Is Australia a secular state? (1 Viewer)

[Captain Gh3y]

I think the separation of Church and Everything is too blurred in Australia. It's still possible for a politician to be influenced even if only infinitesimally by her own religious views, or by the fact that religion still exists.

Therefore I propose the following measures:

- Those wishing to stand for election to public office must be strong atheists
- We must write up a charter of secular humanist values that all politicians must swear to uphold and use as guiding principles in governance. This could take the form of a document or 'canon' if you like. Once set in place it would have to be unchangeable to make sure religion never creeps back into society.
- All government officials and bureaucrats alike must attend weekly seminars explaining these written values in greater depth and strongly reminding them of the consequences of acknowledging the existence of religion. They would also be encouraged to donate generously to help promote secularism in Australia.
- All new laws and regulations would be analysed from the perspective of the canon of humanist values and rejected if they do not comply, and similarly rejected if they reflect the principles of any world religion.

 

[sthcross.dude]

I think the separation of Church and Everything is too blurred in Australia. It's still possible for a politician to be influenced even if only infinitesimally by her own religious views, or by the fact that religion still exists.

Therefore I propose the following measures:

- Those wishing to stand for election to public office must be strong atheists
- We must write up a charter of secular humanist values that all politicians must swear to uphold and use as guiding principles in governance. This could take the form of a document or 'canon' if you like. Once set in place it would have to be unchangeable to make sure religion never creeps back into society.
- All government officials and bureaucrats alike must attend weekly seminars explaining these written values in greater depth and strongly reminding them of the consequences of acknowledging the existence of religion. They would also be encouraged to donate generously to help promote secularism in Australia.
- All new laws and regulations would be analysed from the perspective of the canon of humanist values and rejected if they do not comply, and similarly rejected if they reflect the principles of any world religion.

-All religious people shall be given two weeks to denounce their faith and convert to athiesm or be stoned to death.

 

[_dhj_]

I don't think we can draw the conclusion that because religion is so prominent, it is a positive influence. Sure, most people are religious, but most people are also stupid, simple-minded and have bad taste as well - you can't mix the positive with the normative.

Rather, we need to look at why religion is prominent and whether it is an externality of the human condition or a necessary force that shapes it. According to the Constitution, Australia is a secular state. But of course in reality it might not be. Whether it is secular turns on the definition of secular. Very few nation states are actually 'secular' in the literal definition - for most decision-makers, whether consciously or subconsciously, are influenced by their religious persuasion. Ordinarily therefore, 'secular' refers to the legal position in the nation state in question. By that definition Australia is definately 'secular'.

 

[ellen.louise]

-All religious people shall be given two weeks to denounce their faith and convert to athiesm or be stoned to death.

I'll take the rocks thankyou.

 

[banco55]

No but it doesnt mean it wont either. Its just a prediction based on available data, obviously neither of us can actually predict the future.

You make it sound like "leftie humanist rubbish" is the only alternative value system. Secularism and conservative family values are not mutually exclusive. You make the totally unsubstantiated assumption that secularism cannot achieve stability. Have developed countries like Australia not become more stable and properous as they have become more secular?


ummm yeh. examples? When has secularism caused blooshed? Islam has probably caused more, but only because its values are crazier. However, the ideas behind Islam of an unproven god are just as far fetched as christianity.

Lots of reputable philosophers have argued that "leftie humanist rubbish" can't co-exist long term with conservative values. Let's take the last 30 years or so in Australia. Divorce rates have skyrocketed, illegitamite births, single families have skylrocketed, the birth rate has plumetted etc.

Again there's a solid argument that facism and communism arose to fill the void created by the decline of religion in the west.

 

[sthcross.dude]

Lots of reputable philosophers have argued that "leftie humanist rubbish" can't co-exist long term with conservative values.

You misread: Of course "leftie-humanist rubbish" cant co-exist with conservative values, they are opposites. I said SECULARISM could co-exist with conservitism.

Let's take the last 30 years or so in Australia. Divorce rates have skyrocketed, illegitamite births, single families have skylrocketed, the birth rate has plumetted etc.

