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.