This website provides a unique perspective on the vexed topic or the never-ending and essentially unresolvable conflict between secularism and conventional exoteric religiosity which is the ONLY kind of religiosity that is now globally resurgent.
http://firmstand.org/index.html

There is absolutely nothing scientific about denying our Maker, Designer and Law Maker. Science without God is a fools paradise.

.

Dear Pablo (the author),

.
You wrote :

« … this resurgence of religious matters in public discussion in the West is often related to a particular religion: Islam. Western societies are struggling to accommodate the worldview and lifestyle of millions of new citizens who having immigrated, refuse to give up their culture and become secular »

That is incorrect. Neither Muslims nor immigrants of any other religious belief or affiliation “refuse to give up their culture and become secular” when settling in Australia.

They do not "refuse" simply because nobody asks them to do what you suggest.

There is no such requirement under any of our state, territory or federal laws.

The following article on the federal government website explains :

« Secularism may refer to a world-view which stands in opposition to a religious or spiritual orientation. In political theory, it refers to the principle of separating the institutions of politics from the institutions of religion. The latter sense is particularly relevant to a discussion of how the law deals with religious tradition. Secularism in this sense has been conventionally interpreted as meaning that mechanisms of the state must stand aloof from religious debates or support for particular religious traditions »

Here is the link :

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp9900/2000RP11#one

.

Democracy isn't meant to be secular. It's meant to represent the people by having the people have a say in their government. The point of secular status and Seperation between church and state, is to ensure that the government doesn't force a religion on the people. This is a choice that many governments have made to ensure that religion is not manipulated to be a force for tyranny. Not a standard to remove religion from the people. But the people, they may have their religion or their lack of religion.

Recusing secularism from religious beliefs and practices is not the job of democracy. If and when that becomes the job of a government power to remove religion from the people, then that government has turned the premise of having a separation of church and state to avoid tyranny, into a cause for tyranny. This should only be done if there is an active danger from a specific religion. It should never be for the cause against all religions least secularism is tyrannical in it's being.

Religion won't go away because there is more to the world then is acknowledged through secular positions. (Those that realize this no longer are counted as secular, but are part of another religious group, or on their own spiritual journey that deters away from secularism).

(continued)

(Continued)

I have watched different anti-religious persuasions come and go. Many thinking, like the author, that religion was on it's way out and just needed a push to get there. I've watched religion be argued as brain washing, ironically becoming it's own mantra to "brainwash" the people into thinking this against religion. I've seen religion be accused of being child abuse. Not about abuse from church leaders. But that teaching the religious perspectives to their children that the parents have is a form of child abuse. This is so wrong that it destroy the reason for child abuse laws and awareness to screen and remove actual dangers to the children. Both demonizing religion and harming the seriousness of actual child abuse.

I've seen all religion scoffed as cults. One of the points in Daffy Duck's article that has merit is the presentation of religions (minority religions or otherwise) as a cult and to be shunned. The met it of the position of religion is a cult and should be shunned has no more merit then that religion is child abuse. It twists people's opinions to turn from religion as a whole. It is manipulative instead of actually looking specifically at religious groups and seeing the dangers that one group does or another, calls them all cults as if they are all the same danger. Lastly through all of this I've watched the manipulative narrative against religion umbrella all religions together. Instead of seeing the issues of one philosophy and behaviors (one religion), all religions are grouped together in a way that the harms of one philosophy are made the responsibility of those that neither act nor believe in that way.

If anything democracy needs rescuing from manipulative anti-religious movements that in the name of secularism, (or even in no specific name except the banner against religions), bring about a restrictive and oppressive pinning of the religious people, that should only be reserved for criminals and those that are actually dangerous to the society around them.

In the end of the article, Pablo acknowledges that religion has a place in society. A small concession, after seeing that religion is becoming part of the social enviornment again, to say that religion is allowed and has it's place in secular society. None the less it is a concession I hope to see more of from society as a whole. That religion is allowed to be here instead of actively trying to stamp it out.