Higher divorce rates is a good thing. Families were just as unhappy in the past but people could simply not escape them. Also lower birth rate is good. World is overpopulated. More immigration means more ppl in poor countries can escape that life and enjoy a better life here.

Again there's a solid argument that facism and communism arose to fill the void created by the decline of religion in the west.

Theres also a solid argument that it didnt. You mention no proof/evidence.

 

[_dhj_]

Lots of reputable philosophers have argued that "leftie humanist rubbish" can't co-exist long term with conservative values. Let's take the last 30 years or so in Australia. Divorce rates have skyrocketed, illegitamite births, single families have skylrocketed, the birth rate has plumetted etc.

Again there's a solid argument that facism and communism arose to fill the void created by the decline of religion in the west.

I think these are very valid arguments, but they don't give the whole picture.

Possibly, religion is a remedy for the shortcomings of mankind - specifically mankind's selfishness and propensity to destroy his society in absence of any indoctrinated values. Ironically mankind needs to be given something in return for his adoption of these values - that being the promise of ascendency into heaven and a promise of afterlife.

The more we look at religion in this light, I think, the more it naturally fits with human evolution. At the same time, we are able to discredit the argument that god must exist because humans believe in him (since there is a rational reason why humans 'believe'). Also, the more we can gain an understanding of this rational reason, the better we may be able to replace religion with other instruments that pertain to the same quid pro quo principles. One example of such instruments in Western societies, I think, is the 'rule of law'. When we take away the arbitrary and disproportionate operation of law enforcement, we develop an alternative system to traditional religious belief.

Of course the process and rate at which religion is phased out is and should be gradual, but there are viable alternatives to religious codes for the proper functioning of society.

 

[_dhj_]

* Mao's China
* Stalinist Russia
* Nazi Germany
* And virtually every other leftist/secularist "reformation" in the world ..

The dominant element of those systems was not leftism/secularism per se, but absolute and unquestioning idealism and belief, affirmed by propaganda but affirmable because of human nature, such as absolute belief in communism, absolute belief in the party and absolute belief in the superiority of the Aryan. The systems wouldn't have been so extreme or so 'evil' (i don't like that word) if they gave opportunities for ideological opponents to question them.

 

[sthcross.dude]

The dominant element of those systems was not leftism/secularism per se, but absolute and unquestioning idealism and belief, affirmed by propaganda but affirmable because of human nature, such as absolute belief in communism, absolute belief in the party and absolute belief in the superiority of the Aryan. The systems wouldn't have been so extreme or so 'evil' (i don't like that word) if they gave opportunities for ideological opponents to question them.

another great point by _dhj_.

 

[bshoc]

The dominant element of those systems was not leftism/secularism per se, but absolute and unquestioning idealism and belief, affirmed by propaganda but affirmable because of human nature, such as absolute belief in communism, absolute belief in the party and absolute belief in the superiority of the Aryan. The systems wouldn't have been so extreme or so 'evil' (i don't like that word) if they gave opportunities for ideological opponents to question them.

Funny how their biggest ideological oponents were christians.

Like it or not those states define to the greatest extent the secularist state, because they are the purest examples.

 

[sthcross.dude]

Funny how their biggest ideological oponents were christians.

Like it or not those states define to the greatest extent the secularist state, because they are the purest examples.

Because they are the only examples of pure secular states, and coincidently happened to also be states with extremist values, autocracy, militant rule and a rejection of capitalism (which has proven to be the most successful economic method).

Thses examples provide no evidence that if a vaguely rational state like Australia becomes more secular it will be beset by similar problems. It is all the aforementioned factors that have doomed these states to failure, not secularism.

 

[bshoc]

"common values." in other words your values. you have no evidence to support this proposterous assumption.

Most secularists also tend to be social liberals and leftist retards, case of point every western government on earth ...

Secularism itself did not cause this, crazy leaders with aspirations of racial supremacy and world domination did.

And yet they were all secularists and sought to wipe out religion. You could use the same empty excuse to justify actions in the name of religion, i.e. the crusades were because of "crazy leaders" ..

