” Given our two countries have not formally separated church and state it’s fair to say that we are formally theocratic in our style of government rather than secular.”

It is not ‘fair’ to say that at all; to say that NZ and Australia are theocratic is total rubbish. Only a small minority of people in both countries take any religion seriously, and their governments certainly don’t. New Zealand probably takes the monarchy more seriously than does Australia, but to drag in the Monarch’s connection with the Church of England is silly. Most New Zealanders and Australians probably would not know (certainly not care) that the Queen is head of the Church of England; and it is very, very doubtful that citizens of either country think of the Union Jack on their flags as anything but a bit of history – Christian crosses indeed!.

Never heard of a “Christian National Thanksgiving Day”. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but as an average Australian, I don’t know of it. Does anyone?

The Christian prayers in parliament are merely a piece of historical symbolism, and politicians’ behaviour certainly makes the prayers null and void.

These “hard core evangelicals” who get the ear of politicians are no more privileged than big business. All sorts of odds and sods with the weirdest ideas can lobby politicians. According to this secularist preacher, secularism caters for all, and listens to all!

A distaste for homosexuals extends well outside religious dogma.

Federal Governments give money to religious schools because it is cheaper for them. State schools are the preserve of state governments, and they give no money to religious schools. Whether or not the state schools are under-funded has nothing do with the subject.

Humanist instruction in schools? Humanists/secularists have no creed and stand for nothing. Secularism is just a pile of mumbo-jumbo put together by a group of malcontents: it is based on nothing and means nothing.

Tub thumping ‘secularists’ are just as obnoxious as bible bashers. They both have their religions.

A most thoughtful and thought provoking article.

placeta 116 of the Constitution Act, (Cth) states:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Looks like there can be lots of "religion" without ever transgressing s.116

Mr Right,
I was pleasantly surprised by your post I actually saw some merit (in principle) with it until you got to:
>" Humanists/secularists have no creed and stand for nothing. Secularism is just a pile of mumbo-jumbo put together by a group of malcontents: it is based on nothing and means nothing."<

True you won’t see much in the way of meaningful discussion on what Humanism is and what they stand for in the media then again I can think of a dozen other worthwhile institutions that I never seen in the media either.
I would be foolish to make assumptions on their veracity on that basis.

Given that philosophy give the intellectual basis for our societies in the same way science/mathematics underpin our technology I think it would be prudent of you to seek out some books on that school of philosophy and their reasoning.

I you did you would then know that a “Tub thumping” secular humanist is an oxymoron by definition. Secular Humanists (like me) tend to be neutral, favouring reason this logically excludes ‘tub thumpers’ of any persuasion as their (tub thumpers) views are extreme exude intolerance and ignorance.

MAX
I find that a number of your list points particularly the first three,thanks giving day and describing Australia as being theocratic are details in search of relevance. They are anacronisms that have long lost relevance in today's Australia. Pomp and pagentary/symbolism is if not dead in Australia its on life support.
Even Christmas has more to do with 1930's Coca Cola ads and a feel good times than hard core religion.

Max writes

'Secularism is a form of neutral government that listens to all points of view'

Reading from the thousands of posts on OLO you would have to be totally gullible to believe this statement. Fundamentalist Secularists are far from neutral. Many times they fail to accept democracy and are often blind to their own dogmas. Mr Right is right for a change. He writes
'Tub thumping ‘secularists’ are just as obnoxious as bible bashers. They both have their religions.' The only difference is that secularist are often dishonest about their dogmas.

Could you imagine how much more of our population would be indoctrinated with secular promiscuity if we had no private schools where parents actually pay fees in order to get a reasonable education. You would think with their fruit of std's, teenage pregnancy, broken homes, and sexual abuse that they would crawl into a hole. But no! Louder than ever they want more condoms as if that actually ever solved any issues; they want more porn despite kids everywhere being abused; more loathing of our Christian heritage that led to more harmony than any other nations I know of. We see the violence in California recently of secularist who just can not accept democracy. Max Wallace is fooling himself.

governments seek legitimacy from one of two sources: god, or the people. a monarchy chooses god, democracy the people. australia is the former in law, neither in reality. parliament has no constitutional authority to govern, but shares the british 'smoke and mirrors' constitution where the theoretical rule of the sovereign is a figleaf on the rule of the cabinet. this avoids the necessity of ceding power to the lower class.

kerr, and whitlam, demonstrated what the law is, the politicians have made damn sure the law is kept out of sight since then.

religion also seems to depend on god, or the people. very few ozzies appear to believe in god, but rather more want to use religion to bully their neighbors, and/or, prop up their self-esteem.

a secular state takes no formal notice of religion. do anything you like at home or in public, so long as you break no laws. religious nutters can't stand this. knowing or fearing their religion is false, they proclaim it all the more loudly and fiercely, imagining noise will cover up emptiness.

sorry folks. science explains the world quite well, religion has long been exposed as nonsense. no amount of "burn them! is going to repair your history or current foolishness.

Good article from Max Wallace. Do I detect an increasing groundswell of popular support for the affirmation of Australia as a secular society of late?

Perhaps, when Australia finally grows up as an independent nation and becomes a republic, we can do so with a new Constitution that unambiguously separates religion from the State.

Good article. This would of course be the ideal - a neutral government and a society that truly embraces the idea of freedom of belief and a real separation of Church and State.

Runner
I don't think you are a bad person but your posts always seem to be filled with anger and intolerance of anyone with a different belief than your own. Can you not see that secularists seek an end to the division that religion sometimes creates and to each religion/belief its own safe and secure place in society - including your own.

pelican you ask

'Can you not see that secularists seek an end to the division that religion sometimes creates and to each religion/belief its own safe and secure place in society - including your own.'

