Bronwyn Winter wrote:

"First, Muslims are no more nor less able to live within democracies than are followers of other faiths; the battle for secular democracy was a long and violent one within Christianity also, and is by no means over, as was demonstrated by the former Howard government’s relentless re-Christianisation of public space, community services and government funding directions (such as increased funding to Christian schools)."

The School Chaplaincy Program which allows missionaries into the public schools, and the increased funding of religious schools have been continued by the current Labor government. They are continuing the re-Christianisation of public space. Actually Australia has not always been so Christian. From the first fleet in 1788 until 1820 no Christian church was consecrated. According to Tom Frame's "Church and State" government assistance to church activities including education ended in South Australia in 1851, in Queensland in 1860, in New South Wales in 1862, in Tasmania in 1869, Victoria in 1870 and Western Australia in 1890. Let Australia be resecularised.

AN APOLOGETIC...for Islam. Yep..thats what the article is, but it's more.

It's also an apologetic for a particularly secular, historic revisionist way of looking at Islam. (and defining it)

So there is the first problem... what IS...."Islam".

The author makes reference to:

<<Islam is as is internally diverse as other religions, and has ultra-fundamentalist anti-democratic factions just as it has pro-democracy, pro-secular schools of thought.>>

PROBLEM. She is confused, her terminology should be fixed. It should read:

"The Muslim community is.....diverse"

STARTING POINT. Only a secularist or secularly educated Muslim would venture to suggest that 'Islam' could be diverse. Islam, if it is anything, begins and ends with:

-MOHAMMAD it's founder (one would expect him to be the final authority on all things "Islamic")
-THE QURAN... it's "constitution"

-THE HADITH... filling in the gaps about personal behavior, based on what Mohammad "said" (Oral tradition) and 'did' also conveyed by this oral tradition, until it was all codified.

Anything other than this...is not 'Islam' but some philosophical mess produced by confused people.

The whole principle on which Islam is based is.. "Submission to the One True God" and that's all there is to it.

Submission can only be based on...the knowledge of what Allah says, and he 'says' it through the Quran, according to all Muslims.
While there might a be a group called Ahmadiyas (just banned in Indonesia) which claim a subsequent prophet after Mohammad, they still are based on the Quran.

LESSON TIME... All secularists should examine the teaching of the Quran, not the opinions of intellectually soft western educated Muslims, to decide the question of 'compatibility' to the West.

DAR UL HAAB and DAR UL ISLAM are 2 terms which might prove very educational to the secularist who feels it is compatible.
These terms are based on Surah 9:29 which you might like to read some time, and then 9:30 would be helpful.

I never thought I would find myself in broad agreement with a militant feminist; but in this case I am.

I can differ with Bronwyn Winter on points of detail but her broad thesis is right on the money. The best defence against sharia, or any other imposition of religious law, is secular democracy.

NB: A secular state is not an atheist state. It is a state that is neutral with respect to religion. A secular democracy guarantees its citizens both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Now, should a secular democracy be funding schools that are affiliated with a religion?

Should we be funding Imams who teach kids to stone gays or adulterers?*

How about an Imam who tells them:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:52:177] Narrated Abu Huraira:

I am sure OLO posters can cite examples from other faiths and will do so with relish.

But the BOTTOM LINE is this. Do we want our taxpayer dollars spent on propagating this sort of thing?

How about tax breaks for religious organizations? Why should they be excused from paying property taxes?

*In Iran the penal code is very precise about the procedure for stoning. Article 102 explains that prior to the stoning, men must be buried up to their waists in a pit, and women up to their breasts, so their upper bodies are exposed but they cannot move. Article 104 explains that the stones must be large enough to inflict pain, but "not large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes." Most death take around 20 minutes.

(See Haaretz, 14 Feb 2008

Dear BOAZ_David,

You really don't know what you are talking about. - you seem to think that there is only one way to interprete a text - provided we all read the same text we will all believe the same thing. Not really plausible is it. May be you should try going out into the sunshine, speaking to a few human beings, in general getting a life!

boaz, is christianity diverse? if so, then what permits christianity a diversity impossible for islam?

Why is prejudice against Moslems described as "racism"? Islam is a religion, an ideology, this is stetching the definition to breaking point. A necessary condition for religious freedom is the existence of a secular state. It doesn't appear to occur to any of the various competing religious loonies that if their side loses the battle, in a theocratic state, their future might be very dire indeed.

It's great to read a thoughtful and insightful analysis of the complex interactions between religious fundamentalists and the secular left. I hope someone draws Kevin Rudd's attention to your article.

Dear Matilda. I'm not sure on what basis you criticized my post. Could you provide some background as to your qualifications for that? Maybe it's just 'opinion'.. which doesn't carry much weight.

There are a number of ways to interpet a text, yes. You can do it the 'devotional' way..where you emphasize the symbolic value for us. Lets take 'David and Goliath' for example. The usual evangelical devotional approach is to emphasise "We all have Goliaths in our lives" (Big challenges) But that does not alter the fact that it is a story of real people, and the survival of Israel from Philistine bondage depended on the outcome of the fight. That is in fact, the 'only' way to understand the text objectively. You might like to consider its place in the cultural history and self justification of Israel, but would need to support this with evidence.

When Jesus says "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me" well..its pretty clear and unambiguous. You can debate or interpret the meaning of 'by me' or.. 'to the Father' but whatever you decide, it should harmonize with the other things Jesus said.

10 Commandments. "Do not covet your neighbours wife" etc.. not rocket science.

Surah 23:5-6 "A man may have sex with his wiveS and those(captive slave girls) his right hand possesses." again.. quite clear and the meaning cannot be 'spiritualized'. Unless that specific permission is abrogated by a later verse in the Quran, it applies 100% to today in an Islamic State.

I speak from 3 yrs of theological training which included big chunks of what is called 'hermeneutics' (look it up). I've also made quite a study of Islamic doctrine, beliefs and history over the past 4 yrs.
While you might get different answers from different people about some things, it remains the case that pretty much all mainstream Muslims refer back to the 5 or so major schools of jurisprudence. What I said, reflects their view.
cheers.

Can you believe this woman is a Doctor? She writes 'the battle for secular democracy was a long and violent one within Christianity also, and is by no means over, as was demonstrated by the former Howard government’s relentless re-Christianisation of public space, community services and government funding directions (such as increased funding to Christian schools).

