Gee, George, I must be losing my touch.

>>Pericles, thank you for expanding on my maxim that “one has to agree on the definitions of terms used before arguing about them”<<

I'm not sure how you understood that I expanded on your maxim (maxim? are you sure? Best check Merriam Webster), when in fact I totally disagree with it.

My suggestion was that whatever definition you choose for either religion or secularism is just fine by me, in the sense that I have absolutely no objection to you equating the two. I was simply observing that it is only people who profess to be religious that make this particular connection, and wondering out loud why this is the case.

You do not find atheists saying "atheism is a religion, just like Christianity or Islam", nor do you find people who prefer to be counted as secular, considering that their secularism is "just like religion, really."

So, whatever definition you choose for either word makes absolutely no difference to anything, as it can so clearly be categorized as a personal choice.

I can also accept that you don't understand a word of what I am saying, because it comes through as "an arbitrary collection of sounds that does not make sense", to use your words, and of course I "cannot expect a person who can speak that language to agree with [me]"

But you are right, my statement that "I am against one or the other religion claiming to have the only answer, though. That's just arrogant" is missing the bit that says "of all religions".

This of course does not get me off the hook with you, because you think that not being religious (i.e. secular) is exactly the same as being religious.

Only, somehow, different.

Perhaps if we focused on what you see as the difference between a secular outlook and a religious one, we might make progress.

But somehow, I doubt it.

Gee, Pericles, here we go again.
I cannot see how anybody can disagree with my maxim (=axiom; a general truth, fundamental principle) that “one has to agree on the definitions of terms used before arguing about them”. Perhaps I should have said “agree upon which of the definitions commonly accepted (as e.g. listed in an authoritative dictionary) are being used” because there is no point arguing with somebody who e.g. calls ”cat” what everybody else calls “dog”. That indeed would be a silly personal choice in distinction to a choice from among accepted definitions. My point was not about being happy but about being able to communicate and argue.

The second point I was making was that you can hardly lead a fruitful discussion with somebody whose world view you define (or describe) in derogative terms. It can make you feel happy or “warm”, but you will not be able to communicate.

As to your observation “that it is only people who profess to be religious that make this particular connection”, I think it is valid. Only after I learned the grammar of my original language, could I find similar features (e.g. the difference between nouns and verbs) in other languages. You have to know something about, say, the psychological features of your own world view to observe similarities in others. A fundamentalist, theist or atheist, will see only where his world view differs from that of others, and will often be scared to look for similarities.

I never said that “not being religious (i.e. secular) is exactly the same as being religious”. Having similar (psychological) features does not mean “being the same”.

“if we focused on what you see as the difference between a secular outlook and a religious one, we might make progress.” I agree, except I do not know if readers would want to follow, since it is not a question one can answer in 350 words. And, of course, provided by “progress” you do not mean that one of us would abandon his position and be “converted” to the other.

This is an excellent and timely essay. It should be on the front page of every newspaper. Governmant funding of religious activity be it charitable works, schools, hospitals, pizza parlours, child care facilities... must cease. The more influence religion -- any religion -- has in law making, the more persecution. This is inevitable because of the nature of religion and is apparent in every state based on religion. It is such a pity Australians are so apathetic... I'm glad I'll be dead before President Pell oversees the stoning to death of women caught in sin, gays and adulterers.

Thanks George.

Some of these discussions can be frustrating when the debate turns into religion vs non-religion. Good vs bad, depending which viewpoint you have. Although they can be interesting too, it clouds what is at issue here.

We are talking about whom the government is paying to speak to our children without our knowledge and express permission. THAT is the point. You may well agree wholeheartedly with an organisation like Scriptures Union, but shouldn't you be the one to decide this for your child?

There wouldn't be a parent on these threads who would tolerate a person of any spiritual flavour whatsoever speaking to/counseling your child on 'issues' without you knowing exactly what that spiritual flavour is.

Scriptures Union is about converting kids to their kind of Christianity. It is NOT about teaching morals and values.

Adults in a position of trust and respect may well be teaching totally contrary spiritual beliefs to yours to your child. How invasive in the private realm is that? It is absolutely contrary to what a secular nation, separating Church and state, stands for. No different than Communist USSR was or Iran is now.

If you, as a parent, want a person of a particular religion counseling your child then you have the choice to go to an appropriate religious school or to your church/mosque/synagogue whatever. It is not appropriate for a government to decide this on your behalf in a public state school in Australia.

Yvonne, your comment ("We are talking about whom the government is paying to speak to our children without our knowledge and express permission") overstates the case.
1. The Government is not paying: essentially the NSCP is supporting an existing program primarily paid for by the churches; and
2. parents do have considerable say in whether or not their child's school will have a chaplain - the political processes within the school from lobbying to Parents and Citizens Associations are open to parents and well used by them. As well they usually have a representative on the selection panel.
I fear that the Government is doing damage to a well-accepted voluntary program by claiming so much credit for a community program that is already happening and has already proved its sensitivity in a secular environment.