Some secularist might be well intentioned but they have no hope of ending division. They are unable to be in unity with each other let alone others. Look at the impotent UN which is really a pathetic representation of humanist. The more secular our nation has become the more divided we have become. Secularist are often very dishonest. Anyone can see that a child's best chance in life is to have a loving mother and father. Secularism has done nothing but attack the traditional family unit with its godless policies. Surely you can see that people have voted with their feet as far as schooling is concerned. Many at private schools are not even slightly religous but they can clearly see the fruit of secular education.

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt about not being a 'bad person'. All people have an adamic nature (bias towards sin). Our only goodness comes from the One who is perfectly good. You seem to think that I am an angry person. Those who know me would disagree vehemently. I am one with strong opinions and I realise I am in the minority on many of them. You however are blinded if you can not see the anger and violence displayed by many secularist when they do not get their way. Many secularist are dishonest about science somehow validating their opinions.

Shalom

This article is misguided, because the author has made a fundamental blunder in his thinking.

He fails to understand the difference between separating church and state, and separating faith and politics. It isn't surprising that someone without religious faith fails to see the distinction; but the mere fact that Wallace makes no effort to make the distinction shows what an intolerant man he really is, towards people who don't share his atheism.

Ironically, it's the same kind of intolerance of which he accuses religious people.

So my summary of this ridiculous rant? Pot and kettle, pot and kettle... Max Wallace is clearly just as much blinded by his own intolerance as the "militant" Christians whom he takes fire at. Judging by some of the comments in this article, perhaps even moreso

Bill Broome said:

"sorry folks. science explains the world quite well, religion has long been exposed as nonsense. no amount of "burn them! is going to repair your history or current foolishness."

If science explains the world so well, then why does it fail dismally when asking the two biggest questions of all?

- How the the universe begin?

- How did life begin?

The Big Bang theory accounts for the development of the universe, but not the beginning. How did the matter which prompted the big bang get there in the first place? how did something come from nothing?

The same question applies to life. Evolution accounts for development of life (and..I might add, does a very questionable job of explaining even that), but doesnt have any theory for abiogenesis- ie: How did the first, very intricate cell get there?

In fact, science has come up so short in these two areas that Richard Dawkins has admitted that "you could make a serious case for a Deistic God".

Clearly, science does not satisfactorily account for explaining all of life's questions when it can't even come close on the important ones.

Back to Max Wallace.

"An atheist form of government can be hostile to religion".

Clearly, this is the kind of government which Wallace is pining for. He talks about World Youth Day and says this:

"If Australia was a republic with a constitutional separation of church and state, straight out donations of cash to religions like this could be unconstitutional"

Notice the COULD- obviously this is what Wallace would be wanting. But regardless, thats not the issue. The issue is that Wallace has missed the point (again....). Since when is the World Youth Day a "donation of cash". Categorising the event like that is sheer ignorance at its best. It was a cultural event which served a large proportion of Australia's population and brought in hundreds of millions of dollars of tourism dollars to Australia. And Wallace chooses to categorise it bluntly as a "straight out donation".

Again, Wallace shows that he's blinded by his own intolerance. Sad really

I don’t support a hard-line “separation of Church and State” (nor does the U.S.- the terminology doesn’t appear in any official documents).

Church and State should not COMPROMISE one another. They will inevitably influence one another (people form governments, and people may be religious) but the State shouldn’t get its final rulings from the Pope, and the government shouldn’t tamper with the free practice of religion.

At a public lecture on Constitutional law, I learnt that the two biggest influences on Western civilization are ancient Greek culture (from which we get our democracy) and the Judeo-Christian heritage (from which we get our equality- you had to be male, rich, a land-owner and free to be part of the demos in Greece). Our legislation and common law would make no sense without the influence of both of these. They made us who we are today.

You outline the kind of atrocious practices that occur in some theocracies (most of them Islamic) and then define Australia as theocratic because, wow, a few Christians set up a national thanksgiving day with the approval of individual MPs! We have crosses in our flags! Of course we do. It is a part of our heritage. It is not an enforced dogma (in the same way that ancient Greek practices are not enforced) but it has shaped a part of who we are.

Some points:

“secular governments are democracies which respect a citizen’s right to believe whatever they want and usually practice those beliefs, so long as that practice does not entail breaking the law.”

So what does free practice entail?

Would a secular state allow:

-the freedom to actively proselytise? They should because this is a basic tenant of most of the missionary religions. Yet some secularists have called for it to be removed.

-a Christian doctor the freedom to not be involved in the killing of a foetus? Or would it force the doctor to at least refer the mother onto another doctor so she can eventually kill her foetus? (c.f. decriminalisation of abortion in Vic).

-the Church the freedom to preach homosexuality is a sin? Or to prevent practicing homosexuals from holding ministry positions? They should because this has been a part of the Christian text for millennia. Yet in some parts of Canada, parts of the Bible referring to homosexuality have been outlawed and the Aussie Greens have favoured positive discrimination for homosexuals in religious organisations.

-free criticism of other religions? It should, but if it were to be politically-correct it probably wouldn’t. It might confuse critiquing a person’s beliefs and/or behaviours with a hate crime (c.f. religious tolerance legislation).

-parents choosing to send children to schools that reflect their values or is this too “divisive” as Gillard has said? Would it allow parents to prohibit their 12 year old daughters from getting on the pill or is it really up to the state to decide this?

