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.