The US is secular. England is secular. Australia is secular. Runner can you name one country you DO admire? Just one, so that the rest of us can get a fix on what the devil you're talking about.

Bennie

'Runner can you name one country you DO admire'

I admire Australia and the US because of the freedoms that we all have.Most of the freedoms were won by God fearing people not social engineers. What I dislike greatly is those freedoms being eroded by the social engineers (secularist) who have messed up their own lives and now want to preach to others. The idiocy of having a Health Minister who is pro abortion would be a good example of this.

Demos,

If a republic model came with recall and citizens initiative referendum, along the lines of the Swiss model, I would support it. However it would also need provisions that would prevent the High Court interpreting it out of existence, as they have done with section 41 of the Constitution.

If you have any knowledge of these things at all, you would know that Her Majesty does not rule by the Grace of God, but by the provisions of the Act of Settlement, 1702, which conferred the crown on Electress Sophia of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being protestants. The last King of Great Britain to rule by the Grace of God was Charles I, and he lost his head over it.

You should also know that section 116 of our Constitution is almost a word for word copy of part of the first article in the US Bill of Rights. Our only problem is its interpretation by the High Court. This is why I oppose a Bill of Rights here; we can elect politicians, but not judges.

The sort of constitutional amendment I would like to see would be along these lines:

"The failure, in the opinion of the Governor-General, of any justice of the High Court to interpret this constitution in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the words contained therein at the time of its adoption, shall constitute proved incapacity in the terms of section 72 of the constitution."

The Health Minister is not pro-abortion. She is for allowing people to choose for themselves.

You, obviously, are against people's right to choose for themselves.

Jon J

Great post!

runner

"We have seen the fruit of the State school systems which are on the brink of collapse. Even many hard line secularist refuse to send their kids there."

State school systems are nowhere near the brink of collapse. They have increasingly struggled to retain students since the advent of state-funded private schooling, but they've held their own amazingly well and provide much better value for the educational dollar than the private sector does.

Private schools vet potential students and only take in those they approve of, whereas state schools take in all students regardless of how many problems they might have and how many extra dollars they might require in additional support. Any perceived advantage in private schooling lies largely in the fact that these well-endowed private schools have over time creamed off the best students and left state schools to struggle on in a moreorless residual capacity. It has nothing whatever to do with the superiority of religion over secularism that you imply.

"We already have many of our politicians parading a false morality under the guise of environmentalism when they have not even got the decency to be faithful to their wives or husbands. The more secular influence we get the more of this crap we can expect."

Talking of 'crap'! What has 'environmentalism' got to do with the falling moral standards you are so pathetically panicked over?

You might feel safe in the belief that your god will save you from whatever catastrophe the planet might be headed for, but most of us would much prefer to put our trust in science and government, and hope that urgent priority is given to the 'environmentalism' you so ignorantly disparage.

Bronwyn: "Using taxpayers' money to fund schools that promote the dubious teachings of many religions and sects is extremely problematic for many Australians."

About 15% of Australians actually, assuming everyone who puts Atheist et al on the census is rabidly opposed to religious expression. Maybe a similar proportion of Christian Australians would consider using the machinery of the state to force their worldview on others too, but that doesn't make it acceptable or democratic.

Surely the enlightened, liberal, democratic thing to do is create a level playing field for all worldviews, prohibit the state from taking sides (by providing services without favouritism) and win hearts/minds through constructive debate - or at least refrain from attempts to dominate one another (or indoctrinate each other's children by force).

Steel: "As you can see in this thread and others religious moderates such as jamesf automatically use their 'moderate' voice to advocate for extreme religious policy (theocratic state) and side with their religious dominionists."

Actually, I'm completely opposed to theocracy and dominionism (even just for the church's sake), but that's prohibited by the establishment clause which I support. Max advocated a separation clause which gives state support to the atheist worldview but not the religious.

I'm also opposed to overlap between clergy and state officials, or religious ritual (e.g. prayer) and state occasions, to me they verge on establishment. However, I support state funding (equally for all worldviews) of values-inseparable services (education, health, aid/welfare etc).

Jon J: "Thirty Islamic militants killed in Pakistan, etc
...
Now, if we were all atheists..."

If we were all atheists, eh? Anyone can filter stories: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=821859.

It's a flimsy argument based on selectivity bias - and you know it. You ignore data against atheism or for religion (Mother Teresa, Ghandi, MLK, Mandela, Romero, the Acteal 45) and conclude that innately atheism is good and religion bad. A rationalist must concede it's an invalid, circular argument.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the French Revolution... help me out here? Just because atheists rarely have power doesn't mean none commit atrocities when they do.

james