“The notion that governments should be respectful of ALL opinions and favour none…”

Would this include the right for an individual to say in the public square “I think _____ is wrong because I am a Christian?” (or should those individual’s opinions be discarded)

What sorts of things would secularism be likely to encourage? I’ll take a guess:

"Secular utopianism is based on a belief in an unstoppable human ability to make a better world, while at the same time it believes that we have the right to kill unborn children and surplus old people, and to play games with the humanity of those in between."
-N.T. Wright

Bill “Science explains the world quite well”
Science may explain a mechanism, but not the agent. It can answer “how” but it does nothing to answer “why”.

“Religion has long been exposed as nonsense”
Read a little of the Christ Files, the Case for Christ, etc. The more research people do into the historical events of Christ, most importantly His alleged death and resurrection, the closer they come to belief, not disbelief.

Re: tax, I’m sorry to self-plug, but Max would you mind addressing some of the issues I wrote about here please: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2173

Max,

Interesting article.

Is Elizabeth II as, "Queen of Australia," also Defender of the Faith in our Commonwealth. Or is that merely a GB title?

True enough Trav, science is not equipped to explain the origins of either life or the universe. However saying ‘god did it’ only replaces one mystery with a considerably bigger one. The onus is now upon you to explain how [your] god came about; it is not reasonable to hold science to any standard of empiricism while celebrating the absence of one yourself.

To put it another way, it’s a bit rich to scoff at the limits of science when your own position depends upon it. Secularism recognises this.

Ah. The same tired old 'lie' about neutrality. Isn't it strange how the 'neutral' position always seems to line up with secular humanist beliefs.

The only thing able to be taught in state schools about the nature of reality is secular humanist belief. The only morality put forward in state schools is secular humanist morality. Amazing coincidence.

As previous commentators have noted, there is a conflict between secular humanist morality and many religions morality at multiple points. This becomes more and more obvious as secular humanists try to relegate any religious belief and activity to a subjective, personal, practice.

This intellectually dishonest crap about being 'neutral' really is lame.

Secularism is indeed neutrality. Atheism is not.

Agnosticism is far closer to neutrality than atheism, particularly militant atheism.

This comes back to one simple issue: government should be neutral, and not favour any belief set.

To those like grey who say that secularism isn't neutral, I say, well... what is neutral?

Anything that isn't neutral is unacceptable. So... what are you proposing, hmm?

For those who whinge and whine about secular government, I say, balls to you. It's the closest thing we have to neutrality.

Answer this simple question: do you want religious government?

If the answer is no, then good. I disagree with the author, I think the Australian government is more or less secular, though I wouldn't mind if they codified this so it stays that way.

To those who say yes, I say, fine. Go to Saudi Arabia.

I see intolerance when some people will deny the moral rights of the individual, rights that will have no affect on the intolerant person or society.
I see intolerance, when these same persons make every attempt to impose their beliefs on others, without respect for the others belief of how others see life.
Therefore to respect all beliefs in society, neutral and secular government is essential in a civilised society, were no person or groups of persons have the right, to denigrate or deny to others.

I find the co-incidence of timing amongst other things most amusing.

Did everyone see the rabid, frothing at the mouths "false Christian" individuals going !SICK! and !SMASHING ON! in the (Un)Holy Sepulchre?

HaHaHa

Well done *mAx* U have well pressed the buttons of some by exposing their grubby little political control mechanisms.

;-)

If the Israelis were to chuck 'em all out, insist on a cooling off period and tender the care taking role of that place out to more "reasonable & spiritually refined" individuals, they wld have my full support, pursuant to the right of all of us to put our 2c in.
(That includes *Lizzy Winza* incidentally)

The Churches well know that that thing in the corner of our flag is a symbol of genocidal oppression to more than just the Original Australians of this our planet earth and these people who argue that as neither *Lizzy* nor their biased and prejudiced traditions, flag and all have no practical significance that we shld just go along with the status quo make me want to chunder. It is quite plain that they care only for safeguarding their own positions, status and influence.

This is what comes of delusions of grandeur/infallibilty complexes. In a more enlightened society, his popiness wld probably get a needle in the bum and a stint in the monkey house and no doubt it is the (Un)Holy Spirit of donations guiding the ArchTurkey g.pell in his views as a "Climate change skeptic."

Mayhaps he is disengenuous and fears only the rise of the Greens, and is prepared to say anything out of fear of their anti-Christ delusions. Afterall, why have an active if rarely used "Exorcism" room if U believe not in our *Lord Satan?*

;-)

Trav, while science has not solved the questions of ‘How did the universe and life begin?’ it’s done much more to answer those questions than religion has. Religion offers us nothing on these fronts as it merely makes an assertion (‘God did it’) with no supporting evidence, and as Bennie pointed out, it raises more questions that answers. Even if a convincing case could be made that science will never explain such phenomena, there is absolutely no reason to believe that religion can.

Evolution doesn’t require a well grounded theory of abiogenesis – it still does an excellent job of explaining the evidence and that’s why an overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists accept it. We don’t yet fully understand the origin of matter, but that doesn’t mean we throw out well understood theories of physics and chemistry which explain how matter behaves.

On the issue of secularism it seems many have fallen into the trap of assuming that secularism = atheism (despite the title of the article). Secularism is quite simply the separation of church and state, meaning the government cannot favour a particular religion and cannot enforce citizens to practice (or not practice) a religion. Secularism is supported by not only atheists, but theists as well. Having religious freedom however, does not mean one can send their children to public schools and expect them to be spoon-fed their particular brand of religious dogma. If you want your kids to believe the earth is 6000 years old or that condoms don’t work, you’ll have to indoctrinate them with that kind of nonsense at home.

Fair enough runner. But you may find that some of the things you believe in are the same as some atheists. But as others have said secularism is not the same as atheism. Secularism by its nature means neutrality.