Comparing putting Christian Chaplains into schools with violence just shows how bigoted and blinded Bronwyn is. As I have mentioned on numerous occasions the most dangerous place for a person on earth in in their mothers womb thanks to the stupidity of human secularism. It is very hard to take someone so seriously who so misrepresents and is blinded to the fact that this country has been built on many Christian principles. The more secular we have become the more violent we have followed.

She is also in denial that even many secularist pay to send their kids to 'Christian schools' because of the complete failure of the fully funded secular schools. Time to open your eyes to your own blindness Bronwyn!

Boazy: "it remains the case that pretty much all mainstream Muslims refer back to the 5 or so major schools of jurisprudence. What I said, reflects their view."
What cr@p. I've never met *any* Muslim whose belief system is anywhere close to the prejudicial rantings that you spout forth on these boards. Don't get me wrong — while I don't read much of your posts myself these days, I still like you posting, because you've done more than Richard Dawkins to turn people away from Christianity and on to atheism. But we all know you're telling porkies.

Meanwhile, this was an excellent article.

Oh, Boazy, by the way LESSON TIME. You should really try to get a refund on all that theological training, you know. You got ripped off.

Let's be honest: Islam is only doing what any religion attempts to do -- impose its worldview on other people by pretending that it represents universal truth, and that anyone who dissents must be silenced or converted. In this it is extremely successful -- much more so than Christianity, which has been fighting a losing battle against science and secularism for the last 500 years. Islam is winning its battle against science. How many Nobel prize winners come from Islamic countries?

As long as religion persists, there will be people who sincerely believe they know what is best for Australia and the world without the need to consider a shred of evidence or a single line of rational argument. One cannot simply 'separate' Church and State and expect people who don't believe in evidence and reason to sit by quietly while an elected government puts their souls in peril.

If secular government is worth having then the only way to achieve it is to make it clear that any contribution to national or global progress must be based on reason, evidence and logic, not on divinely-inspired fantasies; and that any claim to special privileges by any interest group must be judged solely on its empirical merits, not on the basis of who their Saviour is or when or where he grew up.

'Separating' Church and state is as daft as 'separating' psychotics from the rest of us, in the pious hope that they will then quietly leave us alone. Let us treat the religious with understanding and sympathy by all means, while we try and heal their delusions; but until then we must make it clear that their beliefs have no place in a rational debate.

I had similar thoughts to matilda, boaz. This piece is far from apologetics for Islam.

You got as far as reading that Islam is a broad religion, then your anti-Islam reactionary bias kicked in.

A good section of the piece is heavily critical of Saudi funding to universities. The whole piece is about the importance of not giving one religion preference over another and maintaining a secular state.

Your christian fundamentalism is very clearly clouding your judgement on this piece.

Good question, bushbred,

>>boaz, is christianity diverse? if so, then what permits christianity a diversity impossible for islam?<<

...but I expect you will find that Boaz does in fact believe that:

i) there is only one meaning attached to the scriptures of the religion that he hates and fears, and that is the one he attributes to them

ii) there is only one meaning attached to the scriptures of the religion that he himself espouses, and that is the one he attributes to them.

You see, he is very consistent.

The article overlooks two important facts:

Firstly, as a Jesuit academic once pointed out, it was the Christians who invented secularism (ie. "render unto Caesar").

Secondly, the Christian world underwent Renaissance, Reformation, Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment. Islamic world still hasn't.

Thank you Bronwyn Winter. That is the best article on this subject I've read in a long time. You've expressed - albeit in a far more dispassionate and lucid manner - almost exactly what I've been trying to say for some time in this forum about the recent assaults on our secular culture.

You've elicited a couple of predictable knee-jerk responses from our resident Christian Taliban, but I suspect that most reasonable people would largely concur with the weight of comments thus far.

Ignoring runner's raving for the drivel it is, Boazy should have read a bit further before he started foaming at the keyboard. Winter's article provides a far better argument against the encroachment of pernicious Islamism than any amount of Boazy's self-proclaimed hermeneutic expertise has in this forum. Unfortunately for him, the very same arguments apply to his version of Christianity, which is presumably why he is blind to them.

Rogindon is correct to point out that contemporary Western secularism grew out of a Christian context, but that in no way implies that such a development is not possible within Westernised Islam. In fact, that is exactly what I predict over the next generation or two.

Renouncing secularism renounces your own relgion or belief systems right to exist within society. Not anyone else's.

A state neutral on matters of belief (be they religious, ideological or otherwise metaphysical) is a fantasy. It has never existed and never will.

The author has prejudice against political conservatives and religious fundamentalists. Does she seriously expect us to believe that her idiosyncratic understanding of secularism would not lead to the disadvantage of those she derides and the privileging of those she approves if she were given control of the state?

I would prefer a liberal, pluralistic, democratic state over the author's secular tyranny any day of the week.

This a very poorly-informed article.

I'm with boaz. i mean, if the text is clear, the text is clear. for example:

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

(leviticus 20:10)

as boaz says, interpreting a clear statement is not rocket science.

of course, boaz could just admit that the whole game of bad faith cherry-picking is childish nonsense. but i'm not holding my breath

Wrong, the Bible is a theological text and it must be interpreted that way. The author's intent, audience and cultural context must not be divorced from the interpretation of their words. You cannot interpret the Bible with a Western, materialist, modernist mindset and expect to understand it. To have any chance of knowing its full meaning you must spend many years learning about Judaism and historical Israel. The Bible is not a rule book for modern Western life. Once you interpret it, you must then extract the timeless meanings and principles, and only then can you seek to apply it to what it says about humanity and how we shall live. Call this cherry picking and I'll call you ignorant. That's not to say that Christians and their non-Christian critics do not cherry pick. Some Christians cherry-pick or prooftext to support their own prejudices, not to support the views of the Bible's authors. Likewise, critics of Christianity cherry pick verses in the Bible to show how ridiculous it is as literal rule book for Western modern life. Both of these cherry-picking groups make little attempt to uncover the meaning and application of the verses they quote. They both argue from ignorance.

CJ Morgan predicts that a secular form of Islam will arise.

In Australia that process may be more advanced than you think. Here is a link to the text of the speech the appalling Hanan Dover delivered at Bankstown.

http://www.zip.com.au/~josken/islamf~1.htm

Ms Dover's distress at the relaxed attitude of Muslims towards homosexuality is clear.

Snippets

"Homosexuality is haram within Islam?

"... surprisingly, in a study I did last year, 30% of Muslims from a sample of about 82 Muslims did not know if homosexuality was immoral or even thought it was OK."

(Oh dear!)

"I will tell you all something that is scary. I have come across counsellors who work in our area who say they are Muslim…They told me that Islam should move on and accept homosexual behaviour..."

