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.