Grey
When talking about a neutral government - it has to be the same in regard to government schools. You can't have some government schools teaching creationism, some teaching Christianity, some Judaism and others Islam etal - in relation to morals. It is a mish mash and would be a practical impossibility. Certainly religion can be taught as an aspect of history but I would argue a fair study across the gambit of religions.

Perhaps I am old fashioned but as a parent I regard the teaching of morals to be the responsibility of family and something for the home. Schools, of course can be a place where manners and issues of respect and kindness etc can be reinforced but not in a formal 'morals' teaching sense.

One of my children went to an Anglican school - many students were from atheist backgrounds, some were Catholic and yes even a few from Muslim and Hindu backgrounds. My other child goes to a public school.

Children are all different and have different needs and learning styles. In our case the option was to do what was best for our child at that time. I am all for a variety of schooling types to enable parents to choose the right fit for their children.

Refreshing article!
Also great posts as usual by Kipp, SJ, Oliver, CJ et al.

Runner, “Secularism has done nothing but attack the traditional family unit with its godless policies.”
I’ve seen you making the link between divorce and secularism in other threads, too.
But there is no link. If you meant that there’s a link between atheism and divorce, then please give some evidence of that.
All I found were statistics showing that Christians have a higher divorce rate than atheists.

Pelican, well said.
I don’t see that my ‘atheist’ family unit differs much from the Christian families I know- except that we don’t go to church or pray; instead, we taught our children that research and investigation is better than having blind faith.

I hate to disappoint Runner but none of us go around slashing our neighbours’ tyres, kick their dog or throw empty beer bottles over their fences. We do unto others….

Trav,
“It was a cultural event which served a large proportion of Australia's population and brought in hundreds of millions of dollars of tourism dollars to Australia.”
If you support govt funding for WYD because it brought tourism, then I assume that you also support govt funding for the Mardi Gras.
http://www.bigpondmovies.com/libraries/article_library/aap_newsml/4b8d960f-b9c3-4034-be1d-997778aaa647/
"It has been estimated that the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras generates more than $30 million of direct economic benefit for NSW each year and it has become an international showcase of Sydney's diversity,"

Inputs into political (or any other!) decision-making should be based on reason and logic. If my input into the immigration debate is "We should do what Pauline Hanson says," then you are entitled to ask me for my reasons. But if my only reason is 'because Pauline says so' then my opinions are clearly worthless.

Similarly with religious 'opinions'. Ultimately these all boil down to 'We should do what God says, because God says so.' None of them are founded on anything but the speaker's private and irrational beliefs. Being open to diverse opinions doesn't mean being open to supernatural nonsense. Before convincing us that we should do what God says, religious believers have to provide evidence that God exists at all -- something they have so far signally failed to do.

Good article which raises some interesting points which I have not considered before,particularly on a republican constitution.
This should certainly contain a provision to separate religion from the state.
Slightly off topic-I often wonder why Australia needs a head of state,whether state governors,federal governor-general or a president,elected or not.
These positions are largely ceremonial and expensive to maintain.Any legal function considered necessary could be taken over by the Chief Justice of the High Court or a panel of High Court Judges in the unlikely event of a constitutional stalemate as in the Whitlam dismissal.
There is certainly no shortage of politicians and the likes for the ceremonial work.

Celvia

'Runner, “Secularism has done nothing but attack the traditional family unit with its godless policies.”
I’ve seen you making the link between divorce and secularism in other threads, too.'

The only marriage that I have heard secularist promote is 'gay marriage'. This is sick. Many if not most secularist choose to live in defacto (sinful) relationships so your statistics on Christian marriage breaking down (wherever they come from) are likely to only paint the picture you would like it to paint.

In case you were not aware the whole idea of marriage comes from the Scriptures. The Author of marriage knew that children who have a committed mother and father have a far better chance in life than those who don't. Secularism has done everything in its power to undermine this fact. It promotes promiscuity in the name of sex education and then questions why std's are so rampant in society. It has spent millions promoting its godless dogmas and then blames those 'evil fundamentalist' when their kids can't hold down a relationship or overdose on drugs.

Runner,

Your last post is so full of ignorant claims it's hard to know where to start. Here's a try.

1. "The only marriage that I have heard secularist promote is 'gay marriage'. This is sick." No it's not 'sick'; it's just a plain silly allegation. Oh, now I get it. it's the only marriage that YOU have heard secularists promote. So how many secularists do you know?

2. "Many if not most secularist choose to live in defacto (sinful) relationships..." Could you please provide the research basis for your 'many if not most'.

3. ..."so your statistics on Christian marriage breaking down (wherever they come from) are likely to only paint the picture you would like it to paint." Please tell us why Celiva's (unreferenced) statistics are worse than your (yet to be presented) ones?

4. "In case you were not aware the whole idea of marriage comes from the Scriptures." How did people get on before the Scriptures were written? Are married people of non-Christian religions not married?

5. "The Author of marriage knew that children who have a committed mother and father have a far better chance in life than those who don't." A committed mother and father - yes but is it essential that they be married?

6. "Secularism...promotes promiscuity in the name of sex education and then questions why std's are so rampant in society." Evidence please? Where have you seen sex education that promotes promiscuity? It seems reasonable to presume that education about STDs would be preferable to ignorance.