(Ms Dover's worst nightmare come true?)

End snippets

In the US we see movement as well. I wonder what Hanan would make of Laleh Bakhtiar's attempts to re-interpret the koran.

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/us/25koran.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Or how would Ms Dover like the "progressive Islam" of the Akhtar family?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7265021.stm

Snippets:

"The Aktar daughters are pursuing careers as a lawyer, businesswoman and dentist. Their emancipation has not diluted their sense of being Muslim, but it has changed it.

"Sheema wears shorts to play soccer*, but sees no conflict with the duty to behave modestly. They feel bound by the duty to pray, for example, but not at five set times each day.

"Mino Akhtar says connection with God is what counts."

End Snippets

*Thus depriving us of the sight of burqa clad women pursuing a football!

The Akhtar's sound like the Muslim equivalent of American Episcopalians.

What's next?

Gay Imams?

Gay marriage in Mosques?

I was a bit torn by this article. Some of it I could agree with. Some of it just seemed to end up being another example of Islamophobia.

So under the guise of defending secularism there is a massive attack on Islamic fundamentalism. Maybe, but I have niggling doubts about the intentions of the author.

But the clincher for me was her unsubstantiated comment:

"The existence of religious conservatism in our society is certainly not specific to Islam. What is of concern is that while support for Christian conservatism is generally associated with the political right in Australia, support for Islamic conservatism often comes, perversely, from a left acting in the name of some misplaced white guilt."

I am on the left. i feel no misplaced white guilt. I do not support Islamic conservatism. In my left circles i know of no one who does. this is an urban myth that conservatives peddle. Without evidence. But most of the article is without evidence, other than citing the rantings of one particular fundamentalist. Should we ban this person, Bronwyn?

You also say:

"Less public, but more immediately worrying, has been an attempt by Islamic conservatives to dictate the content of curriculum in another branch of the National Centre for Excellence..."

This looks like The Australian's rant against a mere $100,000 grant writ small. Does the fact that a major Saudi Arabian company hold 6 per cent in news corp cause any discomfort?

In any vent every faction within and outside Universities tries to impose it views, as far as i can tell. When i was teaching at a university the faculty was run by a group of narrow minded Liberal types for whom any suggestion for change was anathema. Where is the attack on the essential conservatism that plagues universities and turns them into sausage factories for capitalism?

No, I'm not sure about this article at all. Pas bon.

Two important facts that are frequently ignored (in this instance by Boaz, runner and rogindon) are that Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity and has already had a renaissance.

Both facts are relevant because:

a) Six centuries ago, the Christian world looked just like the modern Muslim world: theocracy, superstition before reason, and holy wars against the infidel. Christians who condemn Muslims are simply condemning their younger sibling for being immature.

b) Although modern Islam is like some horror from the dark ages, it once cultivated the most tolerant, liberal, educated and enquiring cultures on the planet. Claims that the religion is impervious to change are obviously false. If a strongly secular society can civilise Christianity, it can do the same with Islam, but we have to stick to our guns.

Sancho,

What you write is correct to a point although you display a complete ignorance of the teachings of Christ compared to the teachings of Mohamed and also many of the secular humanist of today.

Well said Sancho.

paulr - you act as if there actually is a concrete interpretation of Christianity.

There isn't.

Of course, ask any denomination, and they'll tell you 'theirs' is the one, be they Episcopalian, Anglican, Unitarian, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist... you get the idea.

I don't think the article's poorly informed at all. Nobody's suggesting Christians don't have the right to vote.
They just don't have the right to vote religious standards for the rest of us, that is, standards that are based solely on religion.

Which is as it should be.

runner, you've refer to secularists as 'earth worshippers'. Frankly, that's about the most ignorant label I've heard for secularists. People without religion have no need for worship. Perhaps before you call others ignorant of secularism you should attend to your own blatant biases. What's more, it would appear the more devout Christians regard Islam and Christianity to be in competition.

Secularism has no time for either. So I'll listen to the words of secularists over fundamentalists of any stripe, especially when they're discussing a religion which isn't theirs.

In other words, you and boaz can't speak objectively about Islam.

Also, runner, you keep citing that people are seeking a preference for christian schools, but the stats say religion is declining in Australia. The 'failure' you speak of, is a lie you keep repeating, heedless of the many times myself and others have explained it to you, perhaps because you wish it to be true.

rogindon - I don't see how the first point is relevant. Yes, secularism spawned from Christianity. So?
This article, for the most part, discusses the situation today. I don't see how that has any bearing. The fact that secular governments are far more successful is undisputed, and that's perhaps because modern Christianity, by and large, is less fundamentalist and extreme than many aspects of modern Islam.

A thought provoking article. Though I'm with Passy re the left supporting conservative Islam. That's just illogical. The left has as little sympathy for fundamentalist Islam as it would for fundamentalist Christianity. Religious ideologies do not sit comfortably with socialist philosophy.

The supposed support for Islam from the 'left' is the result from the insane diatribes from the conservative Christian right provoking a response to a more measured middle ground.

I agree wholeheartedly with Bronwyn that we need to re establish Australia's secularism. Religious beliefs of any sort belong to the personal realm and not the public.

To live a life congruent with your spiritual beliefs is an individual's responsibility. Not the state's.

In this secular nation all information, thoughts and philosophies are to be accessible to its citizens in its public institutions such as schools and universities and open to debate and scrutiny

CJ says:

<<In fact, that is exactly what I predict over the next generation or two.>>

Sheesh..and I thought "I" was the wanna be prophet here :)

CJ.. of course such a thing is possible. At issue though, is how Islam should be interpreted. Now.. we can indeed allow for a semi secular approach, perhaps where the 'good' in Islam is affirmed and the bad is purged.
How this would impact the Quran is as follows: from the 23rd Surah which is a chapter specifically dedicated to the definition of "The Believers" i.e.. it answers the question 'What is a Muslim'?

23:1 Successful indeed are the believers (TICK)
23:2 who are reverent during their Contact Prayers (TICK)
23:3 And they avoid vain talk. (TICK)
23:4 And they give their obligatory charity (Zakat). (TICK)
23:5 And they maintain their chastity. (TICK)
23:6 Only with their spouses, or those who are rightfully theirs, do they have sexual relations; they are not to be blamed. (WOOPS!)

aah.. now verse 6 would have to be removed from the Quran, because it specifically authorizes sexual relations with captive slave girls.

