MandM header image 2

A Godless Public Square: Do ‘Private’ Christian Beliefs Have a Place in Public Life? Part III Madeleine Flannagan – Law

August 26th, 2011 by MandM

A Godless Public Square: Do ‘Private’ Christian Beliefs Have a Place in Public Life? A few weeks ago, as part of Jesus Week at the University of Auckland, Thinking Matters and Evangelical Union hosted an event entitled A Godless Public Square: Do ‘Private’ Christian Beliefs Have a Place in Public Life? This event was a conversation between Theology, Philosophy and Law and featured Matthew Flannagan – Analytic Theologian, Glenn Peoples – Philosopher and Madeleine Flannagan – Legal Scholar. The video is still being edited and will be available soon but for now, this 3-part series comprises the written speeches of each speaker.

Madeleine Flannagan – Law

Glenn and Matt dealt with moral restraint; the idea prevalent in our society that those of us with religious convictions ought to keep them to ourselves when we participate in public life.

Often people contend or try to imply that this obligation is required by law. We’ve all heard politicians, people in the media, leaders in our communities, lecturers at university assert that we are a secular nation and that our commitment to freedom of religion requires a secular public square.[1]

And they are not wrong to a degree. It is evident that something like this ‘obligation’ advanced by the likes of Rawls, Audi, Gaus, et al is present in western jurisprudence – most obviously in that coming out of the United States; you do not need to have studied law to be aware of this, you will have picked up on it if you have watched any American TV.

Separation of Church and State or Separationism?

Most people are aware that the US Supreme Court has interpreted America’s Religious Freedom and Free Exercise laws to mean that religious instruction, prayer, references to God, displays of the 10 commandments, nativity scenes — even where participation is totally voluntary — are banned from public institutions.

This “separationist” reading of the 1st amendment is drawn from US Founding Father Thomas Jefferson’s “Wall of separation Letter” to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. But it is unlikely that this reading is what Jefferson meant. At the time he was writing in early nineteenth century America, the common perception of the relationship between church and state reflected a long-standing European tradition.

Legal scholar Steven Smith wrote in “Separation and the Secular: Reconstructing the Disestablishment Decision” that,

… At least since the middle ages, scholars and polemicists of all stripes had argued-on both religious and political grounds-that the church should exercise control over the state or-again on both religious and political grounds-that the state should control the church. The common view for centuries had been that an established church was essential to political and social stability.[2]

He added,

… In medieval Europe, for example, kings had claimed, and had exercised, the power to appoint bishops and popes. After the Reformation, the British monarch became the official head of the Church of England, and British government assumed control over both the selection of ecclesiastical officials and the formulation of religious doctrine.[3]

In fact, the Book of Common Prayer, including the 39 Articles, was commissioned and approved by the Crown.

Smith goes on,

… medieval popes regularly crowned earthly emperors and kings, and they claimed (and frequently purported to exercise) the authority not merely to excommunicate but actually to depose those kings. Popes sometimes asserted jurisdiction to adjudicate what were essentially political or property disputes. In England, the Church enjoyed-and still enjoys-official representation in Parliament. Immigrants later imported established churches in some form into most of the American colonies.[4]

The church-state relationship that was familiar to an eighteenth century American was that “governments controlled or directly intervened in the internal affairs of churches, and churches claimed and were formally endowed with governmental powers.”

At the time Jefferson was writing, many US States had established churches; so when the United States Congress promised to “… make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”[5] they more likely had in mind that Separation of Church and State is simply the idea that the church should not be formally endowed with governmental powers and the state should not try to intervene in or control the church.

Separation of church and state is not separation of religious beliefs from public life (perhaps this confusion arises because both concepts have the word “separation” in them). The idea that Congress meant something more than mere Separation of Church and State when it passed the first amendment – that Congress meant Separationism — was birthed in the mid to late 20th century – some 200 years later – by the US Supreme Court when it began to hear cases about prayer in schools and the funding of Catholic schools.

Separationism and Separation of Church and State, as we have seen, are different ideas and one doe not entail the other.

Comparitive Jurisdictions

This is not just about the US. Separationist understandings of freedom of religion can be seen in Western jurisprudence elsewhere. There are European cases that exhibit it – even in places like the UK that do have an established church. Many of you will have heard the cases in the media of workers being sent home from their jobs after refusing to follow an instructions from their employers to remove religious jewellery[6] – normal jewellery was fine, just not anything that symbolised God.

The “Liberty Intervening” case is another UK example; a state-Celebrant refused to perform civil partnerships between members of the same sex. Because of her views on marriage, she was found to have discriminated against those couples. She could not appeal to freedom of religion as the court held that her employer’s requirement she perform same sex civil partnerships did not interfere with her ability to worship.[7]

Then there is this case, the summary from the head note explains it clearly:

Summary: The Employment Appeal Tribunal had correctly decided that a counselling organisation had not breached the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 reg.3(1)(a) or reg.3(1)(b) when it dismissed one of its relationship counsellors who refused to counsel same sex couples on sexual matters because of his Christian beliefs. Although the law protected a person’s right to hold or express their religious beliefs, it did not protect the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they were based on religious precepts.[8]

The last line seems to suggest a denial of the existence of a right to freedom of religion. In the judgment of the case this summary note comes from, Lord Justice Laws gave a lengthy spiel on its views on religion in public life, despite going on to rule as just stated, part of that spiel was:

“We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion, any belief system, cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other.”[9]

Sounds all good and equal right? – keep this quote in mind as we move onto the next case.

Earlier this year, 2011, this next one hit the news here in New Zealand; it was that of Eunice and Owen Johns, Christian foster parents, who had been disallowed from continuing to be foster parents after telling a social worker that they could not state that homosexual conduct was a good thing to one of their charges. The Johns took a case on the grounds of discrimination against their religious belief – which they understood they were free to hold to and live by – and they lost.

In their case the Lord Justice Munby quoted Lord Justice Laws’s lengthy spiel in McFarlane and Relate Avon Limited, including the quote I said to keep in mind, and after doing so they said: “We respectfully and emphatically agree with every word of that.” Then the court offered as its basis for refusing to let the Johns be foster parents,

“In the circumstances we cannot avoid the need to re-state what ought to be, but seemingly are not, well understood principles regulating the relationship of religion and law in our society. We preface what follows with the obvious point that we live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy.”[Emphasis mine.]

So basically, it is the Court’s position that all viewpoints are equal – they referred to “religion” and “any belief system” BUT! (channelling some Orwell here) secular viewpoints are more equal than other viewpoints — and to suggest otherwise is to advocate for a theocracy.

Religious Freedom in New Zealand

So that all said about other countries; how does Freedom of Religion work for us in New Zealand?

Now, obviously NZ has its own laws and it is not bound by international laws and jurisprudence, but, if and when we do get some cases on these issues (we have not had many at all so far) it will be jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and Canada – the latter’s Bill of Rights arguably operates the closest to ours – that our judges will look to this body of jurisprudence for guidance in interpreting our laws because many of the same questions and factors come in to play in these western nations with a common law history and more litigation on this topic than we have had.