7. "[Secularism] has spent millions promoting its godless dogmas and then blames those 'evil fundamentalist' when their kids can't hold down a relationship or overdose on drugs." Can you demonstrate through evidence that secularism, relationship problems and drug overdoses are causally linked?

netjunkie asks me to respond to his brief 25 September 2008 argument concerning 'Why churches shouldn't pay taxes.' It's good that netjunkie recognises the inequity involved in churches running businesses and paying no tax. The reason why churches themselves should not be exempt from tax is a constitutional one. As I said in the article it is not the role of the Commonwealth of Australia to 'advance religion'. As I spell out in my book, in a democracy separation of church and state should be seen as both preliminary and equivalent to the other governmental separations of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Also, I'm not in favour of humanism and atheism receiving tax benefits. It would be partisan and illogical to argue otherwise. I know of a couple of Christian authors who are thinking along these lines. They've realised that being subsidised by all taxpayers including those who disagree with them is a double standard. If we are under no obligation to believe what you believe why should we pay for you to believe it? Exemptions have also made churches complacent. Why bother proseletysing when the tax exempt money just rolls in? Most churches have lost their edge. Max.

anzsa, lets follow your thinking through to its logical conclusions.

"They've realised that being subsidised by all taxpayers including those who disagree with them is a double standard. If we are under no obligation to believe what you believe why should we pay for you to believe it?"

What about other not for profit organisations? Do you think the majority of the community really "believe" in helping the poor? If not, why should World Vision and the like receive tax benefits?

(This is the bit where I roll my eyes at your ridiculous logic...)

You see the fundamental issue is not whether the majority of the community "agree" or "believe" or not (although the majority of the community do identify themselves as Christian, at least nominally). The fundamental issue is whether or not the organisation exists to make a profit. Churches are there to fill a need in the community, unlike organisations who exist solely to make a profit and therefore pay tax. That's fundamentally why churches shouldn't be taxed- it has nothing to do with whether or not the rest of the community believes what they do.

Runner: << In case you were not aware the whole idea of marriage comes from the Scriptures >>

Runner raises ignorance to an artform. Every society on earth has some form of marriage, including the godless heathens and those that predated his precious Scriptures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Fortunately, I don't think too many people take runner very seriously anyway.

Grey is very black and white about it..

<<The same tired old 'lie' about neutrality. Isn't it strange how the 'neutral' position always seems to line up with secular humanist beliefs.>>

and of course..he is spot on!

I could live with a secular government as LONG as:

1/ It did not prevent me or mine from criticizing any other belief system in this world.
2/ It did not become a cloak for any religious or ethnic agenda.

3/ It did NOT use alleged 'Human Rights' as some new kind of secular Ten Commandments/Moaic/Sagenist law. (Gay rights, Abortion)

4/ Ensured that History and Education were taught in an honest and comprehensive way.

The likelihood of all that coming about is pretty remote so.. we are left with the only alternative... a competition of voices and power.

Unfortunately also, nothing just 'happens' in society..it is MADE to happen.. and unless we are a part of the making of the happening.....we will all end up just staring blankly up at the psycadelic clouds of cuckoo land while it all happens around us.

Nothing like a few home truths to get the secularist on the defensive.
A few facts from the US for those providing none for their arguments and then demanding I come up with what is as plain as the nose on your face;

Divorce is the leading cause of childhood depression. (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development)

75% of adolescent patients at chemical abuse centers are from single-parent families. (Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA)

63% of youth suicides are single-parent children. (Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA)

70% of teen-age pregnancies are single-parent children. ("Children in Need: Investment Strategies for the Educationally Disadvantaged" - Committee for Economic Development )

75% of juveniles in youth correction facilities are from single-parent families. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1988)

Children of divorce are 5 times more likely to be suspended from school; 3 times as likely to need psychological counseling; 2 times as likely to repeat a grade; are absent from school more, late to school more often; show more health problems.( . Dr. Gene Brody - Study of Competence in Children and Families; Gormely, Newburgh, NY)'

I say again that secularism has done more to destroy the family unit than any other philosophy. Its high priests and followers are just to pig headed to face up to the destruction it has and is causing in society.

Runner,
You have been judged and found guilty of serial statistics abuse .
It is proven that on this date you did willfully confuse cause and effect an made unsubstaniated conclusions from these greivously dishonoured facts.
It is there for my duty to sentence youto a public Raspberrying.
Th..th...wer...t! :-)

Runner,

If Secularism promoted and encouraged divorce, or even made it compulsory, then you may have partially had a point.

But it doesn't, so you don't.

Secularism remains neutral on the issue of divorce, unlike religion which rigidly and dogmatically forces people to stay in unhappy and unhealthy relationships.

Therefore, your conclusion that secularism is to blame for everything you posted is a non sequitur.

Not only are you ignoring the unseen effects that being forced to stay in an unhappy marriage would have had, but you fail to realise that the dangers of not remaining neutral on these matters would far outweigh the dangers of adhering strictly to a dogmatic religion of any sort. Especially when there are so many different ways religions can be interpreted.

P.S. Secularism is not a religion, and thus cannot have "high priests" (nor "dogma" for that matter).

Mr Right, absolute rubbish. They have big numbers. Small minority indeed. Learn to count at least. There are 20% atheists, and growing thank the non existent God for that. Which leaves a small minority of 80%.

People don't know the ruling monarch of Britain is the head of the Church? Well it is new, only hundreds of years so how could anyone know that?

The Christian prayers in Parliament are an affront to all Australians and certainly do not represent the behaviour of those saying the words. It is neither historical or symbolism. It is an insult to all the non Christian Australians. Why don't they read a prayer for each and every religion and one for atheists. I'll write it.

Federal govts give money to religious schools because they are forced to vote wise. It is not cheaper at all.It's counter productive and divisive.

Examinator, sorry, you didn't read what he wrote clearly. It's 90% rubbish.

For the author to claim any government is secular is incorrect. The USA he even includes in that group. Listen to the leaders of every country and they praise God, or Allah or whatever the local title is. Particularly at election time as both Obama and McCain did repetetively.