Now..VANILLA... you need a good verbal spanking, (a-gain) my theological training did not rip me off, it enhanced my life immeasurably.
Do you have any difficulty in grasping the above problem in the 23rd surah? and the problem you have in suggesting I don't have much of a clue is this. Mohammad is the one who said this, but Muslims believe it was ALLAH.. in either case, if you attack it, you will find any Muslim thinking badly of you. Our dear friend FH has given his view on this, he feels that "Islam discouraged slavery" and he emphasizes that to free a slave was commendable. Now.. this understanding is highly debatable, and to seek authoritative answers, usually Muslims will ask an Imam who will in turn refer to..the SCHOOLs I mentioned. (show me I'm wrong :)

paulr, do you now see my point? of course you are right, that taking one sentence out of leviticus is an absurd manner in which to judge christianity. but this is exactly the type of lunacy in which boaz engages in order to slur islam.

my argument here is not with christianity. it is with smug and obtuse religiously inspired bigotry, as stunningly exemplified by boaz.

Dear Passy...

regarding the left's support for Muslims, (as opposed to "Islam") there is PLENTY of evidence mate.

1/ "Resistance/Socialist Alliance"

2/ "Palestinian Solidarity Network"

3/ "The 'anti racism' rally organized by Dean Mighell of the ETU in Brunswick after Abdullah Merhi was arrested on terrorism charges,
http://www.etu.asn.au/2006/hp_townhall.html

Crazy stuff... 'innocence by association' i.e. if ur in the ETU or ur brother is.. you are 'sqeaky clean' b4 the evidence is tested in court!

4/ "Anti Racism" rally in Sydney after Cronulla. Left+Lebanese Muslims and others.

I've been to a couple of these Palestinian demo's and there are plenty of Leftists and Muslims present.

What the left is doing, is supporting anyone where they think there is a political buck in it... I honestly feel the left is using the Muslims just as much as the Muslims are using the Left. But the fundamental ideological positions are as far apart as the East is from the West.

The Left does not realize that the 'injustice' the Muslims refer to, is a result of their THEOLOGICAL position as much as anything else.
(Please read the Hamas Charter, I've given the link often enough)
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
Part III article 11

I am both Muslim and on the left, politically. I don't think that leftist movements and individuals have supported the ideology conservative Islam. However, I do think that in attempting to build (very necessary) anti-racist alliances, some on the left have unwittingly strengthened the standing of conservatives within Muslim communities. I'm getting a bit fed up of having well-meaning people tell me "oh, I met Conservative Muslim Male Media Hate Figure at a forum, and he was really lovely." By which they mean "not the monster that the Daily Telegraph made him seem". But just because someone isn't as immediately horrible as the Daily Tele would have us believe doesn't mean that they don't bully and intimidate those in their own community. The fact that left wing and progressive movements have provided platforms for such conservatives in their efforts to provide support for Muslim communities in general has increased the power of conservatives within their own communities.

BOAZ_David, in response to my criticism that there is no evidence that the left supports conservative Islam names "Resistance/Socialist Alliance".

Naming Resistance/Socialist Alliance is evidence of nothing.

Anti-racism activity (for example) will bring in those who are the victims (or see themselves as the victims) of racism as well as the Left. So what? Opposition to racism is not support for conservative Islam.

This guilt by association is beyond the pale (and typical of the right. You only have to look at the Australian's disgusting campaign against Griffith university for accepting $100,000 from Saudi sources. This is xenophobia in the guise of journalism. The irony is the Saudis have a 6 per cent stake in News corp.)

Guilt by association is nonsense (and indeed is the basis for the racist campaign against Dr Haneef.)

I have been to many demos in my life. There have been socialists, anarchists, neo-liberals, conservatives, Christians, atheists, unionists, ALP people, greens, Democrats, unaligned, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, even Liberals on some occasions, just to name a few. That doesn't make me one of any of those groups (although I am a socialist and unionist and proud of it.) We are united on the issue. That is what brings us together, not agreement with the the philosophies of all those who demonstrate.

To tar me with the brush of those who attend is just childish.

anarkali makes a better point. They say: "The fact that left wing and progressive movements have provided platforms for such conservatives in their efforts to provide support for Muslim communities in general has increased the power of conservatives within their own communities."

I am not aware of where this occurs or has occurred (Canberra is a bit isolated) but suspect you cannot hold an anti-Cronulla riots demo (for example) without inviting speakers whom you disagree with vehemently, but accept they represent some section of the protesters. To not invite them possibly replicates the racism you are protesting against.

If we are serious about secularism, Bronwyn, we should stop funding Christian schools and allow teachers of all persuasions to teach there.

Quite a good article. I note Bronwyn's use of the term "racist" when applied to Muslims (she at least, qualifies it using "ethnic"), but is questioning the actions and utterances of Muslims "racist"? Is Islam a race?

While the Left may not be in direct cahoots with conservative Muslims, they have pandered to them for years, no doubt in the hope of electoral support (remember Keating and Hilali?). The recently unseated "Red Ken" of London has many Muslim friends, including blatant homophobics and suicide bombing supporters. It's a paradox for a centrist like me.

I do question whether Islam is compatible with secular democracies, especially given how few Islamic nations practice democracy in any meaningful way. Iran picks and choses candidates, Indonesia pays only lip service to religious freedom, and Malaysia actively discriminates against non-Muslims through its Bumiputra policy.

While Bronwyn is correct in saying that Islam is far from homegeneous, it is very different to Christianity in that Islam is in itself a political system as "God makes laws, not humans". Whether or not this was the case with Christianity 600 years ago is totally irelevant. The world is a very different place, now, with nations having the capabilty of wiping another off the map in minutes because they dislike the religion of the other, as is the case with Iran vis a vis Israel.

There are very few schools of Islamic thought (and certainly not the 4 or 5 major ones) which in any way suggest women should have equal rights to men, for instance. Is this not an immediate impediment to participation in secular democracy? On top of that are Muslim stances on gays, mixing of the sexes, entertainment, rational discussion, freedom of the press and education etc.

viking13 says:

"The recently unseated "Red Ken" of London has many Muslim friends, including blatant homophobics and suicide bombing supporters. It's a paradox for a centrist like me."

First, he moved away from any actions or philosophy that could be described as leftist some time ago, so Red Ken is a misnomer. He is a centrist.

Second it is absolute rubbish to suggest Ken has friends who support suicide bombers. His actions after the 7 July bombings in London show a man of courage with real compassion for the victims of this outrage. Why does the truth disappear up the orifice of the right when they talk about the Left or what they think is the Left?