NZ Rights and Freedom law expert, Paul Rishworth, makes the point, and I think he is right, that as a group or belief system increasingly dominates as a majority in society there tends to be a rise in litigation over rights of minority groups. This is because the smaller they get the less the mainstream cares about their rights being infringed. Rishworth expects that we will see a rise in religious freedom cases in New Zealand in the future because of this.[10]

This is why it is important for us to have this conversation now, for us to be thinking about what the Church’s, what our response to the ideas being discussed here tonight are and what sort of Jurisprudence and public policy we want to see be developed here in NZ. [Other organisations in our society are as I documented in The New Zealand Association of Rationalist Humanists and the Privileging of Secularism. The “NZARH” has published a statement of aspirational ideals for the New Zealand state on their website. Entitled “The Tolerant Secular State” the document seeks the eradication of religion from public life.]

Central to these church-state debates are questions around which circumstances governmental accommodation or endorsement of a religious practice or idea amounts to coercion of a dissenter from that practice, and is therefore, a violation of freedom of religion.

It is here that questions of religion in public life come to the fore. Does the guarantee of freedom of religion entail that religion be regulated to the private sphere with the state adopting and privileging a “secular” perspective on the grounds that this is allegedly neutral towards religions?

I will argue it does not; especially not in New Zealand. Let us turn to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Bill of Rights Act

What sets our freedom of religion clauses in our Bill of Rights apart from, say, the US Constitution, is that we do not have an establishment clause. Further, we do not define religion narrowly nor do we view narrowly its expressions.

There is one other interesting aspect to how NZ has approached this issue (and no, I am not talking about the fact our Bill of Rights Act is a simple statute).

Our freedom of religion clauses are contained in three passages, sections: 13, 14 and 15 – the placement of section 14 between sections 13 and 15 was deliberate. Let’s look at each.

13 Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference. [Emphasis mine]

Now in law when you see a list of things separated by commas in the same section of an Act, as you do here, you know that Parliament is meaning to place these things on par with each other and is meaning to suggest they have a sort of equality or sameness to each other. Unless the text explicitly says otherwise, they have to be treated and weighted the same.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights then protects equally not just religion but thought, conscience and belief.

The nature of what “belief” is is what I want to focus on here.

No New Zealand cases under s13 have yet defined religion or belief – although we have a definition in s21(d) of the Human Rights Act “ethical belief, which means the lack of a religious belief, whether in respect of a particular religion or religions or all religions” and in other legislation.[11] A judge is likely to look further afield than this to be sure that the definition is appropriate for the legal issues in this particular area of law.

 International and comparative Jurisprudence has some definitions specific to this area. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Travaux Prepetoire states that ‘belief’ entails “such other beliefs as agnosticism, free thought, atheism and rationalism”.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) supports this view and adds (sounding a bit like Rawls) that “coherent views on fundamental problems” will qualify as beliefs.

Similar definitions can be found in the jurisprudence of other western jurisdictions. Comprehensive secular viewpoints count as ‘belief’ and the State is required to protect and treat them equally with religion.

Whilst s 13 deals with what you are allowed to think and believe s 14 is about finding out more and sharing what think and believe:

14 Freedom of expression

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. [Emphasis mine]

Note that your right to seek, receive and impart information about what you believe, is stated absolutely and without limit as to location; it entails that both private and public forums is what is meant. This is bourn out in s 15, the section that covers what you do with your beliefs:

15 Manifestation of religion and belief

Every person has the right to manifest that person’s religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private. [Emphasis mine]

You can act on your comprehensive secular belief and/or your religious belief in public or in private – again the wording is broad and unlimited.

So if freedom of religion entails that public policy discussions and administration cannot include religious considerations – that religion must be excluded from public life to safeguard religious freedom – then parity of argument suggests that freedom of ethical belief – such as secular humanism, agnosticism or atheism – precludes ethical beliefs in public policy considerations. We’re supposed to treat beliefs equally afterall.

In fact, s 15 gives proponents of religious beliefs and secular beliefs the same rights to express and manifest their belief, teach them, share them, practice them, live in accord with them, in public without limitation. The Bill of Rights allows – no, requires – parallel arguments either way.

So holding that in mind, take a look at the Education Act 1989 (just read the italicised parts if you find legalese confusing):

77  State primary schools to be kept open at certain times
Except to the extent that—

(a) a school term commences on any day other than a Monday or ends with any day other than a Friday; or

(b) a school is lawfully closed pursuant to section 129C,—

every State primary school shall be kept open 5 days in each week for at least 4 hours each day, of which hours 2 in the morning and 2 in the afternoon shall be; and the teaching shall be entirely of a secular character. [Emphasis mine]

78 Religious instruction and observances in State primary schools
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in section 77, if the school’s board for the school district in which the school is situated, after consultation with the principal, so determines, any class or classes at the school, or the school as a whole, may be closed at any time or times of the school day for any period or periods exceeding in the aggregate neither 60 minutes in any week nor 20 hours in any school year, for any class, for the purposes of religious instruction given by voluntary instructors approved by the school’s board and of religious observances conducted in a manner approved by the school’s board or for either of those purposes; and the school buildings may be used for those purposes or for either of them.

Basically, section 77 states that all teaching in a state school must be secular. Section 78 provides that if you want to bring religious teaching into a state school you have to go to the board, have consultations, officially close the school and bring in volunteers… Equal treatment of viewpoints much?

[The justification for this affront to the Bill of Rights, involves a jurisprudential move utilising a Rawlsian approach and the operational clauses of the Bill of Rights Act – sections 5, 4 and 6. I do not have time to go into how this works here tonight, perhaps another time.]

The only reason the lack of parallel argument is accepted and that some of what you have heard tonight is news is because so many people, including the church, accept the false claim that secular beliefs are neutral and that permitting religious beliefs to be out there in public, in our schools, expressed our government would be somehow tipping the balance towards a bias – privileging one viewpoint over the others – and that that would be unjust. What is unjust and biased is the claim that in order for the state to discharge its duties under the Bill of Rights to treat public expressions of ethical belief as being on par with religion, it must privilege secularism and relegate religion to the private sphere.


[1] For a definition of secular in this context see Matt’s citation of Robert Audi in Part I.
[2] Steven D Smith “Separation and the Secular: Reconstructing the Disestablishment Decision” (1988-1989) 67 Tex L Rev 955, 963.
[3] Ibid 962-63.
[4] Ibid.
[5] First Amendment of The United States Constitution.
[6] In 2006 British Airways check-in clerk Nadia Eweida was sent home from work after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross Eweida v British Airways Plc [2010] ICR 890, [2010] EWCA Civ 80; Nurse Shirley Chaplin was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for similar reasons. In April 2011 the two joined forces in an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights: Nadia EWEIDA and Shirley CHAPLIN v the United Kingdom – 48420/10 [2011] ECHR 738.
[7] Ladele v Islington LBC (Liberty Intervening) [2009] EWCA Civ 1357, [2010] 1 WLR 955.
[8] McFarlane v Relate Avon Limited [2010] EWCA Civ 880, [2010] IRLR 872.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Paul Rishworth “Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion” in Paul Rishworth, Grant Hushcroft, Scott Optican and Richard Mahoney (eds) The New Zealand Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2003) 277-307.
[11] C.f. s 2(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

RELATED POSTS:
A Godless Public Square: Do ‘Private’ Christian Beliefs Have a Place in Public Life? Part I Matthew Flannagan – Theology
A Godless Public Square: Do ‘Private’ Christian Beliefs Have a Place in Public Life? Part II Glenn Peoples – Philosophy

 

Tags:   · · · · · · · 140 Comments

140 responses so far ↓

  • A very simple but fundamentally important question Madeleine.