I'm with Russia, and the ancient Roamns. Get rid of this blight on society. Millions following a fantasy suited to people 2000 years ago is a form of mental illness. Lock em all up.

Runner

Every one of your 'statistical sources' is foreign and most are spurious.

You "... say again that secularism has done more to destroy the family unit than any other philosophy. Its high priests and followers are just to pig headed to face up to the destruction it has and is causing in society."

I'll let you in on a well-known secret in the social sciences: Ever since Goering, people have realized that no matter how often you repeat untruths, the reality will not be changed. Please try again.

Hey Pegasus.... you say the prayer does not reflect the behavior of those saying it in Parliament.. so.. from this you jump to lets get rid of it... true?

Here's a thought.. instead of removing the prayer..why not remove the sin from the hearts of those who mouth it.. then their hearts and mouths would be in harmony and Australia a better place :)

I'm going with the anti scientists. let's face it, the finest minds the world has produced for thousands of years have pondered, experimented, theorised, invented, engineered and thought about it a bit, and have they been able to answer the big questions?
NO!
Much better to just take the word of primitive tribesmen who lived thousands of years ago, and who KNEW (that capital yelling thing is something I learnt from Polycarp) without question that:
the world is flat
the sun and moon (and stars) travel around the Earth
most medical afflictions could be cured by attaching leaches -to just the right places
witches should be stoned to death
women (not men) should be stoned for sex outside marriage.
No, forget about science. Why do we need it, when we can just take the word of these ancients?
After all, they wouldn't lie to us, right?

runner

Even if we take your statistics as correct they do not speak meaningfully at all about secularism.

Do you realise that most of your stats are from the US and that a large portion of those included in your stats are people of religious faiths. Last time I heard even the religious were obtaining divorces.

I agree with you that the rise in the divorce rate has had effects on our youth, as has a number of other factors. But to single out the cause as 'secularism' is beyond belief.

And, runner secularists don't have high priests that is the domain of your lot and it is your right to do so.

It is interesting how you use terminology like "high priests" as a negative when these terms come from the religious not from atheism of which you continually confuse with secularism. It is not clear if you are anti-secular (believing that your own faith should dominate religion, politics, education and law) or just anti-atheist.

You have less to fear from secularists or atheists who are in the main, happy for people to believe in whatever they wish as long as they do no harm to others, than the overtly religious intra and inter faith who might wish to dominate; as was seen just recently in a Church in Israel between two opposing Christian groups:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24627687-5012771,00.html

Pegasus,
Agreed, prayer should have no place in the government. God is irrelevant in government- or should be. If you’re interested, there was a recent discussion titled “Parliament and the Lord’s Prayer”.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2242&page=0

Great responses to Runner’s posts by Spikey et al.
I have to admit that my source about divorce rates is also from USA (I don’t think such studies have been done in Australia), but to make it more palatable for Runner I won’t quote from an Atheist site but from the Religions Tolerance source.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
“Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheist and Agnostic experience.”

Pelican,
“It is not clear if you are anti-secular (believing that your own faith should dominate religion, politics, education and law) or just anti-atheist.”
I’m confused about Runner’s stance as well and was going to ask a similar question.

Runner,
As the others have said, secularism is neutral, (it doesn’t worship anything) which can only be of benefit to religious people like you as well as to atheists.

Whether it’s better for children to grow up in a traditional family or not is debatable because it depends on the situation.
For example, it’s not good for kids to be forced to live with parents who argue frequently, especially when there’s domestic violence as well.

Many single parents, heterosexuals as well as homosexuals/lesbians, are excellent parents and children benefit from shared custody, too.
Loving same-sex couples can also raise happy and balanced children just as loving heterosexual couples can.

But a society of wowsers that stigmatises such families causes harm to the family and therefore to the child.
What counts is how much care, love and attention the parents give to the child and how well accepted a child feels outside the immediate family.

Now I get it. Runner just blames secularism for anything he doesn't like.

Too many people in the world? Secularism.

Wars? Secularism.

Sex that isn't sanctified by his dogma? Secularism.

Disease? Secularism.

Crime? Secularism.

Bad government? Secularism.

Runner, I can honestly say I've met 12 year olds with a more firm grasp of the reasons behind the world's problems. Reading between the lines of your posts, you believe everything would be right in the world if everybody would just choose your brand of religion.

This naivete really is startling for a grown adult. Tell me - when was this golden Christian age of which you speak? I'd like to hear that from you, so I can explain why all the problems you ascribe to secularism existed then as well, however the knowledge of them may have been suppressed by limiting factors.

"This naivete really is startling for a grown adult."

Runner's an ADULT?!

Does the Australian and New Zealand governments represent a soft form of theocracy? I think Max you need to re-examine the state that you live in.

What is a theocracy? It is those who provide governance over divine revelation also providing governance over civil affair last time I checked there were no priests in Parliament.

Further I think you find that there is a very clear understanding that Government is not to be run by any certain religion. It is clear in the Australia Constitution. Yes, Australia does share in Christian Tradition because that is where Australia has come from in its’ religious historical background. But to say that religious in Australia want to install themselves in Government. I would suggest that would be very un-Australia thing to do. This is far from the truth. More over I think the agenda of “Christianity” which Max is referring to is the right of any group in any society that is to express there desire to participate in that community. Christians want there views listened to like any group in Australian Society. And yes they do receive support in turn for helping the community. How many people do the Salvo's take of using the red shield appeal money the state does not have to support poor people on welfare? How much Health Care do the Catholic hospitals provide to those the state does not have enough funding to support?

