.

Dear Greg,

.

I'm not sure that Neil Johnson understands what the term secularism means. Here is the OED definition :

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

Secularism is not opposed to any religion, nor is it intolerant of any religion.

You indicate that Johnson writes :

« ... ‘the forces of secularism have decided to wage a war on anything that appears as inconsistent with their “articles of faith”. »

A system of state governance based on religion with articles of faith is a theocracy, Gregg. You should know that.

Australia is not a theocracy.

As I see that you are the NSW State Director of Family Voice Australia, Gregg, I must say I am surprised that you should give voice to such gross misinterpretations of the form and modus operandi of our highly respectable secular democracy in Australia.

We should be proud of it.

.

It is always interesting to see in these 'discussions' how it is always the atheists, non believers and Bush Baptists who know more about Christianity than actual Christians do.

Another interesting thing just revealed is that the new president of the senate, who claims to be an atheist, wants the Lord's Prayer abolished in parliament, but is OK with recently invented aboriginal mumbo jumbo for 3% of the population, while around half of Australians still adhere to Christianity. These Marxist wreckers don't even try to be subtle these days.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

Interesting observations you made there, ttbn.

1. « It is always interesting to see in these 'discussions' how it is always the atheists, non-believers and Bush Baptists who know more about Christianity than actual Christians do. »

From my experience, many atheists etc. were Christians who took Christianity seriously and studied it scrupulously and exhaustively (they thrashed it to death, as it were), whereas many “actual Christians” never really questioned it but simply took it for granted – and continue to do so (blindly, as it were).
.

2. « Another interesting thing just revealed is that the new president of the senate, who claims to be an atheist, wants the Lord's Prayer abolished in parliament, but is OK with recently invented aboriginal mumbo jumbo for 3% of the population, while around half of Australians still adhere to Christianity … »

I don’t think it has anything to do with the numbers of people or percentage of population involved, ttbn. It seems to me to be simply the logical consequence of the secular nature of our democracy, i.e., the principle of the separation of state and religion.

This means that the state must guarantee freedom of religion while remaining strictly neutral, favouring none in particular, and observing total abstinence from any religious involvement or activity.

Saying prayers and seeking God’s blessing at the opening of parliamentary sessions is a left-over of our British inheritance of the Westminster system. It is an anomaly and clearly in contradiction with the spirit of Section 16 of our Australian constitution which precludes the Commonwealth “from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion”.

Whereas, in the UK, the British monarch, as well as being Head of State, also holds the title 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'. Under current laws, the monarch is required to "join in communion" with the Church of England and take on the role of Supreme Governor, promoting Anglicanism in Britain.

That does not apply to Australia.

.

BJ

I don't don’t take this argy-bargy between believers and non-believers seriously. Atheists have no more proof that there is no God than do believers that there is a God. The existence of Jesus Christ on Earth, and the Christian message is enough for me.

Whatever the truth, it doesn't matter what any of us thinks; we will know - or not - after death.

In the meantime, people need to believe in something. People who sneer at Christianity believe that mere man can control the weather, for instance.

.

Dear Greg,

.

You conclude :

« To sum up, the conclusion can be made that we are witnessing an aggressive form of secularism, which views Christian values and beliefs with great intolerance and dismissiveness. »
.

I see that not as a conclusion, but as an opening gambit. It begs the question : why ?

Nowhere in your article do you ask that question, Greg. Nor do you provide the slightest element that could possibly open up an avenue of reflection that might lead to a response of any significance.

As often in such cases, there is not just one but probably several factors that contribute to the growing disillusionment of many Christian followers. But I very much doubt that secularism is one of them.

Australia has been a secular state since federation. The Constitution of 1901 has prohibited the Commonwealth government from interfering with the free exercise of any religion for the past 121 years. Whereas the steep decline of religion dates from 1950 following the Second World War, only 72 years ago.

According to the National Church Life Survey, between 1950 and 2007 monthly church attendance declined from 44% to 17%. Since then the decline has continued but at a much slower rate.

The one major factor that comes to my mind but to which you make no allusion whatsoever is the monumental scandal that blew up in 2017 with the release of the final report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse by the clergy of just about every religious institution in Australia.

There were 16,953 victims, 10 years old on average, 85.4% of whom suffered multiple episodes of abuse by the clergy in various religious institutions.

The commissioners concluded :

« We will never know the true number … it is a national tragedy, perpetrated over generations within many of our most trusted institutions. »

Obviously, this tragic event is more than sufficient to destroy what little confidence some people may still have had in our religious institutions – and it’s the sole fault of the institutions, themselves !

.