Third, speaking of homophobics, ever been to a catholic mass or high Anglican mass?

Why single out Islamic homophobia as compared to that of Jensen or Pell? And Rudd and Nelson in their irrational fear of gay marriage are just as homophobic.

There is no 'concrete' interpretation of Christianity, Islam or Secularism.

I see the views of those holding to their version of secularism in this thread as coming into direct conflict with democracy. In a liberal democracy, religious and non-religious people are free to vote for whatever they wish, with no restriction imposed by the ideology of secularism or religion. The only constraint on democratically elected leaders is the rule of law and a constitution that emphasises individual rights and freedoms.

Those who don't wish the will of the majority to reign solely on the grounds that their agenda may be influenced by religious values that they are opposed to are not defenders of freedom by any stretch of the imagination.

paulr, you raise an important point, but it has nothing to do with religion versus secularism, or what you regard as naive views of either.

there is always tension between the principle of democracy, and the protection of the minority against the majority. that is why most democracies have a bill of rights or some equivalent.

you can argue that such protections of the minority are undemocratic. but it is fatuous to simply claim that "people are free to vote for whatever they wish", as if there are not difficult issues here.

The IQ2 debate…worrying? The ability of the audience to be swayed was indicative of the debator’s skill, not the proposition.

A small diversion: Take a quick peek at the mathematical concept of pareto efficiency.

Pareto improvement results the movement from one allocation to another where at least one individual is better off without being detrimental to any other.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency :

“A simple example is the distribution of a pie among three people who each want as much of the pie as they can get. The most equitable distribution would assign one third to each person. However the assignment of, say, a half section to each of two individuals and none to the third is also Pareto optimal despite not being equitable, because none of the recipients is left worse off than before (when none had pie); An example of a Pareto inefficient distribution of the pie would be allocation of a quarter of the pie to each of the three, with the remainder discarded, as welfare can be increased without reducing the welfare of any individual (e.g. just give the quarter pie to someone).
…Pareto efficiency only serves to uphold the status quo, not result in equitable distribution or a socially optimal outcome.”

How does the tax system provide pareto efficiency for the welfare economy? What will the impact of taking away tax relief of an NFP providing a free service to the community, be?

If the NFP is involved in the provision of social services to the disadvantaged, and is unable to continue, then government will need to step in, raising taxes to meet the cost. Alternatively, society could accept the loss of their safety net.

Containing the black market on the other hand, will produce optimum pareto improvement for the law-abiding – in the form of additional income via taxes – while reducing the pareto efficiency of crime.

Thanks for reading! ... I'm sure most realise that the EB or the profiteers of Mercy Ministries are not representative of Christian ministry...

Ms Winter, Islam and Christianity get the same tax breaks but the buck stops there. Your real motivation here is to undermine the role of the Church by using Islam to discredit Christianity.

Separating Christianity from the State is a difficult task because the Judeo-Christian ethic is intimately fused with dominant culture and legitimized by majority vote in a country that has compulsory voting (the secularists would remove that too, weighing in favour of our basic right NOT to vote).

Bushbred: paulr is right. Support for “Christian conservatism” does not come from left, right or center. Christians, guided by their conscience, are free to vote however they please. “Right” is a political term describing increased state intervention in society. Right wing politics is incompatible with Christianity, as it represents the failure of individuals to recognize God’s dominion. Secularism IS atheism, eg. The Greens.

Christianity does not have an agenda to take over the nation, to infiltrate the halls of power or to push a “radical” Christian agenda onto the political platform. However, while legislators increasingly favour the lobbyists and minority interests, Christians fight for the protection of our freedoms of assembly, publication and speech and the preservation of our institutions.

Public education? Scripture in public schools is only possible with parental consent. There is no compulsion. Neutrality can only be achieved by taking away freedom of choice.

Separating Islam from our liberal democratic State is different. Elements of the sharia system have only recently started to creep in, a process that is facilitated by the ideas of tolerance and fairplay. The tension for Muslims as they rub up against our institutions is evident in their constant demand for concessions: the disproportionate voice of the ANIC, the undue influence of Hanan Dover and the rush by Australian politicians to appease the Muslim voice.

On Keysar Trad: Another name for a system where majority decisions are not binding on the minority is….anarchy.

Shakira Hussein (anarkali): you are cowered into not speaking out against your leaders because (1) you are a woman (2) they have Qu’ranic authority. How is this OUR fault again?

Passy- "Red Ken is a misnomer. He is a centrist."

What a joke! If Red is a centrist I must be Kublai Khan...

Here are a few tidbits about dear ol' Ken:

Ken Livingstone described as "Far Left"
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/83805.aspx

Red Ken's links with Yusuf al-Qaradawi
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4005045.stm

Red Ken tries to reconcile Socialism and Islamism.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/205kdjpf.asp

UK Labour and Labour-voting immigration
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2008/4/18/red-ken-theres-method-in-his-vileness.html

Red Ken thrashed in a debate on militant Islam and the evils of the West
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2675

Paulr, how do you reconcile your views regarding liberal democracies and the voting into government of Hamas in Gaza? Isn't this rather like the coming to power of the National Socialists in Germany, who then eliminated all political opposition? (and put their racial policies into operation).

Many comments on this well-written article have missed a significant point.

The debate about Islam's compatibility with democracy was misconceived for various reasons.

The fact is that if a state is secular and the population is predominantly Muslim or any other monotheistic religion then there is no incompatibility with democratic principles. As for example in Indonesia and Malaysia.

But if a polity is based on Islam or any other monotheistic religion it is a theocracy. That means that all law descends from above and in theory is immutable.

SENECA writes:

"…if a state is secular and the population is predominantly Muslim or any other monotheistic religion then there is no incompatibility with democratic principles. As for example in Indonesia and Malaysia."

Secular democracy is more than merely an expression of popular will. One of the essentials of secular democracy is that the rights of minorities, even unpopular minorities such as homosexuals, are protected.

Do you really think that gays, Jews, Christians, atheists or Hindus enjoy equal protection under the law in Malaysia and Indonesia?

It must be admitted that protection of the rights of unpopular minorities is often an aspiration rather than an actuality. Until recently gays were subject to criminal prosecution in most "Western" countries. India is avowedly secular yet it can be an uncomfortable place for members of lower castes, Christians and Muslims.

But, nonetheless, in a secular democracy at least the aspiration is there.

Of course there is a fine line here. At times protection of the rights of minorities has crossed the line to oppression of the majority by a militant minority. I think we are seeing something of that happening with Islam in Australia.