    You say in your first sentences that moral restraint requires:
    “that those of us with religious convictions ought to keep them to ourselves when we participate in public life.

    Often people contend or try to imply that this obligation is required by law. We’ve all heard politicians, people in the media, leaders in our communities, lecturers at university assert that we are a secular nation and that our commitment to freedom of religion requires a secular public square.[1]”

    So please – can you provide some specific examples of this – especially where it is claimed “that this obligation is required by law.”

    The reference doesn’t do so at all.

    I ask because I have never cone across this assertion and certainly our society dies not operate on that basis.

    Simple request.

  • Ken wrote: “can you provide some specific examples of this – especially where it is claimed “that this obligation is required by law.” The reference doesn’t do so at all.”

    I did not say “this obligation is required by law” in isolation; by snipping those words out of their context you are making me out to have said something I did not.

    In my introduction I said: “Often people contend or try to imply that this obligation is required by law.” I immediately qualified what I meant by this statement with “We’ve all heard politicians, people in the media, leaders in our communities, lecturers at university assert that we are a secular nation and that our commitment to freedom of religion requires a secular public square.”

    I then added:
    “And they are not wrong to a degree. It is evident that something like this ‘obligation’ advanced by the likes of Rawls, Audi, Gaus, et al is present in western jurisprudence.”

    I then went on to give examples of recent cases (with citations) in an influential jurisdiction which showed the law being interpreted and applied according to this view of public life. I gave examples from NZ legislation. I accompanied these with commentary explaining the relevance of these thing.

    So I am a little puzzled. Yes, you are correct, footnote 1 is not an example of the doctrine of religious restraint coming through the law but I never sad it was. But examples were given in the paragraphs that came after the introduction and references were provided by way of section and title of legislation and full citations to judgments – see footnotes 6, 7, 8.

    Did you read the whole piece or just the first two paragraphs?

    You want more examples than those I went on to provide?

    Look to the dominant 3 establishment tests which I set out in a blog post you linked to from Open Parachute – so I am surprised you are not already aware of these:

    The Lemon Test insists that public policy have a valid secular purpose; that a non-religious rationale be offered for all state actions.

    The Endorsement Test prohibits the state from “endorsing” religion over irreligion.

    The Coercion Test provides that the state must not coerce religious practice; not only must it not be required, but in Lee v Weisman the application was shifted to what Justice Scalia, in his dissent, termed a “test of psychological coercion”. The Supreme Court held that being one of few (or the only one) to opt out of a religious practice in a public setting is a form of state coercion by peer pressure. (Notably it did not hold that the same is true in reverse.)

    There are those agitating in NZ for the psychological coercion test to be adopted in New Zealand. There are several papers floating around that endorse that that I have encountered and certainly there were submissions made to the HRC advancing that view when they reviewed their freedom of religion approach. Click on the link I provided in the article above and read the NZARH’s “Tolerant Secular State” document.

    I will refresh your mind as to what you wrote in the in the Aotearoa Ethnic Network Journal:
    “Non-religious people have the right to be free from interference by religious people and organisations, freedom from proselytising, and freedom from imposition of values, morality and practice.”

    Ken also wrote: “I ask because I have never cone across this assertion and certainly our society dies not operate on that basis.”

    You clearly have not read much at all on the topic – I take it you still have not read that Stanford Encyclopedia Article giving an overview of the history of the debate?

    Read the sections of the Education Act I cited again (if in fact you ever read the article above before commenting). Religion is required by law in New Zealand to be excluded from State primary schools – schools have to close if they want to talk about it. The NZARH think even this assymetry does not go far enough – they don’t even want schools to be able to close and talk about it.

    The NZARH are calling for an end of integrated schools. Taxpayer dollars of all citizens must only ever be used to support their secular viewpoint and their viewpoint alone. “The NZARH strongly believes that public education should be free, secular and available equally to all children.” What about those citizens (like me) who do not want their tax payer dollars going towards secular schools?

    Consider that the right to manifest one’s religion includes the raising of children. This gets overridden by the practice of sex education in schools – I have opted my son out of sex ed but his internal school exam contained a compulsory section on the topic. Then there are contraceptive and abortion prescriptions being given to children without the consent or notification of their parents. These citizens hold one view and desire to manifest that view. The state deems their view wrong. The state has legislated and created policies that override the religious freedoms of their parents.

    Our society does operate this way.

    It baffles me that you would wade in and comment and assert when you admit you don’t have a foggy about any of it – you seem to have never heard of Rawls! I was at a 21st last night and we were discussing my paper for Notre Dame at the table of 10 people I was sitting with and a housewife asked me “Is that something to do with John Rawls?”

    Google Ken. Read the Stanford. Read our blog posts before commenting on them, follow the links we provided, look up the citations for the evidence we have provided.

  • OK Madeliene – no specific example – either of law or of “politicians, people in the media, leaders in our communities, lecturers at university”.

    Why am I not suprised?

    Another question:

    What specifically in “The Tolerant Secular State” leads you to claim that “the document seeks the eradication of religion from public life.”?

    I ask because the document includes statements like:

    “the state should treat religious organisations the same as any other organisation. The rights of freedom of belief and freedom of expression, must be upheld as long as these are not used to undermine other people’s rights to safety and security.”

    And:

    “Societies in which all people can openly express and practice their beliefs are far better places to live in than those that enforce dogma – religious or otherwise. Having a society that accepts different beliefs means that all are able to participate and contribute. “

    Now, I expect you to produce some statments at least as clear as these, from this doucment, which supports your claim “the document seeks the eradication of religion from public life.”?

    If not, I draw my own conclusions – you are actually not concernend with the eradication of religion from public life.” But are actually oppossing eradication of “relics in New Zealand government and law that continue to discriminate on the basis of belief.”

  • Madeleine, while you may offer principled arguments from philosophy and legal theory to challenge a “secular” status quo, public policy decisions are unavoidably pragmatic – they seek to make imperfect systems work as well as possible in the circumstances.

    Now ask yourself, regarding s.77 of the Education Act 1989 for instance, what alternatives would you really prefer, for NZ State primary schools? Should every branch of the Christian Church be given its own classroom or time-slot? Or only Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant ones (assorted Evangelicals and non-evangelicals included – and what about Latter-day Saints, Ratana followers and the others)? Should the majority local church beliefs prevail? Or a pro rata system be worked out? Or what?

    Would anyone trust “other believers” to teach their children the way they wanted them taught?

    Christians disagree on many important moral topics today: war, taxation, welfare, contraception, global warming, divorce, same-sex parenting, vegetarianism, feminism…. and so on. Would schools be forced to make a selection … what are the “real” Christian moral beliefs? Who are the “true” Christians (theological divisions going even deeper than moral ones.)?

    And as if Christian disagreement wasn’t enough of a problem, where do the other faiths, with their internal disagreements, also fit in? The questions keep coming…

    So the “secular” assumpton, for all its faults, does seem to have a pragmatic advantage. And I can’t help thinking of all the “dissenters” down the ages who would have said “Thank God for a secular state” had one been on offer – just for the sake of some peace and quiet, and freedom from persecution by other believers who happened to have the numbers.

  • “OK Madeliene – no specific example – either of law or of “politicians, people in the media, leaders in our communities, lecturers at university”. Why am I not suprised?”