Why, it only takes a reflection on the Goulburn school crisis to see that the state is in no place to facilitate the education of all the students in Catholic Schools. Christianity serves our society and seeks to play an active part. Millions of people adhere to a Christian ethic of Morality. Christian seek to protect society by protecting that Morality as it pertains to law. We live in a Democratic Secular society there we must listen to the will of the people and if people want to promote a good form of life through religion it would only be an undemocratic person who would stand in their way of expressing their views.

TRTL

'Now I get it. Runner just blames secularism for anything he doesn't like.'

You get it wrong. Actually sin is the cause of marriage breakup, promiscuity, disease, fatherless children, fornication, lying, stealing, greed, lust etc etc.

The main problem with your beloved secular dogma is that you deny the very nature of it.

And no there never has been a 'golden age' when sin was not present (except before Adam and Eve sinned). We have had ages though when evil was recognized for what it is. We have lived in times before we murdered thousands of unborn and deny anything wrong with it. We have lived in times when cheating on your spouse was called adultery. We have lived in times when most children became obedient to parents because they were disciplined. These were times before secularist lacking any moral fibre of their own infiltrated the Government, media and educational institutions. WE had times when old women were not robbed and raped by kids who have never had a smack in their lives, we have had times when a murder was rare enough only to make the news occasionally. These were times when people were smart enough to acknowledge the sinful bias in the heart of every human being.

NOw all we get is excuse after excuse after excuse for human behaviour ( encouraged largely by secularism). It is no wonder the Muslims laugh at our stupidity. We have had times when people would not be so dumb as to produce 'studies; showing that pornography is good for society.

Runner’s getting a bollocking here. Personally I think OLO wouldn’t be the same without him. Kinda rounds out the field. I’ve just been looking at the blog freerepublic.com and would suggest we all think of him as an ideal candidate for the Republican party.

“We live in a Democratic Secular society thus we must listen to the will of the people and if people want to promote a good form of life through religion.... it would only be an undemocratic person who would stand in their way of expressing their views.” I don’t believe anyone is preventing this, Liberal Minded. It’s the imposition of religious dogma on others that rubs me the wrong way.

I hear Obama’s about to rescind the US ban on stem cell research, which is definitely a secular approach. It would be unacceptable for ‘pro-lifers’. In a few generations from now when the anticipated benefits of this research has emerged there will still be those against it. Do we ignore medical knowledge because of its origins, for example? If the government went that way, we’d be a theocracy. I don’t see it happening.

Runner. To detail the faults of secularism as the cause of all the worlds "ills" holds no water, when we see the abuse of children in "Christian" surrounds, and the interference and denial of peoples rights and being by "Christians".

When you respect all people, then maybe respect will be shown to you!
Until then your words mean nothing, except to yourself.

Bennie is at least far more truthfull than those that claim that Secularism is neutral.

'hear Obama’s about to rescind the US ban on stem cell research, which is definitely a secular approach.'

Kipp writes

'Runner. To detail the faults of secularism as the cause of all the worlds "ills" holds no water, when we see the abuse of children in "Christian" surrounds, and the interference and denial of peoples rights and being by "Christians".'

So where do you get the idea that child abuse is wrong? It is amazing how quickly secularist revert to absolutes when they claim they don't exist!

Ah but don't get carried away Runner. According to this http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24640321-601,00.html you have your work cut out.

Runner said "So where do you get the idea that child abuse is wrong".

That bizzare question does require an explanation.

Max Wallace has dived into some pretty complex issues that we’ve been trying to sort out for a long time. How do we set rules in society so the faithful can live harmoniously alongside the unbelievers?

It’s been a curly question ever since the Goths sacked Rome, and the faithful (believers in the Roman gods) were blaming the unbelievers (the Christians) for bringing a softness to the Roman Empire that was helping to bring about its downfall.

As a secularist, Wallace firstly has to rethink who is enemy is. At the moment he’s vaguely blaming the ‘militant and some moderate Christians.’ However most Christians I know are quite fond of democracy and the concepts of secularism. They would even go so far as to say that, to a large extent, Christians are responsible for inventing such concepts.

I understand that the first cries of ‘separation of church and state’ came from Reformation Christians who wanted to follow the Bible in good conscience and not have the state impose its beliefs on them. ‘Secularism’ was proposed to protect the church from the state, not the other way around.

I note how ‘secularism’ and ‘democracy’ (as we have come to know them) are Western inventions arising in countries heavily in debt to Biblical traditions. If you want to experience life far from the protections of secularism and democracy, try going to live in countries that do not have significant numbers of Christian churches.

Was it secularism that brought our freedom to worship, or was it our freedom in Christ that helped define the ideals of secularism? I suspect it was more the latter.

"However most Christians I know are quite fond of democracy and the concepts of secularism." well ...

dan, i don't really disagree, though if you want to credit "biblical traditions" you might explain why it took those traditions a couple thousand years to start kicking in. and, we do still have idiots like steve fielding.

Bennie I think we have hit upon the key issue in this argument. In a liberal democracy we can have competing forms of what the good life is and how it is meant to be lived. This leads those of us who live in liberal democracy to conflict with those who have a different moral standing. How do we decide what is the best course of action when one segment of our society sees one sort of action as morally good and another sees it as a moral evil. What if the population is split fifty fifty for and against stem cell research so should they go ahead because any knowledge is good knowledge? Why should we go ahead with an idea or stop an idea other then to meet the will of the people? Is there any other way to decide in a liberal democracy?

Part of being able to voice your opinion in the public sphere is the ability to influence actions which support your opinion in the governance of society. Otherwise freedom of speech is just the freedom to make noise. One should error always on the side of the people in democracy not in favour of an political Ideology.

