Dear Paul,

I fully agree: one who claims to be a Christian may not necessarily be a Christian, nor religious.

Banjo Paterson (first reply),

<<The census of 2021 found that over the previous 50 years, there had been a steady decline in the proportion of Australians who reported an affiliation with Christianity.>>

The census can reveal whatever it likes, but it does not show the need that the status quo cannot remain.

<<However, the same period had seen a consistent rise in other religions as well as in no religion, particularly in the previous 20 years..... and a decline in Christianity....>>

No one, including myself is saying this matter is focused around a decline in Christianity alone. It would be an irresponsible approach, knowing this matter is a very complex one, that being the need to move to a non secular society.

Such a move will take time, has to be based on the natural movement of individuals. You can't force people into something they don't want. Plus people going down such a pathway have to know what they want at the end of the day. You need to have a reason for moving forward to achieve good outcomes.

I'm not sure what improvements in education, prosperity, alongside institutional issues and cultural shifts mean here. They are just things. They don't get to issues, that being the loss of values, principles and ethics.

It must also be noted there are still many doing poorly education wise and many poorly in terms of prosperity.

<<Secularism is not atheism. It recognises all religions and treats them all equally. Secularism is simply the separation of church and state.>>

When one considers the small numbers of members political parties have it is perfectly fair that faith based organisations (and those not) have input in our political system, including in policies. Not to everyone's liking, but if we are going to be forced to accept a political system and feel compelled to vote, it is fair and reasonable all can participate.

The reading of the Lord's Prayer at the start of a parliamentary sitting is also somewhat token, considering the actual activity of politicians in parliament much of it cruel and hurtful to individuals.

NathanJ,

You appear to be incredibly confused. You’re grieving for a level of unity and like-mindedness that never existed, then blaming its loss on an "aggressive" principal that as if it were anti-religious rather than a-religious.

Describing a move away from religiosity (assuming it was even deliberate and calculated) as "aggressively secular" makes about as much sense as saying that a healthy person is "aggressively asymptomatic."

You say we need to move away from secularism and toward a society rooted in religious tradition - but you also say you’re not religious, you don’t want to impose religion, and the change should come “naturally.” So… which is it? A cultural shift? A policy platform? A vague hope?

You acknowledge that Christianity is declining, but say this isn’t about Christianity. Then what is it about? Islam? Hinduism? New Age spirituality? You never say. It sounds like you’re not advocating for a religion, just for the warm, fuzzy idea of religion, as if it’s a kind of moral incense we should all breathe in.

You wave off census data showing people are leaving religion, then say this shift should happen organically and through individual choice. But that’s already happening. People are choosing. And they’re choosing less religion. So how does that support your argument?

You claim secularism has led to a loss of ethics, but you never explain how. Morality grounded in empathy, human rights, and reason isn’t lesser just because it isn’t wearing a clerical collar. In fact, some of the greatest social progress came despite religious opposition, not because of it.

Dear John,

«The census can reveal whatever it likes»

Indeed - I refused to answer that question about my religion.

It is my understanding that government uses the census-responses to allocate money proportionally to [so-called-]religious organisations: I don't want any tax-payer money to be given on my behalf to such organisations - that money can only [further] corrupt the recipients!

«People are choosing. And they’re choosing less religion.»

People are only choosing to move away from ORGANISED [what-mistakenly-passes-for-]religion. This is good, then once no longer bound by dead-wood, some of them will be free to move further towards religion itself.