    So basically, Ken asks for evidence, its given, he pretends it hasn’t been, and asks again. Why am I not surprised

    What specifically in “The Tolerant Secular State” leads you to claim that “the document seeks the eradication of religion from public life.”?

    Ken now ignores the sections Madeleine cited from the document, pretends she offered none and asks the question again.

    Well perhaps the sections Ken doesn’t cite

    Such as the section that says “The NZARH strongly believes that government should be secular; that is dealing with the issues of this world rather than following a religious agenda.”

    Which states the government can and should follow secular considerations but should not follow religious ones.

    Or the that states religious prayers should be banned from parliament but not secular affirmations.

    Or the section that contends public education should be entirely secular and not religious.

    Or the section that contends that integrated religious schools should be abolished

    followed by the section which advocates publicly funded secular schools. But claims we should not allow religious schools having public funds.

    “the state should treat religious organisations the same as any other organisation. The rights of freedom of belief and freedom of expression, must be upheld as long as these are not used to undermine other people’s rights to safety and security.”

    Yes it does say this the problem is it goes on to reject that a few paragraphs latter. For example, the document is quite clear that religious schools should not be treated the same as any other secular school.

    Madeleine of course specifically cited the section about public education to Ken but Ken of course, simply repeat the question pretending it was not answered.

    Now I look forward to Ken pretending I have not answered his question.

  • I guess it’s too much to expect Matt and Madeleine to deal with real world. You guys seem to think that abuse and put-downs of commenters diverts attention from the specifics. Ut would be simpler (and respectful) to just be honest, admit when your statements are incorrect and learn to be more accurate with your claims.

    Madeleine accuses me of “snipping her words out if context” and then proceeds to provide the same context I had already done! Amazing. She should learn to count to ten before responding.

    She does not provide any specific example of “politicians, etc” claiming that commitment to freedom of religion means religious people should keep their views to themselves. Or any example of people who she claims. “often contend or imply this obligation is required by law.”

    She has yet to respond to my question about her claims on “The Tolerant Secular State” – an actual quote to support her charge that this “document seeks the eradication of religion from public life.”

    But Matt claims it does and then refuses to provide such a quote. He is purely trying to interpret democratic, inclusive measured – secular measures – as meaning eradication if religion. I guess that’s the theological method though.

    This confirms my suggestion that Matt, Madeleine (I  assuming she won’t provide an answer to my question) and Glenn are really concerned about eradication of religious privilege and provision of true freedom of belief. They are opposed to a democratic, inclusive approach to religion and belief in a pluralist society.

    Matt, and the others, why not specifically write down the definition of “secular” you ate using in your attacks? (You seem to avoid fronting up with this).

     Let us compare this with how society actually operates and the definition used by those of us asking for an inclusive, democratic society which provides for true freedom of religion and belief and overcomes the residual inequalities arising from current religious privilege.

  • Interestingly, when we lived in The Netherlands for a few months, we enrolled the children in the local school system. In Holland there were secular schools run by local council, Catholic schools run by the Catholic Church and other Christian schools. All were fully funded and people were free to choose whichever school suited their personal beliefs. Essentially supply and demand, people were able to freely choose between schools and those schools got an appropriate proportion of tax payers dollars. I like the idea that I pay my taxes and that pays equally for the education that I want for my children, be it secular, Christian, montissouri or Kura Kaupapa.

  • I don’t have children and while you may think I shouldn’t get a say in what schools are funded I think you can only fund schools that the community as a whole agrees with. Unfortunately for you, because I’m paying in part for all of your children’s education, I get a say. The only way around this is to home school your child. That’s how I was taught and if you have problems with the non religious school system then that’s what you should do. Course depriving your child of a good education is not ideal. Not giving your child a good sex education is not fair to them and besides, take it from my experience, if you don’t teach them all the facts they’ll learn it from some other source.
    You all may not want your tax dollars going toward secular schooling – but I don’t think faith should be taght in the classroom and don’t want to subsidize it. Can’t we do that at home and church

  • I don’t have children and while you may think I shouldn’t get a say in what schools are funded I think you can only fund schools that the community as a whole agrees with. Unfortunately for you, because I’m paying in part for all of your children’s education, I get a say. The only way around this is to home school your child.

    What this of course means is that parents who want to teach there child a religious education pay twice, first they are compelled on threat of jail to pay for other peoples children to be given a secular education, and then on top of that they pay for their own childrens religious education.

    Hence religious parents are required by law to fund a secular eductaion they disagree with and do not use.

    So it is just a little ironic to here the argument that its unjust to force non religious people to fund trhough taxation a religious education they don’t agree with.

    Moreover, if the religious parent is a single mother, they will loose the DPB if they choose to homeschool instead of sending the child to a local secular school.

    This is quite clearly economic discrimination against people who choose to not give there children a “secular education”.

    Ari has pointed out there are models, used in very liberal, secular countries which do not enage in this discrimination of thsi sort . NZ has choosen to not adopt them.

    To say then NZ does not discriminate against religious parents or that doing so is the only alternative to having a liberal democratic society, is pretty evidently false.

    This effects people in the real world too.

    The site Ken links to quite clearly supports this discrimination and by advocating the abolition of intergrated schools actually wants to increase it.

  • given that we have some muslims in our society, why should our law not reflect aspects of sharia law? should we all be made to observe ramadan?

    if e & o johns had been muslim and refused to tell their foster child that christianity was anything other than evil, should they have been allowed to keep the child?

    i think the main reason it appears that christianity is being biased against is that for so long it has held a privileged postition in new zealand, and a secular pluralist society requires that it not being given any more privileges than any other religion. this definitely means that the secularisation of society will have a negative impact on the standing of christianity. if we had previously had a different dominant religion in the public square and required that it not have any more privileges that christianity, this other religion would feel it was being attacked.

    the irony is that secularism is actually extremely pro-religion, just not christianity in specific. the perceived assault on christianity is un unfortunate consequence of an attempt to advance the status of all other religions in a society which christianity previously dominated.

  • Matt – you hide behind distortion of meanings and end up producing the most incredible rubbish instead of logic.

    Yes, in New Zealand we are required by law to provide our children with a secular education. What does secular mean? It doesn’t mean atheist, communist, or whatever you seem to imply. It means an education that deals with the real world.

    Here secular means:

    “Of or relating to worldly things as distinguished from things relating to church and religion; not sacred or religious; temporal; worldly.” – See Secular democracy and its critics

    Now most people are happy with that. My family took responsibility for any ideological education we gave our kids. The state provided the training in maths, science, social studies, economics, etc., etc. (The secular subjects). Most relgious families prefer it that way – being unhappy to hand over ideological education to an organisation involving pluralist allegiances.

    Most parents prefer it this way. And they are happy to bear any expense involved in extra-cirriculum ideological teaching. As they should be.

    So Matt – what have you got against a “secular education.?” Are you opposed to children learning science, maths, etc., etc.,

    Religion has nothing to do with it. If you want to provide an extra ideological education you are free to do so – in the weekend or after school. This should not interfere with a child’s education aimed at preparing here to deal with the real world.

    I have asked you to provide yoit is obviollsy a huge problem for your arguments. We could then have a look at it and see how it compares to the real application of the word in our society.

    Why do you avoid answering that question?

  • Sorry, my 3rd to last sentence should read:

    “I have asked you to provide your own meaning of the word “secular” because it is obviollsy a huge problem for your arguments.”

    It’s a key question.

