Let's get one thing clear.

Pogroms and genocides have always been about hair, eye and skin colour ever since white mutants were booted out of predominantly black mother Africa.

Religion is always called upon at the last minute as a political tool to collectively harness the fear of God, the fear of "us or them" and turn it into a savage weapon. After that it gets ingrained in the folklore and becomes symbolic of a much deeper conflict as cultures develop.

That conflict is generally over simple resources like land, water, food, military advantages, waste disposal and concubinage.

To solve real problems between warring ethnic cultures, you need to look much deeper than religion. As I suggest, it is principally about resource conflict and along visual cue lines based on skin, hair and eye colour. The reasons for this are imponderable without some kind of genetic research.

Examples:

Islamic V Western cultures.
Appearance: Caucasian V 'of middle east appearance '.
Conflict:The Saudis have all the oil and money on the planet but they don't have the power that should go with it because of ingrained US military might. The anger is palpable and the Saudis and others continue to find ingenious ways to vent that anger. Its currently called terrorism. When the West learns to live without middle east oil, Islam is capable of being a friend to the west of truly amazing proportions. They really can be the most beautiful people when given their due recognition.
Religion:A useful tool.

Ireland:
Appearance:Orangers-red hair, fair skin blue eyed Angles and Saxons V Greens - dark hair green eyed Celtic peoples originating in Africa and Spain.
Conflict:Ireland is a poor country and always has had numerous resource shortages. The most poignant is its use by the English as a outpost or sentinel against Sanish invasion.
This latter item of conflict is the real basis for the Irish conflict. The English have found other exclusive uses for Ireland that don't involve the Spanish and this perpetuates the conflict today.
Religion:Irrelevant except as a symbolism for English (protestant) V Spanish (Catholic)

KAEP

Tell that to my second last b/f an Irishman of Negro appearance or to my close Armenian friend of Middle Eastern appearance.

The Irishman suffered the IRA and the Armenian's family were survivors of the 1915 massacre, both will tell you your full of it. Both have slaughter in their familys.

My friends and family are various skin/eye types, what we have in common is moral. We are not whining nihlists.

Philo... thanx for making the point about "Secular" not neccessarily meaning absence of divine principles in government.. quite true.
I was reacting more to the apparent thrust of the article which seems to be using the 'secular' in a deliberate 'Non God based' manner.

Gecko, the point you miss, is your own cultural-centrism.
You are right in your point about atheists being able to come up with moral codes. The problem though, is also one you stated "No foundation". What this means, is that without reference to revealed truth, the anchor chain has been cut, and the ship of state is adrift.

It will drift in the direction of the loudest and most organized and well funded voice. (Singer etc)

Your point neglects to put social and political values in the larger philosophical/historical context. What ideas are driving society ? They begin with the philosophers, thinkers.. and they filter down through the arts and education. "Clockwork Orange" was one of the first 'existential/life is meaningless' movies. Another "The Sensualist" 60s ish.... they all said the same thing, but the clearest one to me, was/is "Intensity" (if you have a chance, watch it.. but need a strong stomach)

When the main evil character has the heroine tied to a chair at his place; (he has already slaughtered a whole family, and numerous individuals, lecturing them about life and existence being about 'intense' experiences, as they slide bleeding to the floor, then he tastes their blood... and all the while he has this little girl locked in his basement, waiting for her to be 'ready' for him) -she calls him a sicko psychopath and that God will blot him out etc... he replies with the key sentence of the whole movie "Actually hunni, there is no God, and I'm probably the most honest person you will ever know"

The Church must be a prophetic voice, in the spirit of the Old Testament, calling the 'king' secular or otherwise, to account.

Yabby, you missed, muffed and mangled it again :) (understanding of God)

Gecko:
Your post was excellent. It was delight to read, so lucid and clear headed, and of course I for one absolutely agree with you.

You mention that your views are based upon a life times of experience. My guess is that we must be in the 65-75 age bracket.Am I correct?

Hear! Hear! bigmal, I also enjoyed gecko's post.

I remember seeing Jack Spong here a few years ago talking about the fight in the USA for Gay Rights. He said he would have hoped that the various Churches could have helped, but in fact it was the secular Corporations who had led the way. THEY were the ones who first came to the party and recognised a Gay partner's rights to health benefits, superannuation payments etc.

Being quite a "believer" in this thing called "God" myself, I have no grief whatsoever trying to accommodate whatever belief others might have.

However, above all I believe we are "social animals" and it is - in the end - not up to "me" but "us" as to what we prescribe and what we proscribe.

And the BEST way to ascertain exactly what that may be?

Annual general elections of our representatives through single-member electorates via preferential voting.

Thank GOD women now have the vote AND can stand for election.

These are still VERY early days in the life of representative democracy - and Australia has historically led the way in many important reforms.

Let "The Spirit" work it's wonderful (peaceful) ways through our ballot boxes. Much better than through bullets!

And that even goes as far as allowing our children to proscribe or prescribe things that we had done the OPPOSITE to!

Thankfully, most people agree about most things most of the time. That's why democracy works.

Never get too upset about "political apathy" ... it's MUCH, MUCH better than the opposite (political fanatacism).

In peace,
David (from Perth, Western Australia)

Great article John. Your comment about church and state being too close are spot on.

Your ideas on Federal funding for religious schools have some practical problems. Many people send their children to these schools because they dislike the state schools and religious schools are the only affordable option. Often the cost of religious education is subsidised by the church. Endowments are often given to religious schools because they operate within a religious community and the benefactor can gain respectability within that community.

I agree with your ideas. In fact my own children go to secular schools, but eliminating religion from schools will result in escalating fees and affordability issues.