I was saying the proof of Islam and Christianity is equally flawed,

You don't deserve to live in a western country. Go live in an Islamic country, and when (if) you come back, then talk to us about how they are "equally flawed"

even if Islam generally has "crazier" values. In what sense is it more reasonable to believe in the unproven Christian god than the unproven muslim god?

Why do I have to assume your position of "unproven"?

 

[bshoc]

Because they are the only examples of pure secular states, and coincidently happened to also be states with extremist values, autocracy, militant rule and a rejection of capitalism (which has proven to be the most successful economic method).

Correct, one good thing about having a god in heaven, is that you don't need a god on earth.

Thses examples provide no evidence that if a vaguely rational state like Australia becomes more secular it will be beset by similar problems.

It will if true steps towards a secular system are taken, this is unlikely in our lifetimes.

It is all the aforementioned factors that have doomed these states to failure, not secularism.

Secularism is one of the true things they all had in common ..

 

[sthcross.dude]

Most secularists also tend to be social liberals and leftist retards, case of point every western government on earth ...

Ridiculous generaliseation. There are plenty of people that support conservative economic policy and maintream values (ie me) but reject religion. There are also many religious types who are "leftist retards" ie. Peter Garret.

You don't deserve to live in a western country. Go live in an Islamic country, and when (if) you come back, then talk to us about how they are "equally flawed"

I admitted Islam is much more flawed in terms of extremist values. I really think it is. However i said the basic idea of believing in a totally unproven GOD is equally flawed, bet it the christian fiction or the muslim one.

 

[_dhj_]

Funny how their biggest ideological oponents were christians.

Not true. In Nazi Germany, the biggest ideological opponents were the communists. In Stalinist Russia and Maoist China, the biggest opponents were the intelligentsia.

 

[Deffy]

Howard and Rudd are Anglican. FACT.
Rudd is vocal about his Christianity in public life. FACT.
Abbott is a Catholic who pushes his dogmatic agenda into politics. FACT.
Hillsong is wealthy and powerful. FACT.
The citizenship test is racist. FACT.
Non-Christians suffer discrimination. FACT.
The Queen is the head of the Anglican Church. FACT.
The rest of the world is becoming increasingly secular while Australia lags behind, yet again. FACT.

You are a twat. FACT.

 

[umop 3pisdn]

You are a twat. FACT.

Which one of those things is wrong?

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Australia is a secular state because our constitution makes it so, you can't argue with that. Today's Australia was founded by a Christian country at a time when denying God (at least publicly) was probably not a good idea, to put it bluntly. It makes sense that the majority of people who do align themselves with a religion in this country choose some variety of Christianity, then, and that's probably why the answer to that question on the test is "Judo-Christian". But times have changed. The reality is that even if we still hold some (or all) of those Christian values, I believe that we hold them because we think that they are decent and right in themselves, not because they are holy. Eg. I think adultery is immoral because cheating on someone causes emotional pain and involves lying and deceit - not because Jesus said so. and I think you can apply that line of thought to other 'Christian' values that Australian society is meant to be based on.

 

[aussiechica7]

The Queen of the Commonwealth of Australia is the defender of the faith- not the "defender of faith" (which is what Prince Charles would like it to be changed to) but the defender of THE faith. Our Constitution says "humbling relying on the blessings of Almighty God". Christianity, along with Greek democracy, are the two most important founding values of England and eventually Australia. However, the Australian government is not allowed to make any laws specifically establishing a religion. We are in that sense a "secular state", i.e. people have the right to follow any religion or no religion. However, in terms of how our culture has developed, and even in regards to the belief system that most people hold today, we are heavily influenced by Christianity. I would say we are technically post-Christian but that our society started out as Christian.

 

[bassguy]

Funny how their biggest ideological oponents were christians.

Actually, when the Nazis came to power Catholic bishops publicly expressed their support for the regime.

Like all of Western society, Australia is based on a Judeo-Christian ethical system. We moved away from this over time, recognising the need for a separation of church and state. However, in recent times leaders like Bush and Howard have been bringing Christianity back into government - look at gay marriage and stem cell research.