  • […] And Matt  also has a go at “secular eduction.” He claims that “religious parents are required by law to fund a secular education they disagree with and do n… […]

  • As a teacher I find it very interesting that there is a perception that the only area of influence a school has is the content of the curriculum. The culture and values that a school holds covers much more than just the subject matter. Schools have policies to cover everthing from bullying and discipline to cultural appropriateness and what clothes children wear.

    I have friends that chose to send their children to a rural school because they wanted their children to have a small community focused experience. My sister opted for (and paid a fortune for) Montessori education for the child centered focus. Friends will be sending their children to Kura Kaupapa Maori, not just for the culture and language but for the values. I was recently at a high school which emphasised Maori culture and values highly (and I can remember being punished as a young child for stepping over a boy who was sitting down, because his head is tapu and being a girl it is forbidden that I should place myself over him – secular school). My local school is a high decile, success driven school with high expectations for academic success. These examples show that schools deliver more then just ‘pure knowledge’, the way that we deliver that knowledge comes with values and cultural influences.

    We are a multicultural society. Given that there are schools of many different types in New Zealand to meet that diversity, why shouldn’t my taxes pay for the type school that I choose for my children?

  • […] that allows all politicians to reflect on why they are they are there.” He claims this “states religious prayers should be banned from parliament”. He sees introduction of an inclusive ceremony as an attack on Christianity – what warped […]

  • Madeleine,

    INAL, but three simple points

    (1) You can’t ask that your opinions, beliefs, etc. be held over other’s.

    (2) Nothing is stopping churches, etc., having their own classes teaching their beliefs so that those attending state schools can choose to attend whatever religious classes they like (or not if that is their choice).

    “Demanding” that state schools themselves offer classes teaching (your particular) religion during regular teaching hours to all pupils is asking for your beliefs and wishes be held over others’. That’s self-evidently unfair. Many, if not most, of those attending state schools will not have the option of taking their children elsewhere to fulfil their wishes. In this respect state schools have to provide a solution that works for all, hence the secular approach.

    If a lack of religious teaching bothers you, organise your church to offer classes and invite anyone who wants to attend – ?

    (3) I believe private schools are free to offer religious classes – true?

    Leaving these points behind, the section 78 ruling, as I read, simply amounts to allowing the school grounds and rooms to be used a place to conduct religious classes out of school hours in lieu of using a church grounds or building – essentially allow “rental” of the facilities, but distinguishing that from it’s work-hours activity. (In a similar way, universities rent out lecture theatres, etc.)

    This would be even-handed *if* the school grounds and buildings are offered in the same fashion to non-religious classes, sports, etc. If not, it would be favouring religions.

    Food for thought: perhaps you shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds you? If you push it too hard, it may stop offering free chow after hours – ? After all, in principle they don’t really have to, they could simply rule that if church want to offer this, it’s up to them to provide the facilities the teaching is to be held at.

    Ari,

    I (strongly) suspect the difference is state schools v. non-state schools. (The rulings M quotes refer to state schools. The KKM schools seem to be an exception – ?) I think I’d be correct in say that there are plenty of private schools offering religious instruction as part of their classes. There parents (not necessarily their children) can choose the option, just as in the options you listed. Following that, perhaps the fairer comparison to those you offer would be to other non-state school options (e.g. private) – ?

  • “You can’t ask that your opinions, beliefs, etc. be held over other’s.”

    I think this is (part of) Madeleine’s point.

  • GJ, did you even read the article?

  • Garnt – you say:

    “This would be even-handed *if* the school grounds and buildings are offered in the same fashion to non-religious classes, sports, etc. If not, it would be favouring religions.”

    I don’t know any example where this sort of equivalence has been used to offer non-theist ideological insturction to school children in New Zealand.

    However, we can see this sort of situation in New South Wales where a trial secular ethics class was run in some schools last year. This proved so popular it was introduced to all schools this year.

    Sadly, rather than introducing it as part of the ordinary school day it has been run at the same time as the relgious scripture classes where the school is officially “closed”.

    Conservative Chrsitians have strongly opposed the secular ethics classes. And this group provides most of the instructors for the scripture classes.

    They claim that they had an agreement with the Crown that no other class would ever be offered in opposition, to compete with, the scripture classes. A sore point for them as enrolment in their classes has dropped radically in some cases as parents vote with their feet and move their children to the ethics classes.

    Conservative christians in parliament have threated withdrawal of support for some government proposals if the secular ethics classes aren’t stopped. So despite their popularity there are undemocratic campaings to stop them which may prove successful

    The conservative Cxhrsitians have puit themselves in a silly postion of being opposed to ethics. Of course its not just a matter of competition. They also argue that ethics are impossible without a god (a claim that has very little support from parents). There has also been a reaguard action to try and obtain influence over the plans of the ethics classes by obtaining some sort of veto role. (Currently the programme of the ethics classess has been prepared by university philosophers, and is taught by trained lay persons).

    Personally I think that secular ethics classes would be great in our schools. Perhaps even necessary. And I am sure kids of a cerrtain age would enjoy them.

  • “I think this is (part of) Madeleine’s point.”

    IMO, only if you redefine secularism to be something isn’t.

    Her key point is that she wants her religion to be taught in schools ‘as of right’, which would have her asking that her beliefs, etc., be held over others’ choices. Hence my starting with the point that “You can’t ask that your opinions, beliefs, etc. be held over other’s.” – she breaking that. See Peter D’s comment too (but expand it to include all religions, not just different Christian sects, etc.)

    Essentially she playing something both ways that pragmatically can’t be, hence why I started with this point. If one religion insists all pupils be exposed to their choice of religion, then they’re ruling over other’s right to choose otherwise – hence the secular approach used.

    In a similar way it doesn’t make sense to write “it must privilege secularism and relegate religion to the private sphere”. The point of secularism is not to repress religions, as she tries to imply (in fact the rulings explicitly provides a means for religious teaching), but to not privilege any one religion, to avoid privileging one belief system over others or, more pragmatically here, so that people who don’t want their kids to take religious classes they don’t agree with don’t have to whilst still leaving a means for those that do to be able to. It’s a compromise as Peter pointed out, one that’s fair enough in big scheme of things. [Excuse the run-on sentences.]

    “GJ, did you even read the article?”

    Anon, did you even read my comment? 😉

    (Point being, you want to make a point, rather than an empty tit-for-tat.)

  • Ken,

    Interesting example.

    FWIW (probably not much) I was writing more widely as the basic logic of using a school for some extracurricular activity should be more-or-less the same regardless of what the activity is. If it clashes with the working-day stuff, then it ought to be cleared with the board, etc. That’s no different for any other organisation offering it’s facilities to be used after hours.

  • There have been a lot of comments left since I last checked in and I don’t have much time right now so in brief:

    1. It is nice to note that Ken has gone from “you did not provide a single example” to dealing with and responding to some of the many examples I, in fact, provided.
    Of course, because Ken thinks my objections are wrong he thinks it is perfectly fine for the state to have these policies. Again this misses the point. The point is that the state preferences secularism over religion. The fact that Ken (and others) think it is perfectly ok for the State to do this and I am unreasonable to object is not the point. The point is the state does do this and so Ken’s claim it doesn’t is false.