I would agree with the article that secularism means government with no religious bias, where athiesm can be regarded as a belief system.

Runner

To claim that the scriptures are the basis for anything is erroneous, as most of values that christianity claims as its domain existed long before christianity, Judaism etc and in areas of the world where the bible had never even been heard of.

Christian values are human values in a dogmatic straight jacket, and some of the most mean spirited people I have ever met were born again christians (not that I don't have genuinely good christian friends)

People are flocking to private schools because they provide a superior education, and the values are typically reflective of the parents. Both my kids go to Anglical church schools where only due to the large number of non anglical students, only lip service is paid to the church.

Ah, but how do you decide what is and isn't morally 'good', Liberal Minded? Personally I do not see a moral dimension to stem cell research per se. It is neither good nor evil. A blob of cells to some is a person but to me and presumably the government it's a blob of cells.

Scientific research is amoral, not pro- or anti-, and needs guidance from the community at large. If a particular program is wanted by the medical community and the public and holds promise I think the government should take this into account.

Consider what other bodies of knowledge the Christian church (of any/all denominations) would have or have in the past prohibited: blood transfusions; the pill; IVF; usury; freemasonry; homosexuality; female ordination; sex not intended for procreation; abortion; condoms.

The best bit about living in a liberal democracy is the liberal democracy bit. If we all listened to the church we'd die sooner and dumber.

See http://www.slate.com/id/2203614/pagenum/all for the latest research on atheism.

It seems the biggest drawback for secularists is they're not part of something bigger.

Shadow Minister,

"People are flocking to private schools because they provide a superior education, and the values are typically reflective of the parents."

People send their children to private schools for all sorts of reasons. One of them is the belief that they provide 'a superior education'. The question is: do they?

Just this week I saw a posh private school's prospectus showing a table comparing its Year 12 results with the Year 12 results of all government schools in the State - a totally dishonest and cynical misuse of statistics. Then, I suppose they are giving parents (and prospective parents) what they want to 'know' in exchange for $20,000 a year.

Now what were those values you were talking about?

Not only do some private schools pay lip service to the church (as you put it); some also pay only lip service to honesty.

Hi Spikey,
I'm not really taking part in this discussion due to lack of time but this article might support your question whether private schools really provide a superior education.

http://www.monash.edu.au/news/newsline/story/350

"Public school students perform well at university

A study released today by Monash University researchers Ian Dobson and Eric Skuja has found students from public schools outperform those from private schools when they reach university.

Mr Dobson said a survey of 12,500 first year Monash University students revealed public school students who left Year 12 with lower marks than their private school rivals overtook them academically at university.

"Once on a level playing field, students from non-selective government schools tend to do much better," he said.

"Private school students have an advantage at exam time in Year 12 because they have access to more resources. However, this advantage evaporates when they reach university."

The report found that once at university, public school students performed better academically in their first year compared with private school students who received similar ENTER scores.

"We found that, on average, government school students performed about five percentage points better than students from independent schools," Mr Dobson said.

The study confirmed that private school students generally received higher Year 12 marks than those from the public system but showed that any edge gained was lost in the first year of a bachelor degree.

Mr Dobson said the report had implications for university admissions and policies.

The report, called 'Secondary schooling, tertiary entry ranks and university performance', will be released in the April edition of People and Place, distributed by Monash University's Centre for Urban Research and Population Studies."

Thanks Celivia.

However, I have found over the years that uncomfortable facts don't seem to change people's preferred pre-judgements on topics like school performance.

Spikey,

Independent studies in NSW and Victoria show that without a shadow of doubt that the performance of pupils from independent schools is higher than the public schools drawn from the similar areas.

The proportion of children progressing to university is even higher.

Celivia

What the report you quote fails to mention is that the sample is distorted. What it shows is that private school kids with a lower ability are scoring higher in the HSC and gaining university places more easily. Once a HECS place is achieved graduation is reasonably likely.

Considering that most private school kids progress to get degrees compared to a much smaller proportion in public schools it is not a bad investment in the future.

The future contacts, the broad scope of interests supported are all cherries on top.

Bennie, I think that just because you see scientific research as a amoral thing does not mean others do and should have to do so. It sounds to me like you what to put your view about science on to those who disagree and that not a very liberal thing to do.

Issues like stem cell research highlight the diversity of opinion in a democracy and the need for that to be debated. I believe that if majority of people in our democratic society want to say no to scientific research on grounds of morality they have every right to do so. There is no need to force the progress of science on anybody. There is no need for presumptions and assumptions in public policy

Shadow Minister asserts,

"Independent studies in NSW and Victoria show that without a shadow of doubt that the performance of pupils from independent schools is higher than the public schools drawn from the similar areas. The proportion of children progressing to university is even higher."

What independent studies? Name them please.

The Australian Council for Educational Resarch, the pre-eminent body in the field says:

"While it is true that some private schools achieve outstanding Year 12 results and are highly successful in terms of university entrance, some of these schools, like some public schools, have selective student intakes. In these schools, students enter with above-average records of school achievement. They often come from higher socio-economic groups within the community and have above-average levels of support at home and outside school.

"For these reasons, the quality of education provided by a school is best judged not by its final results but by the difference it makes, taking into account students' starting points. A school making a large difference to students' levels of achievement and life chances may deliver 'better education', despite its lower Year 12 results."
(http://www.acer.edu.au/enews/0408_PublicOrPrivate.html)

I'd refer you, too, to Barbara Preston's study: "The social make-up of schools: Family income, religion, Indigenous status, and family type in government, Catholic and other nongovernment schools". (http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/Bprestonrep2007.pdf)