churches), perhaps the politicians never even considered the individual's striving to come to God and be released from all worldly bondage, perhaps they prefer to keep everyone in the world so they can serve them and pay taxes?

If the intent of the constitution was to support the churches, then presenting it as "supporting religion" is plain deception.

Regarding the author, Peter, your quote of him is a sandwich of two excellent observations, along with an incorrect one in between:

True: «religion cannot be restricted to the known and recognised religions»
False: «but exists as the common human desire to trust in something and to be bound by that something«.
True: «Indeed, it is impossible to live without unsupported assumptions and the belief that is derived from them. We are all believers of some kind»

He also has a good point regarding idolatry, but then his assumption that all idolatry is religious, is incorrect.

To summarise, Peter writes: "Christianity looks like a religion quacks like a religion and so must be a religion."

Well Peter, to be an eligible religion you need to earn it. Quacking like one doesn't qualify - and Christians are not exempt.

for a change I think Doog is right at least partially. Its the doctrine you live that counts as much as the one you proclaim. Where you spend your time and resources largely shows what or whom you worship.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Perhaps the constitution never intended to protect religious freedoms … »

There is no doubt in my mind regarding the sincerity of the intention, Yuyutsu, but, as we all know, “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions”.

The guarantee of the Australian secular State, or should I say, the “intention” of the Australian secular State is defined in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which was ratified by Australia on 13 August 1980 and came into force on 13 November 1980 :

« 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions »
.

I guess that’s about the best any secular State can do in terms of a guarantee and ensuring that it is respected by submitting any litigation to the decision of the country’s most competent, professional, High Court judges through the democratic process.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

But, as we all know, Yuyutsu, nothing in this world is perfect, Even God - if you believe there is one - makes mistakes. You just have to look at some of His “manufacturing errors” in some unfortunate human beings as they emerge from the womb. We honestly can’t just laud His marvels and deny His failures – if, as I say, there is such a God. If there isn’t, then let’s just put it all down to chance and necessity, where chance is a “random variable” and necessity a “inevitable event”.

As for the High Court judges, at least we know that there are some – even though the judges themselves, the High Court system, and even the democratic process itself, are not perfect.

Justice is a moving target, Yuyutsu, and no matter how hard we try, it’s almost impossible to hit it in the bull’s eye. We just have to do the best we can – and, all in all, I think that’s more or less what we’re doing – or, at least, trying to do.

.

Dear Runner,

.

You wrote :

« It’s the doctrine you live that counts as much as the one you proclaim. Where you spend your time and resources largely shows what or whom you worship »

I just wanted to say how impressed I am by such profound thoughts, Runner. I didn’t realise you had philosophical talents of that caliber.

The only caveat to your words of wisdom, so far as my particular case is concerned, is that most of my personal life-time has been occupied by my work and family or thinking about them. It has been pretty much a relentless struggle.

I can’t say that I worshiped work or money during all these years. Though I didn’t detest my work, I can’t say I did it for pleasure either. It is only now that I have lifted my foot off the accelerator and drastically reduced my work-load that I am sufficiently free in my mind for more personal pursuits.

It's satisfaction rather than worship.

.

Dear Banjo,

Thank you, I understand your point of view.

There is just one little problem: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."

- The above could deny individuals practically anything that the regime objects to, especially under the broad cover of "order" and "morals".