    2. A lot of people are completely missing the argument and are wrongly reasoning that we are operating under some incorrect definition of secularism and if we were operating under the right one we’d see that secularism being privileged was just…
    First of all, follow the link I provided above to “” as in that I provided two definitions of secularism and I demonstrated, using a a real example, how many people commonly equivocate between these definitions – there is a fair amount of that in this thread so read the link.
    As Matt argued in Part 1, Christians believe that God must permeate all they do. Therefore, no matter what interpretation of secularism you apply, short of making secularism equate to bringing God into everything, secularism requires that Christians shear off part of themselves; secularism is incompatible with Christianity.
    Ken put a picture of a monk doing the monastery’s accounts up on his blog and said it was secular. It is not secular. When a Christian does accounts he invokes God in the sense that his math is correct and his tallying of the books is honest. We do not turn God off and on when we do these things. You do not understand Christianity if you think this. I know Christians who pray through such activities and praise God when the numbers add up.
    (Further, Monks used to argue about the theological status of mathematics – monastic theology discussed whether mathematical concepts were divine ideas. A Monk at a monastery doing his accounts would not see what he was doing as secular.)
    Therefore, by adopting a secular stance the State is taking a viewpoint that excludes Christianity (and other religions that hold to a similar stance).
    All this is moot anyway. In the religion in public life debate the advocates of the dominant view argue that public policy considerations should be based on secular reasons and NOT religious ones. The word secular is used in contrast to religion. And in putting the view this way, they suggest that secular reasons should trump religious ones – the latter should be overridden or ignored. This assymmetry is what Matt, Glenn and I are talking about.

  • Again this misses the point. The point is that the state preferences secularism over religion.

    Which suggests you misunderstand (or misconstrue) the point of secularism. As I wrote earlier the point of secularism is to avoid privileging one belief system over others. Secularism isn’t itself a belief system (comparing the two directly is a false dichotomy). It isn’t repressing any religion, but avoiding privileging any one. You’re making out a lack of privileging your religion to be repression. Pragmatically you can’t have it both ways. If you want to be even-handed, you have to not privilege *any* religion, esp. as they conflict with one-another.

    Personally I think you might want to try again, but first define accurately what secularism is and what it aims to achieve and work from that rather than presuming it to be oppressive and trying to “fight” it.

    [Just a thought: I don’t like the comment box up the top, it positions the reply too far from the what’s being replied to forcing you to move up and down the page all the time.]

  • GJ

    (1) “You can’t ask that your opinions, beliefs, etc. be held over other’s.” If this is correct then people can’t ask that secular beliefs be held over religious ones. Which is what our education policy clearly does, it suggests that when the education involves teaching religious ideas it should be treated less favourably than when its secular ideas.

    (2) No one denied churches can teach their beliefs, so pointing out they can is irrelevant. Neither Madeleine nor I demanded that state schools offer classes teaching religion, so that again is irrelevant.

    (But I could not that in fact Churches cannot just set up schools, that requires government consent, parents cannot just homeschool, they require government consent and the state can turn it down largely at its discretion and currently in NZ theological colleges actually have there rolls capped by the government and so cannot enrol new students. )

    What I did point out, is in fact manifested in your comments that when it comes to state schools teaching religious beliefs, you say thats “self evidently unfair” because many people can’t go elsewhere.

    When however it comes to teaching a secular education you demand it be taught in state schools and say that if religious people don’t like it they should go elsewhere and if they can’t that’s there problem for not organising themselves better. Thats pretty clearly a double standard.

    Ken asked for examples, they have been provided.

    (3) No one denied private schools can teach religion, so that’s irrelevant. It’s odd that when Madeleine suggests religion is pushed out of public life and into private people respond by saying. “That’s not true you can pursue religion in private just don’t have it in public schools.”

    Your even handed rental example misses the obvious point that school facilities are offered to non-religious classes all the time. They are after all secular schools and offer non religious classes and sports every day without being required to close. So the situation is not even handed.

    Food for thought: perhaps you shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds you? If you push it too hard, it may stop offering free chow after hours – ?
    Ahh yes, when challenged the respond with a threat

    As to your response to Ari you miss the point about the Netherlands
    In Holland there were secular schools run by local council, Catholic schools run by the Catholic Church and other Christian schools. All were fully funded and people were free to choose whichever school suited their personal beliefs. Essentially supply and demand, people were able to freely choose between schools and those schools got an appropriate proportion of tax payers dollars.

    Holland has a system where the state treats all religious and secular schools on par and allows people to choose. This pretty obviously does not privilege secular over religious education. The Netherlands have had this system for decades, liberal democracy has not collapsed, they are not a theocracy, they have not been plaqued by religious wars, they have religious freedom in fact they are an extremely liberal society. The simple fact is that NZ could choose to treat religious and secular schools on par and leave people choices as to whether to attend them or not. They choose not to. The claim this is inevitable or the only way to ensure a liberal democracy or freedom of religion is pretty obviously false.

    Here is a challenge, either privatise all schools religious or secular or allow public funding to all of them without regard for the religious or secular nature of the school. If you aren’t willing to do either, don’t pretend the system does not priveledge secular over religious schools.

  • Ken, I have taught secular ethics classes at schools through religious studies departments, in fact many religious schools have been teaching secular philosophical ethics for years as part of there RE program. The issue here was the state setting up teaching such classes at the same time as religious ed classes so that students. Not being against ethics classes per se.

    But seeing you think people should vote with there feet and endorse open competition perhaps you reflect on the following proposal:. The state can fund both secular and religious schools on an equal footing and let parents choose which to go to. They also can allow parents who homeschool to get there tax money back to spend on home-education.

    Interestingly its not religious people who typically oppose this, its secular organisations like NZARH. Why is NZARH opposed to this? Why do they demand that only secular schools be publically funded and religious schools be entirely privately funded. Can’t hack competition perhaps?

  • Ken and G J, you have convinced me entirely, the current system does not priveledge secular views over religious ones.

    In fact I think you have provided a solution to the problem in the US about the teaching of evolution. As you’ll know in the US south a significant number of parents do not believe in evolution. I think you have shown us a really fair way of dealing with this. The states in question should pass a law forbidding evolution to be taught in public schools, however the schools can teach it after hours or when the schools are officially closed, providing its completely voluntary and only if the parents choose to have there kids learn it. Of course the same rights must be accorded to other sports clubs.

    If this is objectionable to evolutionists they can set up there own organisations to teach evolution on the weekends or they can set up there own really expensive private schools to teach it.

    I am sure you’ll agree that this method does not in any way favour creationism over evolution and treats both views completely equally and fairly.

  • Madeleine – this comment is misleading:

    “It is nice to note that Ken has gone from “you did not provide a single example” to dealing with and responding to some of the many examples I, in fact, provided.”

    You certainly are very familiar with “snipping those words out of their context” – because you practice it so much.

    I asked:

    1: “So please – can you provide some specific examples of this – especially where it is claimed “that this obligation is required by law.” This refers to your claim:

    “Often people contend or try to imply that this obligation is required by law. We’ve all heard politicians, people in the media, leaders in our communities, lecturers at university assert that we are a secular nation and that our commitment to freedom of religion requires a secular public square”

    No examples have been provided.

    2: “What specifically in “The Tolerant Secular State” leads you to claim that “the document seeks the eradication of religion from public life.”?”

    Again not a single example provided.

    The examples you use refer to defense of religious privelige and I have been pointing that out.

    You have simply used the old conservative christian trick of Martydom of the priveliged to claim that remocal of discrimination amounts to ” the eradication of religion from public life”.

