Why "rising"? There is nothing new about secular religionism. China could be said to have been involved in secular religion for two thousand years. If one takes Shamanism as a precursor to the priesthood and that the priesthood existed (Sumer) four thousand years before Jesus, one could say the secular (worldy)Christian priesthood hijacked, their God's works. (no way an oxymoron) Herein, the Church(es) are secular, with secular goals. Christ as opposed to Jesus, doesn't enter the language for decades after Jeses' death (Antioch). And Christianity did not exist until c. 1300. Albeit, as most know the kosher gospels were chosen by secular committee (325).

Of Sells, [no point addressing Sells directly]

Agree Church and State are secular religions, given a religion is an object of worship by a reference group. Churches/cltars/ministeries and flags/anthems/national heroes are examples of religious secularism. Some pompus politicians and theologians were their role gladly. A church is not God, nor is a country.

If a god did exist, then, God is God, and, any tempral intercession between said God and Its creation, is clearly secularly. Similarly, when Man creates gods that is secular too.

Cathederals would seem to be idols. Likewise, I don't see Jesus (even as a person) would kiss any Bishops' rings. How many "leaders of the flock" put on special secular gowns to demonstate their elevation over the congregation? ... Rendering unto Humanity that which is status.

Pericles,

Mao used ideology in power. Interstingly he was not really a Marxist-Lenninist. Marx and Lennin turned Hegel's ideologies into dialectical materialism, whereas, Mao turned the dialectical materialism into the ideological cult of Mao, with the "The Thoughts and Words", the Moaist Bible. But, with Mao, compliance was compulsory, unlike religion under the separation of Church and State. So, presumably, there were "Clayton's" believers in Mao. Mao based his contemporary ideologies on the Chinese penchant towards the ancient ideology of virtous behaviour.

Mao, Marx, Freud and Sells all advocate confirmation of a priori positions, avoid the search of alternative explanations, and, suppress/ignore counter-revolutionaries.

Further to my earlier post. (Re: Instrumental I meant the common everyday usage –not the Dewey, William James, Mach, Berkeley instrumentalism although there is a osmotic effect.. Simply put: Religion appeals to a source that is true or false; whereas instrumentalists govern their thoughts with the effective/ineffective measure.)

Nevertheless, this regard for humans as an end is another thing I love about true Christianity. From memory Kant believed that a true Christian must regard people as ends. That is, individuals must be valued for themselves - rather than their usefulness to an other. This becomes really challenging when you start asking questions like: If we value others doesn’t that suggest that that value is only assigned because we see something that will benefit us in them? For instance: A loves B because they are X but this means that A is appealing to something in A that yearns for X - so it is just A’s self interest. Kant I think was suggesting something much deeper than that. I think God, through Christ, for instance, showed us that we must regard people as ends in themselves. This is the Golden Rule’s message and even the Bible says it outweighs all other Rules. If you hold that the Bible is Truth then this philosophy is the Gist.

That Sells focuses on the aspects that are usually challenged as myth is fair enough.
However, I think that even a secular embracing of the Golden Rule (a Biblical truth for Sells which is reinforced by his faith ) must assist in building a firm foundation for the adherant's life. I see Sell’s point - but my point is the religious aspect and the absolute embracing of the Bible, may be the same as just accepting the basic tenant because, if those tenants are truly Godly, then that person’s life must be happier. I kind of minimalist – no fuss approach. Cut out the middle men –religion. Even if it is just an ethical thing what is the difference? Why not just accept secular christians? Isn’t God’s Job to work all that out?

Relda,
It is good to have Barth quoted at me in these pages, however I fear you have missed his point. It is not that anything can be the source of revelation as the more complete quote below illustrates.

“If the question what God can do forces theology to be humble, the question what is commanded of us forces it to concrete obedience. God may-speak to us through Russian Communism, a flute concerto, a blossoming shrub, or a dead dog. We do well to listen to Him if He really does. But, unless we regard ourselves as the prophets and founders of a new Church, we cannot say that we are commissioned to pass on what we have heard as independent proclamation. God may speak to us through a pagan or an atheist, and thus give us to understand that the boundary between the Church and the secular world can still take at any time a different course from that which we think we discern. Yet this does not mean, unless we are prophets, that we ourselves have to proclaim the pagan or atheistic thing which we have heard.” CD 1,1 p55

Do you fancy yourself as a prophet and founder of a new church

Ah! Sells. Good to see your response. How I’m seen is nay for me to say. Perhaps just a very average prophet in quite an ancient church.

Peter Sellick fires his broadside at so many different targets it is difficult to know where to begin. Environmentalism, economics, the Enlightenment, democracy (curiously described as "democratic political religion" by Sells via Casey) and many many other beliefs get hit. Everything bad in the modern world (genocide, wars, totalitarianism, Big Brother) is the fault of secularism. Then we get the remarkable equation of myths=belief systems=religion=the end of Western Civilization. Even Judeo-Christian Values (in the form of "Israel-history and Jesus-history") get a guernsey.

While Peter Sellick, Michael Casey and Archbishop Pell might be all set to board the Back To Before The Enlightenment Express I suspect there aren't too many other fare-paying passengers. Is Peter really suggesting dumping the entirety of post-Enlightenment thinking? This seems a very high price to pay for the prospect of more edifying TV.

While agreeing that there is much to decry in the modern world (Britney Spears springs readily to mind) much of the worst of it may be ignored by using a very simple strategem. Get rid of your TV. My wife and I went TV-free for six years. We have one now, but it is rarely turned on. If the other 99% of Australian households did the same Australia would be a much better place (in my opinion). No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Sells
I thought every human being was directly linked to God in body through spirit and thus prophets of God. Who is to claim that they are gifted with more than ordinary spiritual or moral insight. Applying quantitative or qualitative values to spiritual insight is very egotistical. Only a very course man/woman would have their children compete for affection. To create a state of rivalry and have the most neediest win their attentions. I suspect such behavior would fall under child abuse. As a spiritual person I can well do with out that aspect of religion as a way to God.
Secular religion is an oxymoron. What religion can be, but not be, specifically religious?