Reason has quite rightly challenged me on some of my statements about Christianity denying religion. Before the Enlightenment we never thought about Christianity being a religion, it was just the way we saw the world in the same way we now see the world largely through the spectacles of natural science. It was not until the rise of secularism that Christianity was branded a religion and that is why any dictionary or text book has that slant. The relativizing tendency then simply placed Christianity with other world religions. The problem is that secularization has blinded us to the true essence of Christianity as revealed in the history of Israel and the life and death of Jesus who acted outside of the religious confines of his time and was framed and murdered by the religious authorities with the complicity of the state authorities. This did not come out of thin air. The history of Israel is essentially a history of this nation’s struggle with religion and the way it distorts our life.

When compared with Islam, it is obvious how different Christianity is. Islam is a religion with a capital R. It is about unquestioning obedience to what purports to be divine law. There is no theological development in Islam. Christianity is really about the unmasking of what we now know as religion. This produces a freedom from all religiosity, all idols, all gods. It is a mistake to think that fundamentalism represents Christianity. The temptation for us all is to become religious and that includes the secularist who claims the ascendancy of reason. Dig a bit below the surface and you will find the same old tired idols, the same fear of death, the same human triumphalism and belief in progress. That is why it is only radical Christianity that will truly set us free.

I'm sorry. But this post, and Gecko's support is so much nonsense.

The WORST bloodshed and violence has been caused by 'secular' states. The death of over 170 Million people in the 20th century is well documented by RJ Rummell at his power kills website http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills. This figure is well above pretty much every other historical carnage added together. So much for the non-religious.

That the author hails the saving secularism of europe is absurd. Considering Europe is on the verge of complete economic collapse due to demographic disasters pushed by the secular humanists, I think the we should head the warning and flee from the stupidity put foward before we too are doomed (Our fertility rate is 1.77, so we have already been pushed a little way down that destructive path).

What I find most interesting is the notion that religion should have no influence on politics. How should that influence be reduced? Well, in a democratic country where everyone has a say, you can only do this by one of two ways. Trying to stop people having religious beliefs (A common secular humanist method is through state sponsored indoctrination in schools), or by removing the democratic right to vote.

What is even more amazing however is the notion that secularists aren't "religious". Of course, if you want to read the first two humanist manifesto, you will quite clearly see that they call themselves religious. Indeed the secular humanist belief fits the functional definition of religion to a t. So our good author is merely wishing to use his own religious belief to influence politics whilst attempting to bar all other religious belefs. What rubbish.

I believe in John Perkin's rights to influence the politics in this country. Pity he doesn't extend the same democratic courtesy to me.

A secular Party in an already secular Country. Hmmm, interesting idea perhaps a bit comical but why not after all this could be the one to bring the balance back to a secular democracy. Oh no I think we had some of those before.

If you take religious people out of the State, HOW can you take religion out of people?

How could you tell if one of your Sydney/Melbourne clan secretly prays under his/her desk 5 times a day?

Your statistical inferences don’t wash either when it comes to elections day. A good example was our last federal election where people ran away in droves from Latham a self confessed atheist (with the lifestyle to prove it – sorry Meredith) giving the Family First Christians a convincing win.

I wonder how you would fair on issues like same-sex marriage and an eminent Islamic state for example?

How deep would you have to scrape into your leaky barrel of “secular morality” before you come begging for the main-stream religious wisdom (and vote)? Just a thought.

Meredith,

No one is saying long term racial conflicts are not complex. They evolve over hundreds and sometimes thousands of years. Different people are brought into the fray for a wide variety of reasons.

It is not nihilism to look past the complexity towards the root cause of the problem ... some kind of resource shortage conflict in overpopulated scenarios. It is in this kind of analysis that solutions are to be found. Your approach is to say its too complex therefore it can't be solved. Blaming it on religion or whatever prop or political tool is at hand, just keeps the war going. I find this objectionable. Your approach is not nihilistic so much as defeatist and perhaps even perverse.

Now the skin, hair eye colour discriminator is difficult to interpret because it requires genetic research to understand properly. But one thing is sure, all initial race conflicts were originally based on that when resource shortages and overpopulation began to bite. As a guess I'd say that segregation by visual clues was paramount in early primitive civilisations that had few other tools to rely on. But like I say this aspect needs research.

Further, I am not saying that understanding the true nature of race based conflicts will solve the associated problems. You have to find some way of giving each side the resources that are required. That may not be possible. But at least this way you can remove a lot of the religion type subterfuge and know what it is you are really at war about. It evens the playing field so that things like modern technology MAY have some chance at conflict resolution.

China is a good example of this. Internet usage has brought diverse often conflicted chinese cultures with dialects varying sometimes over 20 miles or so into a unified language scheme that has propelled China to near superpower status.
And technological progress and booming export industries have helped the Irish situation somewhat as well.

In each case technology has led to prosperity thus solving resource shortfalls.

All those that hide under the definition of "secular" meaning agnostic or atheistic are stealing the term to mean what they want it to mean. Agnostic and atheist are religious terms that define their belief system. It has nothing to do with providing natural resources for all human need.

All our present political parties are already essentially secular in purpose and nature in that they do not enforce a particular belief system upon the people. A defined belief system is a religion - even a belief there is no divine presence - is a religion.

The fact is the belief there is no God does not enhance the supply of food, water, energy, communication, housing, or education in the production and administration of the supply of these common human needs and the advancement of common secular needs of a society. All societies have these essential needs, it is not the domain of any world view [well quakers might not have need of all modern services].

Join any political Party they all deal with the common secular needs of society. Those that want to enforce in education atheism as the epitome of learning fall into the same trap as any Totalitarian system. Removing freedom of belief, and the State administration of the Governments religious view - there is no God. Talk about hyprocisy!

Sells conveniently forgets that Henry VIII the founder of the Anglican church of which he is a member was a serial killer, a mass murderer and one of the greatest thieves, plunderers and cultural vandals of all time.
Strange basis/way of founding a church on and about "jesus"!

Martin ibn Warrig claims that western so called "culture" is the only game in town.
Whay about the rising influence of China & India?

Meanwhile this site

1. www.coteda.com

effectively argues that our western christian/materialist adolescent anti-"culture" of competitive individualism has brought the entire world to the brink of both cultural & ecological meltdown.
Adi Da,the inspiration of this site recently wrote an essay which offers a summary criticism of our western so called "culture".
It is titled
RIGHT HUMAN LIFE MUST TRANSCEND THE MATERIALIST "CULTURE" OF DEATH.
In it he points that ALL of western "culture" is in effect a "culture" of death and that this "culture" is having devsatating effects on quite literally everything.
This "culture" of death is in its most advanced form in the USA where THE dominant "cultural" institution is the Pentagon & its associated military industrial complex.
Its "values" permeate every aspect of USA "culture".
As I pointed out in my 1st post the USA is by far the largest maker, owner, seller and USER or weapons of all kind including WMD's.
Then there is the NRA with its associated "culture" of death which is one of most powerful lobby groups in the USA.

The "culture"o of death literally rules!