    Your exampels are just silly. How can providing a parliamnetary opening ceremony which is inclusive (including the sentiments of relgious and non-religious allike) be construed as seeking “the eradication of religion from public life.”

    Well only using dishonest mental gymnastics and theological logic, obviously.

  • Madeleine, just a thought. Would you advocate privatizing the legal system too, so that those of us who have religious beliefs about law and morality should not have to have our taxes used on supporting secular courts, parliament, police etc. that are not required to hold and enforce those beliefs?

    (You will know that there were once religious “tests” for barristers, judges, etc. Would you like to see a return to that?).

    Isn’t the “secular” compromise a better option, given the practicalities of the situation? And it’s one that believers should be able to use to their advantage, as they can commend their beliefs on their merits …ie. not just because they have a right to hold them but because they make a recognizable difference to their lives.

  • Ken, thanks for confirming my prediction. When I pointed out that Madeleine had provided examples in here Aug 21 11:27 am comment and I myself provided examples from NZARH

    Anyone who reads the thread can see it.

    At that time I said you would respond by pretending the question had not been asked and repeating the question.

    Keep repeating lies, and talking about “theological logic”.

  • The misunderstanding of the meaning of the word “secular” is a key problem here. Madeleine and Matt are hiuding behind an inappropriate meaning.

    That is why I have asked Matt to provide us with his working defintion. (Actually Madeleine could also do the same – her use seems to be different to Matt’s)

    So I repeat:

    “I have asked you to provide your own meaning of the word “secular” because it is obviollsy a huge problem for your arguments. We could then have a look at it and see how it compares to the real application of the word in our society.”

    Why do you avoid answering that question?”

  • Peter D,

    Madeleine, just a thought. Would you advocate privatizing the legal system too, so that those of us who have religious beliefs about law and morality should not have to have our taxes used on supporting secular courts, parliament, police etc. that are not required to hold and enforce those beliefs?

    This follows only if you hold that its wrong to be forced to fund something you disagree with. Thats the argument proponents of secularism make, I am just pointing out the implications of the argument. You can’t treat it as a taxi cab to use to exclude religious beliefs and then claiming its impractical when its secular beliefs.

    Religious education is different, while its implausible to say its wrong to be forced to fund something you disagree with in general. The idea that freedom of religion includes the right to educate your children in your religious beliefs and to not have the state indoctrinate them to the contrary is both plausible and well esthablished. Again this is not a taxi cab that can be used to ban religious education and then ignored as impractical when secular beliefs are being considered.

    Finally, the example of Holland I think suggests that the “secular” option is not the only practical or workable solution. It clearly is possible and feasible.

  • Ken,

    I gave a definition of what I mean’t by secular in my talk plus offered a citation of where I got it from.

    Madeleine offered a link to a post where she offers different definitions of secular provided sources, and addressed the equivocation you are engaging in. All this was in the above thread.

    Honest communicators don’t pretend questions haven’t been answered when they have.

  • OK Matt – what about repeating your working defintion here. It6 shouldn’t take multiple reuqests for you to even acknowledge the question has been asked.

    Why so coy – I have no trouble outlining what I think is the appropriate defitnion (and as Medeleine says many people do use different meanings – no wonder people get confused).

    Honest communicators don’t shy away from explaining their terms.

    The also don’t pretend questions have been answered when they haven’t.

  • Madeleine & Matt, what has made religious education in state schools difficult to implement in this country is the fact that believers have been even more afraid of their children being exposed to other religious views than they have been of secular education.

    Better for teaching to be “secular”, they have thought, than Papist, Protestant, Modernist, Fundamentalist, Sectarian, Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu, Animist….etc.etc.

    I don’t think you have sufficiently addressed the fact of religious conflict and diversity, as a problem for your critique of secularity in public life and institutions.

  • Which is what our education policy clearly does, it suggests that when the education involves teaching religious ideas it should be treated less favourably than when its secular ideas.

    You write ‘treated less favourably’. As I wrote earlier, it’s not about repressing any religions (treating them less favourably), it’s about not privileging any belief system (or whatever other appropriate term you prefer) over others.

    No one denied churches can teach their beliefs, so pointing out they can is irrelevant.

    The relevance is obvious surely: there are alternative besides what the state schools offer that cater to the needs of those wanting religious instruction.

    Neither Madeleine nor I demanded that state schools offer classes teaching religion, so that again is irrelevant.

    Perhaps then you might explain why you (both) are so insistent on this lack of religious instruction in state schools as important to you – ?

    Churches cannot just set up schools

    I wrote classes, not schools.

    currently in NZ theological colleges actually have [their] rolls capped by the government and so cannot enrol new students

    This will be tied to state funding, just as non-religious university courses, etc., are capped too. (i.e. implying this out to be an anti-religious activity is a bit off – look for the ordinary reasons first, etc.)

    What I did point out, is in fact manifested in your comments that when it comes to state schools teaching religious beliefs, you say thats “self evidently unfair” because many people can’t go elsewhere.

    Wow. That’s a bit distasteful and certain a poor argument. Time for me to leave in that case (but I’ll finish this reply). Please read my full comments. Those wanting religious instruction have options – they can take church classes. The churches can bring classes to the schools after hours. (This is similar to confusing lack of privilege for repression, FWIW.)

    When however it comes to teaching a secular education you demand it be taught in state schools and say that if religious people don’t like it they should go elsewhere and if they can’t that’s there problem for not organising themselves better. Thats pretty clearly a double standard.

    I’ll ignore the loaded wording you’re trying to put in my mouth (making me out to be opposing others choosing their options and making me responsible; the straw man is more reason to leave).

    You (both) keep portraying this as secularism v. religion. That’s a false dichotomy when the wider picture is taken into account and is a key thing that indicates to me that you seem to misunderstand (or miscontrue) what the aims of the secularism here is. Secularism does not oppose religion nor tries to supplant it.

    The solution has been to grant privilege to none, but ensure there are options still available elsewhere for those that want it. That’s not about repressing religions, it’s about being fair to everyone.

    Of course you could dream up other solutions, but to keep calling out the current solution as ‘anti religious’, ‘repressing religion’, etc. is to misrepresent it.

    You have presented similar thinking elsewhere:

    This follows only if you hold that its wrong to be forced to fund something you disagree with. Thats the argument proponents of secularism make, I am just pointing out the implications of the argument.

    Here, you’ve made secularism to be about funding. I would suggest it’s dominantly about not granting privileged positions to one religion over others (or those wishing no religious instruction).

    Religious education is different

    Why? – this smells like special pleading.

    not have the state indoctrinate them to the contrary

    Secularism isn’t about opposing religion or ‘indoctrinating them to the contrary’. This suggests quite strongly that you’re conflating secularism with militant atheism.

  • I really did have a giggle at Madeleine’s claim that accountancy isn’t secular.

    However, it does make clear that what she (and presumably Matt require in our schools is that accountancy, mathematics, science, history etc., is tauight by a method that requires the pupils to at the same time pray and “invoke their god.”

    I guess she for this reason also rejects universities, hospitals, and government departments, like the Charities Commission? After all, I don’t think the Commission officials are praying and invoking god when they approve her supernatural tax exempt staus requests!

    And what the hell has she got to say about these clergy in the Boston Archdiocese.

    Were they praying and invoking their god while performing these acts?

