Dear David F.,

<<You are still confused. Religion is simply no business of a secular state. Many religious people can and do support separation of religion and state.>>

Yes, myself included. This is the theory, but in practice the state can trample on religious practices on other pretexts or by sheer insensitivity.

Recently for example, Germany made it illegal to circumcise boys (that was subsequently reversed), which seriously infringed the ability of Jews to practice their religion (less so Muslims because they don't have to circumcise on a fixed date).

It is illegal in Switzerland to have Kosher or Halal meat (but I suppose this doesn't break the Jewish/Muslim religious law, one can simply be vegetarian!).

Carrying the Sikh Kirpan (dagger) is heavily restricted, also in Australia, despite it being a religious injunction to carry it at all times.

Or a court may order a Jew to witness on the Sabbath or a Jewish holiday when Jews are not allowed to travel.

Or demand a testimony from a monk who committed the vow of silence.

Or the government may support, with tax-payer money, the cattle industry, thus making a Hindu an accomplice in killing cows.

Or... the government may provide free abortions from tax-payer money, thus making Runner an accomplice in killing foetuses.

In true separation, Runner cannot tell the state to outlaw abortion - but the state cannot order Runner either to pay for it.

Religious people will always place the service of God before the state, even if it means that they be arrested, tortured or executed.

For separation of religion and state to even be possible, the state must step out of most areas of life - either that, or allow small groups of people to form their own little independent states or autonomous regions where they are free to practice their religion. Otherwise, the Australian constitution is being violated left, right and centre, not just by the school-chaplain issue.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You are right. runner’s taxes pay for abortions which against his principles. I feel a woman has a right to a safe abortion if she wishes to terminate a pregnancy. If I were in a country that banned abortion and I felt strongly that the ban was wrong I would have the choices of campaigning against the ban, withholding my taxes, leaving the country and/or accepting the ban. runner has the same choices where abortion is legal. He has chosen to remain in Australia and complain. Those are his rights.

Some of the campaigners against abortion in the US motivated by religious concerns have murdered doctors who conducted abortions and blown up abortion clinics. That is not their right.

Australia in some areas tries to be concerned with religious rights. Although elections are scheduled on Saturday an observant Jew can vote by absentee ballot before the election. He or she can also be excused from witnessing on the Sabbath. However, a Jew may not prevent other people from violation of his or her Sabbath. That situation is the same with Hindus. They may avoid eating meat and cannot be obligated to eat meat. However, they cannot prevent others from killing cows or eating meat.

I do not approve of all the uses that my taxes are applied to. I do not approve of the support of the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP) or subsidies going to support private schools. I also think that religious groups should not have many of the tax exemptions that they currently have. However, I will continue to observe the law, pay my taxes and support campaigns to change the law. http://highcourtchallenge.com/ tells about Ron Williams’ legal challenge to the NSCP which I support.

However, I do not see why people who believe they have a religious right to challenge or disobey the law have any more right to do so than people who challenge or disobey the law for other reasons.

I agree that the state can trample on religious practices on other pretexts or through sheer insensitivity and oppose that.

Of course, david f, since taxation expenditure is orders of magnitude more than any taxation paid by runner, the simplest position for him to take is to decide that 'his' money has been expended on services or for purposes of which he approves and has not been spent on those he doesn't.

It is going down the path of special pleading to bring to the fore religious concerns in a constitutionally supported secular democracy.

Democracy alone has many people paying taxes for programs which they would rather not.

Here is a small list but not all of the activities in no particular order of importance which some taxpayers might be unhappy about supporting but which governments already financially back to some extent.

Top of the line car racing, professional sport, parts of government bodies improving meat and fish production, indoctrinating children, government hospitals providing abortions and circumcisions, welfare, letting in refugees, taxation breaks & perks for religion, renewable energy, non-renewable energy etc.

Collective living has people’s preferences cover a wide cross-section of likes and dislikes. Everyone has the right to lobby against tax money going to that which they disapprove. The trouble is that without an official separation of church and state, it can and does create a situation where there is not a level playing field.

At the moment, Christianity has more than a leg up in this regard. Anyone who would like that explained, possibly shouldn't be in this discussion. It could be Christianity today, Islam tomorrow or Callithumpian later on. That is one concern but not the greatest at this point in time.

It matters not if Christianity is the dominant religion or that multiple religions make up a majority of the population, which they do not, and again that is another discussion, but a self-proclaimed majority or minority forcing its will on a substantial minority or majority to gain extensive privilege has no basis in ethics.

Using unsupported by evidence supernatural claims for licence to override democracy as is happening should be seen by all as not acceptable. We are living in a soft-theocracy at the cost of non-equality for all.

Churchill’s dictum that democracy is the worst of systems but better than the rest could be refined to that an official secular democracy where there is a Jefferson wall of separation between Church and State would qualify for a political system less-worse than the existing democracy.

David

Hi pelican,

You touch upon two important questions.

>>I used the phrase 'a particular belief system' meaning religious proselytizing as related to the example of religion being taught in schools. <<

There are two ways of one particular religious outlook, e.g. Catholic, being present in a school: as a general orientation of the school or as a separate subject (that can coexist with other subjects teaching other religions or “non-religious philosophies” as alternative choices. Obviously, as a general orientation the Catholic outlook belongs only to Catholic schools.

The problem is in what sense can religion - in general, or a particular version of it - be taught in public schools or, more precisely, how can public schols be fair towards all sorts of religions or belief systems. [As you rightly say, there are atheist world-views or belief systems (they have something in common but are not all identical), the same as there are e.g. Christian belief systems (again plural). Some pairs clash more, some less. So I prefer to speak about belief systems or world-views instead of religions to cover also those “philosophical” orientations that do not like to be called religious.]

I don’t have a clear answer. There are, among others, also technical problems associated with teaching a variety of alternative subjects (supply and demand) as is the case also with e.g. foreign languages. As to the general world-view orientation of a public school, how do you deal with concepts like God, worship etc? No problem with subjects like maths or physics, (even evolution can be taught by saying that some people think this is the technology of how God created us, while others think that there is no need to assume a creator, because the process is self-explanatory), etc. It is harder when teaching history, where facts often demand evaluation or interpretation, which usually depends on the school’s or personal teacher’s background belief system. (ctd)

(ctd)
As said, I do not have a clear answer as to how fairness towards all respectable (I am not going to define this) world-views or belief systems should be dealt with in an open society school. This would also depend on the age of the students involved.

The second question relates to the concept of a ‘Christian who doesn't believe in God' raised recently also in http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14560. I should have a closer look at the book reviewed therein. Perhaps this term is not unlike the term ‘cultural Christian’ that also Richard Dawkins seems to subscribe to. J.F. Kennedy’ 1963 proclamation “Ich bin ein Berliner” (Berliner who does not speak German) as an expression of solidarity, could be of a similar kind.

It is an interesting concept, certainly a step towards a better mutual understanding and, yes, respect, between Christians and those who do not believe in God. So I shall not be critical of it, only point to the first or second pig in my epilogue to the story about the three pigs (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2909&page=0#66836).

runner,

Conviction in my dictionary means “firmly held belief or opinion”. A woman who does what you call “killing the unborn”, and she “making use of her reproductive right”, certainly has a conviction in the sense of a firmly held belief (otherwise she would not claim it to be her right) even though you and I are convinced of the opposite. However, let me repeat again, my original question in this thread was not about this particular pair of convictions.