It is certainly happening in the US. On the one hand we see Christian fundamentalists bent on trashing high-school biology curricula. On the other hand we see secular lefties denying that Islam is as much a malign influence as the Christians those self-same lefties despise.

PASSY,

I am an Islamophobe. I am also a "Nazi-phobe" and a "Christianity-phobe."

So what?

All three are belief systems. In a secular democracy all three are therefore legitimate targets for critique, satire, contempt and scorn. The critic is under no obligation to abide by anybody's notion of fairness or to take into account the feelings of believers.

Contempt for Islam is NOT racism.

In Australia Muslims have the right to pursue "dawa." Do you deny me the right to pursue "anti-dawa?"

Dear Steven

You are welcome to be a 'Christianity'phobe, but I'd rather it was based on some well founded reality rather than myth.

I'd prefer you used the term "Church-aphobe" where you qualify the term to mean "Those churches which hold anti semitic views"

The Christian faith was founded by Jesus, a Jew, and while you might not accept the record of his teaching, death and resurrection, nor of Pauls vivid encounter with the risen Lord, you would not be able to derive a well founded fear of Christians from anything in the New Testament.

A legal matter also. No, you cannot publically scorn or hold in contempt, or ridicule Christianity, not even in other states than Vic.
Precedent shows that to do so can mean the long arm of Victorian law can 'getcha' from other states.

If you want a phobia, be phobic about the law I just referred to the RRT2001, but not we Christians who hold Jews in deep affection. There is simply no reason to fear us.

Viking13 (or should that be Kublai Khan) says:

“I do question whether Islam is compatible with secular democracies, especially given how few Islamic nations practice democracy in any meaningful way. “

I think the same could be said for the West – it does not practice democracy in a meaningful way. There is no democracy for example in the realm of production.

Be that as it may, let’s have a look at democracy and Islam. Indonesia is a democracy (after the people overthrew Suharto). Malaysia is a democracy. Pakistan is a democracy, locked in a struggle with a US supported dictator. Iran was a democracy in 1953 when the CIA overthrew the Mossadeq Government and reinstated the Shah.

Algeria’s second round of voting in 1992 would have seen the FIS (the Islamic Salvation Front) sweep to power. The army, with the support of the West, refused to allow that to happen. Lebanon is a democracy. The Palestinian people have democratically elected Hamas to be their Government. The US supports and props up the illegitimate leadership of Fatah (and indeed supported Fatah’s attempted coup against Hamas in Gaza.)

The US also supports and props up a number of other dictatorships in the Middle East, most notably Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The problem is not that democracy and Islam are incompatible. The problem is that it is not in the interests of the US ruling class to allow democracy to flourish in the Middle East.

As the bloody history of US intervention and/or support for dictatorships around the world shows, the real anti-democrats are in Washington, not Gaza.

“The fact is that if a state is secular and the population is predominantly Muslim or any other monotheistic religion then there is no incompatibility with democratic principles. As for example in Indonesia and Malaysia.”

The assertion by Seneca is contradicted almost everyday since Islam was invented by Mohammad as an excuse for all the evil done to peace-loving people. Islam and democracy are never, and can’t be compatible.

Recently (late April 2008) a group of Muslims burned the places of worship and schools of the Ahmadiyya in Indonesia. The Muslims also managed to convince the government to ban the religious movement in Indonesia because it challenges Islam in that it preaches peaceful co-existence with other religions. The Ahmadiyya, considered ‘heretics’, are banned in almost all Muslim-majority countries. They have been almost annihilated in Pakistan by the moderate Muslims.

http://www.thepersecution.org/world/indonesia/08/04/econ29.html
(The Economist: Bully pulpit)
http://www.thepersecution.org/world/indonesia/08/04/an28.html
(photo of the burnt-out Ahmadiyya ‘mosque’)

In fact ‘moderate’ Muslims in Indonesia frequently burn down churches, Hindu temples and other non-Muslim places of worship.
http://www.thepersecution.org/world/indonesia/08/04/jp29op.html
(persecution of minorities in Indonesia)

Indonesia had true freedom of religion under the dictatorial rule of Suharto. He understood and spoke the same language as Islam, brutality and force. Turkey and Indonesia, once held out as an example of moderate Muslim countries are showing their true Islamist colours once a secular dictator gives way to Muslim-majority rule.

And recently, Phillip Tang, a group of Christians invaded Iraq and the death toll now totals about 1.2 m. Plus 500,000 the Christian nations' sanctions killed in the ten years or so before the invasion. Your god presumably knows how many the Christians are killing and have killed in Afghanistan.

Yet still the Christians haven't won and won't. Whose side is your god really on in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I can only conclude from all this Christian inspired barbarism (now and over the last 1700 years or so)that Christianity and democracy are incompatible. Hence the need for a secular society. A good start would be to stop funding Christian schools and any other religious schools. If religions want to inculcate propaganda into the minds of defenceless kids, let them pay for it without support from the representative state.

I forgot to add to my list of Muslim majority countries earlier that Turkey is a democracy.

Passy is confused between Christianity and the unholy trinity of Bush, Blair and Howard who started the unprovoked war in Iraq. I partially agree with Mahathir, the ex-prime minister of Malaysia, in calling for the three to be tried. However, they are not responsible for ‘war crimes’ as alleged by Mahathir.

The carnage in Iraq (thousands killed and not 1.2 million) is inspired by Islam in that Muslims kill fellow Muslims for religious reasons. Shias are killing Sunnis. Sunnis are killing Shias. Sunnis and Shias are killing Christians and there is an exodus of Christians out of Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/.stm

Islam was held in check by Saddam, a secular Muslim. With him out of the way you get to see what true Islam does to Muslims —chaos and carnage in the country. This is what is happening to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia.

Secular Muslim, Hasan Mahmud from Bangladesh explains what the agenda of classical Islam really is. He helped prevent shariah law from taking root in Canada.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ6WL8xtGtk

The author of this article is herself sending mixed messages. On one hand she says secularism is about neutrality in public institutions including education. On the other hand she finds difficulty in funding Christian schools. Yet if we are talking about true neutrality, then don’t Christian families (or anyone else) have a right to an education they deem appropriate?

The first schools in this country were church based. The government systems were then set up to compliment or perhaps strengthen what was already there, but not to oppose or undermine it. The goal being that all kids across the land would be able to read and write.

As a believer, I am grateful to live in a (supposedly) secular country where the government has no business in the persuasion of my core values and beliefs.

Yet government funding to private schools is not breaking the principles of secularism. Anyone can apply for such funding. If such funding is denied to Christians on the basis that they are Christian, then that is religious persecution.

