Dear Banjo,

I think there is some misunderstanding here:

I replied to Josephus that I believe that you truly mean "neutrality" - rather than the kind of religious oppression similar to China and the USSR, as suggested by Josephus. I truly believe that such oppression would have been out-of-character for you.

But Paul replied with "Yes", meaning that he believes that you do actually envisage something like China and USSR.

How can we (myself and Paul) both be simultaneously correct?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

No, Paul1405 did not include China and USSR in his reply.

Leave them out and it just reads : “ … imposing an exclusive secular philosophy in all matters of State” which is perfectly compatible with your reply that “…when he says "neutrality" he means just that, "neutrality".”

Thanks. You are both spot on !

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Perhaps I should add that I understand “secular” to mean, essentially, “neutral”.

In my mind, a secular society is one that observes strict separation of the State and religion. It is neither for nor against religion but recognizes that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes the freedom to change one’s religion or belief as well as the right not to follow any religion and to deny or doubt the existence of any deity.

The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is guaranteed by the secular State.

In my previous response, I overlooked the fact that there are some slight variations to this definition in different countries. The above definition is the French version of what the French call “laïcité” (the French equivalent of the English notion of “secularity”) which, to my way of thinking, is the most satisfactory definition.

As a general rule, the activities of the State concern the public sphere. Whereas religion is considered to belong to the private sphere.

The State refrains from intervening in religion and religion has no official role in State affairs.

A notable exception to that rule is the case of certain so-called religious sects that enroll gullible victims to extort money from them, turn them into slaves for the same purpose or force them into sexual servitude.

Naturally, the State intervenes in those exceptional cases.

I hope that is a clearer explanation.

.

Dear Banjo,

Thank you. As a religious person, I could not agree more.

While some advocate this approach in order to protect citizens from corrupt religious organisations, I find no better way than this to protect religion itself from being corrupted by the state and its powers.

Either way, we agree!

Hi Banjo,

"The State refrains from intervening in religion and religion has no official role in State affairs"

Church leaders certainly have had a strong influence, and still do, in state affairs in Australia. From Archbishop Manxix leading the anti-conscription side in WWI, to the Catholic influence in the DLP in the 50's and 60's, to Cardinal Pell's, 'Don't Vote Green' circulars of recent years. The Rev Fred Nile heads up a overly religious party in NSW the Christian Democratic Party, now holding the balance of power in the upper house there.

Even in the US where there is a 'Bill of Rights' (not a particularly good one in my opinion) it clearly separates Religion and State, however churches have a huge amount of influence in politics in the US.

The part of the argument that draws me to support a 'Bill of Right' in Australia is;

"Putting rights above politics: It is necessary also to put some of the values of our society above the party political debate. That is what a bill of rights can do. It can express the enduring values of a good society. It can do so in the constitutional document which gives the cement to the social cohesion of a true Commonwealth. Without it, our constitution is mechanical. It lacks the expression of the aspiration of the people to live in a free and just society, where freedom and justice go beyond political slogans and shibboleths."

http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/&id=/a60da51d4c6b0a51ca2571a7002069a0

Beach, as a "Freedomists" I thought you would support a 'B of R' simply based on what I've put up on this comment.

Dear Paul,

I cannot speak for Beach, but as for myself, I oppose a Bill or Rights because it implies as if our freedom was granted by the state and therefore we should, like beggars, thank the state, most gracious and merciful for all that we have.

A Bill of Rights could say for example: "Every person may use the toilet whenever they wish" and then I would be obliged to say: "Oh Thank you, thank you, thank you million times, dear state - if not for you then I would have gone busting"...

My freedom - and yours too, are inherent, not man-given.

Had the state not been robbing away our freedoms to begin with, then it wouldn't need to hand us back some morsels of it as "rights".