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.