Despite our author’s protests that her secularism is not a form of atheism (like the numerous protests I read in this forum saying that atheism is not a religion) I have reason to be suspicious of this author’s educational agenda.

Dan S de Merengue: "The author of this article is herself sending mixed messages. On one hand she says secularism is about neutrality in public institutions including education. On the other hand she finds difficulty in funding Christian schools. Yet if we are talking about true neutrality, then don't Christian families (or anyone else) have a right to an education they deem appropriate?"

No.

They have a right to education, absolutely. But the principle of religious neutrality in education doesn't mean that all religions should be able to conduct schooling as they see fit. It means education should be neutral. Without religion, and certainly without preferring one religion to another. Secular.

After that, freedom of religion means that Christians have a right to teach their children about Christianity and commune and go to Sunday school and proselytise and dance in the streets.

Of course, in practice, the secular state permits religious schools. But if Christians or Muslims or whoever want to send their children to religious schools, then they need to found these schools, and fund them, and adhere to a standard national curriculum. I see no reason why taxpayers in a secular state should help fund religious people who choose to give their children religious educations.

The secular state is not a free for all. Secular values are often misinterpreted as permissive. In fact they are fierce values, values that — inter alia — ensure the state is not corrupted by the church, that a variety of people can coexist. We should fiercely defend those values.

I just read this article again and found it interesting all over again. Although, with the GREATEST GREATEST respect, I think the author needs to reread George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language". This is not an academic publication, and all those "in relation to"s and "posit"s make the prose remote and academic without adding to the argument.

Vanilla,

I agree 100% with your post.

Stevenlm and Vanilla,

Perhaps one of you could try and define what you mean by secular. As Paulr has pointed out, defining the word secular is tricky, and people have been sliding between different definitions in this thread so far. But it seems that your version of a secular state is not much different to an atheist state. If one of you could explain how it differs, I would appreciate it.

My understanding is that the idea of secularism is more a tradition that has developed over the years, but is not anywhere defined in law. The closest we might come in the constitution is the guarantee of freedom of religion, in which the government is restricted from prescribing or proscribing any religious preference.

My other understanding is that the notion of secularism is a Christian invention, and the idea was not that the state won’t be corrupted by the church but that church won’t be corrupted by the state.

To continually ignore God, and in such manner demonstrate that he has no valid place in society or in the educational sphere, is the philosophy of the atheist. The government cannot mandate such an educational preference, and tax paying Christians won’t suffer it either. They have the freedom in our democracy to demand that some of their tax dollars go in a proportional manner towards educating their kids also.

Dan S de Merengue,

Your main problem is that you are trying to reason with those blinded by their own dogmas. Once a person denies God they make up their own rules which all vary greatly. The humanist have no problem with their tax paying dollars going to abortion clinics but then complain when private schools who do things cheaper and better are given some funding to top up the amount parents pay.

Dan: "Perhaps one of you could try and define what you mean by secular... it seems that your version of a secular state is not much different to an atheist state. If one of you could explain how it differs..."

Yes, it's a very good question, and I probably did mix up "secular" and "secular humanist" perhaps. I think secular simply means "without religion", whereas when I was talking about the values of secularism I meant the values of reason, rationality, tolerance.

Atheist states I know nothing about, but I assume you mean a state where religion would not be permitted. Therein lies the difference. Freedom of religion is part of secular society.

"To continually ignore God, and in such manner demonstrate that he has no valid place in society or in the educational sphere, is the philosophy of the atheist."

That's true. And at least as far as education is concerned, it's also the philosophy of a secularist. Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews, etc etc have the freedom, in a secular society, to teach their children about religion — a religious education, in other words. However, it certainly shouldn't be carried on within the state school system.

But personal gods do have a place in society for those who believe in those gods, so I think there is a distinction between atheism and secularism there.

"[Religious people] have the freedom in our democracy to demand that some of their tax dollars go in a proportional manner towards educating their kids also."

Well, they have the freedom to demand it, and indeed, they currently receive it. I don't think democracy extends the *right* to taxpayer funded religious schools, however.

Here's a question:

How come if I don't believe in a religion, and want to go to a religious school for other reasons I can be denied, given that the government funds the school?

I say, the government provides schooling. If you don't like it, pay for your own, and don't expect the government to subsidize you. They offered! You rejected their schooling, why do you think they should pay for you snubbing your nose at them?

Exactly Vanilla.

Furthermore, of what relevance to Australia is it how secular, tolerant or democratic other nations are? Of no relevance whatsoever.

Australia is supposedly a secular nation, but more and more religion is creeping into the public realm. Not only Islam, but very much so Christian.

Tolerance of another's right to practice a belief system does not equate into an acceptance of the validity of that belief system and certainly not in tolerating someone's belief unsolicited in another's life.

I cannot tell you how angry I was when my daughter had religious education, which turned out not to be education at all but the propaganda of a particular brand of Christianity I abhor, in a State school. A Public State School. I was not asked for permission. I only had the right to WITHDRAW her from classes so she could sit in the Library. (This was after I pointed out that making her put her desk in the back facing the wall was not removing her) Quite bizarre don't you think? I'd expect that from a religiously based school, not a public state school.

Think of the uproar if the religious education, from which you as a parent could WITHDRAW your child, was fundamentalist Sunni Islam and she came home questioning women's lack of cover instead of questioning the possibility of scientists being Christian and dinosaurs existence.

The state has no business funding religious practices of any kind. That includes schools. If adherents cannot fund their particular needs than perhaps facts need to be faced that not enough people have been sold on the relevance of said philosophy to dip into their own pockets.

My understanding of "secular" is simply a system that does not favour one religion over another, or belief over non-belief and where State and Church powers are separate.

Programs like school chaplaincy go against the very nature of secularism. Not only does the program favour one religion (Christianity) over all others but it also intrudes on the freedom from religion that atheists might expect from a government funded school.

How is a secular state to balance freedom of religion with the law? For example, how does a secular state deal with matters like polygamy? Do we allow polygamy in a secular society under the mantle of religious freedom or should it be illegal? I know there have been exceptions made here in Australia on that issue alone (where the marriages were legally conducted outside Australia and where it was considered humanitarian in a refugee application). How flexible should a secular state become to accommodate the various religions?

I tend to think there is safety and security in the knowledge that the fundamentals of freedom of speech, the justice system or democracy are not overridden by religious or non-religious dogma

Pelican,
You say secularism doesn’t favour one religion over another, or belief over non-belief. You omitted favouring non-belief over belief. This needs to be included.

You ask how we deal with polygamy within a secular state. You’ve hit on a tough question, that of balancing morals and values with law. Can the values of secularism alone, such as reason, rationality, and tolerance, give us an answer to why monogamy is better than polygamy? (I’ve never heard a good answer from an atheist when asked for a basis for marriage.)

I suspect that the school chaplain here is going to be a lot more in line with your view than a teacher from a non-Christian religion, even if she does have to go back to the first or second page of the book where it talks about the first couple, Adam and Eve.

Vanilla,
You’ve said a couple of times that religion shouldn’t be taught in public schools. You reasoning seems to be that you believe that the principles of secularism prohibit this. I know this certainly wasn’t the case at the inception of the public school.

When state schools began, the word ‘secular’ meant not aligning with any particular church. But they looked for the common ground. Since most families were either at least nominally Catholic or Protestant, God was still pretty much front and centre. I know it’s a bit trickier now that we are more of a pluralistic society.

When I studied a bit of philosophy at a state university, some of the lecturers were known to be either Christian or at least a little sympathetic to it. Such a mixture amongst the staff was, of course, quite healthy for the department and the students. Some of that open attitude to the spirit of learning needs to be present (and it often is) in public state schools, remembering that high school is a place where we are supposed to be teaching kids how to think, not just what to think.

Dan to Pelican: "Can the values of secularism alone, such as reason, rationality, and tolerance, give us an answer to why monogamy is better than polygamy?"

For a start, I don't think we should be afraid to ask whether polygamy is better than monogamy.

I believe monogamy is preferable because it ensures children are reared within genetic family units, the situation in which it seems they thrive best. It also distributes life partners evenly throughout society. Which keeps us happy. And it protects us from maraudering groups of young horny men!

Dan: "Such a mixture amongst the staff was, of course, quite healthy for the department and the students..."

Absolutely — a person's religion has no bearing on their teaching ability. I went to a white-bread, small-town regional state school — some openly Jewish teachers walking round in kippahs would have really shaken things up! A Sikh or two would have been excellent.

I studied comparative religion as an HSC subject (I was then at a Christian school as my state school only went to year ten — the school Chaplain taught it, and very well too I might add). Then at uni I did first year comparative religion. Although I appear to have forgotten *everything* I learnt at uni (something to do with the vast quantities of Strongbow cider I consumed), but I know I learnt much. Comparative religion, the psychological and sociological origins of religion, and cultural religious practices are all part of a good liberal education.

But there is a difference between having teachers who are religious and/or teaching the beliefs and cultures of the world's religions in that sociological context, AND ministering to children within a particular theology. It is not the business of teachers to proselytise. It's not their business to suggest one religion is real while another is fantasy.

In their own time, sure. But not from nine to three-thirty, or whatever hours school keeps these days.

Dan you ask some good questions and space limitations probably don't permit a greater analysis or discussion and it is good to reappraise what is considered moral within a secular society.

The short answer is that I would agree with Vanilla's explanation about favouring monogamy over polygamy from the view of biological diversity and implications for survival of the species.

The same premise can be used to answer your question about the basis of marriage from an atheist's point of view. The union of two people in love who might wish to demonstrate their committment via the legal process and who later might go on to raise a family. Some couples may not choose that path and be equally committed.

Marriage is also a part of our culture. Even an atheist cannot deny the influence religion has played in shaping our values and through it our legal systems.

Would man have developed similar value systems without the 'presence' of an all-knowing or feared God? No-one can answer that but I suspect with technological advancement, increased access to information and 'civilisation' man would have developed some moral code or a community value system from a natural sense of altruism and for assurance of survival. This might have included marriage to only one person over polygamy for the reasons outlined above.

Dear Vanilla.. you are making a lot of sense there.. even to me. (regarding the right to an 'education', but not a "religious" education.)

One problem though, is that the state education contains certain biases and content which while still theoretical, is presented as fact, and in such a way that it conflicts seriously with some faiths. The origin of the Universe and life being prime examples.

I don't see why, if they are the main differences between a secular and religious education, government funding should not be made available for religious schools also. Our consitution does not allow the government to make any law which inhibits a religion or promotes it.
The lawfully enforced teaching of Origins as purely natural phenomena might be arguably unconstitutional because it 'inhibits' all religions which believe in Divine Creation.

If, however, Government/Secular schools, were prepared to do the following, there might not be any incentive for religious schools (Protestant Christian ones at least)

-When teaching 'origins' they can present "View i) View ii) View iii) etc. As long as they say "The Jury is still out on this" we are less threatened.
-When teaching 'human health and sexuality' or whatever they term it, they should point out that while secularists accept homosexual lifestyles, some religious faiths do not. (without condemning those faiths when this issue is raised)

Other than that, all educational information is quite neutral.

We still have some problems though.

Secularism is vulnerable to the 'loudest voices' and one of those 'voices' may argue for polygamy, or.. lowering the age of consent to 'puberty'... etc.

Once the "secular" bridge has been crossed, the "highway" then goes to who knows where. (But the AC/DC song comes to mind)

We need our moral TomTom :) "500 meters from now, turn...right"

Boazy: "Dear Vanilla.. you are making a lot of sense there.. even to me."
Really? Cause you're making no sense to me.

I presume your convoluted post suggests that the state school system should teach the ludicrous "theory" of creationism during science lessons. It's a natty idea, but does have one major stumbling block — the education department is populated with people who, while by no means geniuses, aren't complete idiots either.

In earlier post, Dan correctly posited that we should teach kids to think for themselves, rather than believe any old cr@p that they're taught. Unfortunately for you, that happened some generations ago.

It's disappointing for you, but you're going to have to accept it.

Boazy: "Secularism is vulnerable to the 'loudest voices' and one of those 'voices' may argue for polygamy, or.. lowering the age of consent to 'puberty'... etc."
Polygamy is generally a religious practice, not a secular one. Lowering the age of consent is something you are obsessed with. As I understand it, you erroneously believe that gay people lobby to lower the age of consent. This is incorrect.

Look, you turn people off god, and for that I still love you, but if you're going to go all monkey trial on us, why not be entertaining at the same time? A while ago, you posted that the fact that there was no rivers on Mars proved that evolution was impossible. When challenged, you did your usual disappearing act. C'mon, explain the science for us.

It's late and time for bed, so my brain isn't functioning normally. Let me just say what a clever nom de plume Dan S de Merengue is.

I like these guys. They want equal air time with intelligent design in the school system. I think they have a good case.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/