    After all – as Madeleine says “We do not turn God off and on when we do these things. “

  • I did not say accountancy is or is not secular. I said it was not a secular activity for a Christian because no action for a Christian can be or should be secular.

    Ken you simply do not get Christianity. You are not alone in this ignorance. A good friend recently asked me how many times a day I invoked God in things. He too seemed to view it as something you can turn on and off (though he did not take the mocking and derogatory tone you have here).

    Christians believe that we must exemplify God in all we do. Now we are human beings, we are flawed, we make mistakes and poor choices – sometimes really terrible ones like those you gave examples of in your link. When we do this we err, we do not just wrong those we hurt and let down society’s expectations of us but we wrong God.

    This is what it means to live an undivided life. Requiring Christians to pay over and above their tax dollars for them to have the choice to educate their children according to their viewpoint when a secular parent can educate their child according to their viewpoint in a state school is an assymetrical treatment of viewpoints and in a pluralistic society this is unjust.

    It is not the state’s job to tell grown adults what they can and cannot believe or what they should or should not be teaching their children about God. In a free society the state is supposed to serve the people not re-educate them or tell them what to do. [Criminal conduct excluded]

  • But secularists don’t want to tell you what to believe. I want the government to be secular, not you.

  • Madeleine – “It is not the state’s job to tell grown adults what they can and cannot believe or what they should or should not be teaching their children about God”

    Couldn’t agree more. I think most people think the same way and agree that is why we have, and should have, a secular society.

    Pity they have to contaminate it by minority non-consentual parliamentary prayers and subsidies to supernatural organizations via tax exemption.

  • GJ

    You write ‘treated less favourably’. As I wrote earlier, it’s not about repressing any religions (treating them less favourably), it’s about not privileging any belief system (or whatever other appropriate term you prefer) over others.

    Yes, and my point is that by allowing secular perspectives on topics to be taugh in public schools and requring this to be funded by taxation and then forbidding religious perspectives to be taught unless the school is closed or its privately funded. Is clearly to priveledge one belief system over another.

    The relevance is obvious surely: there are alternative besides what the state schools offer that cater to the needs of those wanting religious instruction.

    Again irrelevant, the issue is not wether people can engage in religious instruction. The issue was wether the system priveledges secular perspectives over religious ones. Which they do.

    Suppose the state said that all public schools should be Christian and only Christian schools would be publically funded, parents from other religions and perspectives could learn from home. Would any secularist not claim this was priveledging Christianity?.

    It doesn’t cease to be priveledging when the state does the same thing to secular schools.

    Perhaps then you might explain why you (both) are so insistent on this lack of religious instruction in state schools as important to you – ?

    Ken asked for an example I provided it, if you don’t want us to point them out don’t ask.

    As I pointed out, I think the state should either privatise all schools or fund secular and religious schools on an equal footing.

    I wrote classes, not schools.

    That hardly makes it equitable,

    This will be tied to state funding, just as non-religious university courses, etc., are capped too. (i.e. implying this out to be an anti-religious activity is a bit off – look for the ordinary reasons first, etc.)

    Actually part of it had to do with the fact that private instituions are not allowed to compete with state system.

    Wow. That’s a bit distasteful and certain a poor argument. Time for me to leave in that case (but I’ll finish this reply). Please read my full comments. Those wanting religious instruction have options – they can take church classes. The churches can bring classes to the schools after hours. (This is similar to confusing lack of privilege for repression, FWIW.)

    Actually you should read what I wrote, because that does not address it.

    The issue is not wether religious instruction is illegal, the question is wether secular perspectives are priveledged. The fact people have to take church classes, or the schools have to close to teach Christain perspectives and people do not have to do this for secular perspectives, entails the state is priveledging one over the other.

    Suppose the state decreed by law that it would only fund Christian schools. Would you be arguing this was not priveledging Christian perspectives because Jews and Muslims could go to Synagogue or Mosque?. I doubt it.

    I’ll ignore the loaded wording you’re trying to put in my mouth (making me out to be opposing others choosing their options and making me responsible; the straw man is more reason to leave).

    Fine then answer me this,

    If the state only funds secular schools is that priveledging secular perspectives?

    If the state only funds Christian schools is that priveledging Christianity?

    If all public education has to be Christian would that be priveledging Christianity?

    If all public education has to be secular would that be priveledging secular perspectives?

    You (both) keep portraying this as secularism v. religion. That’s a false dichotomy when the wider picture is taken into account and is a key thing that indicates to me that you seem to misunderstand (or miscontrue) what the aims of the secularism here is. Secularism does not oppose religion nor tries to supplant it.

    You and Ken keep saying this, the problem is Madeliene Glenn and I got our definitions and statements of position from the leading defenders of secularism in the literature. We responded to what people like Robert Audi, Richard Gaus, John Rawls, and so on actually wrote, we also have provided articles from the Stanford Encyclopedia which document this, so we are simply responding to what mainstream thinkers on this topic who represent your view actually say.

    So the claim we are misrepresenting secularism is pretty clearly false,

    The solution has been to grant privilege to none, but ensure there are options still available elsewhere for those that want it. That’s not about repressing religions, it’s about being fair to everyone.

    But this is false, the state does grant priveledge to none. If it privatised all schools it would be doing this. The state clearly grants political status and favour and funding to secular schools and not to any other. You welcome to pretend this is treating people equally it obviously is not.

    Of course you could dream up other solutions, but to keep calling out the current solution as ‘anti religious’, ‘repressing religion’, etc. is to misrepresent it.

    Your welcome to document where I said those things, I never said it was repressing or anti religious. I said it treated secular perspectives and religious perspectives asymetrically and claimed the reasons for this did not stand up.

    You have failed to show this does not happen or to show its justified. All you have done is attack the proposition that one cannot engage in religious instruction, a proposition I never denied in the first place. Try reading what I actually wrote, not what Ken said I did.

    You have presented similar thinking elsewhere:

    Here, you’ve made secularism to be about funding. I would suggest it’s dominantly about not granting privileged positions to one religion over others (or those wishing no religious instruction).

    I would say public funding is one way of granting priveledge. Moreover your definition above is quite apt not you talk about priveledging one religion over other religions, why limit it to religion. Why are you not concerned with priveledging one perspective wether religious or secular, over all others?

    I could just as easily say that making public life Christian is just about not priveledging any non Christian religion over another or any secular perspective over another, therefore I am being fair and neutral.

    Religious education is different

    Why? – this smells like special pleading.

    You’ll see I gave the reason in the post you snipped this from. Try reading in context.

    Its different because its part of the right to freedom of religion that parents have the right to educate there children in the religion of their choice, hence this issue touches on a human right. When the state rigs the education market so that those who excercise this right a particular way are subject to a massive economic disavantage, that I think is a civil rights issue.

    not have the state indoctrinate them to the contrary

    Secularism isn’t about opposing religion or ‘indoctrinating them to the contrary’. This suggests quite strongly that you’re conflating secularism with militant atheism

    Teaching children that a secular perspective on a subject is true is indoctrinating them as surely as teaching them a religious perspective on the subject is indoctrinating them. The fact you preface something with the word secular does not magically change what it is.

    Much of what I was taught at a secular school in classes like english, social science, science, and history, was indoctrination, and the health education classes we recieved almost certainly were.

    If you pass laws requiring that only secular perspectives on subjects be taught, you indoctrinate people to think about the world in a way that ignores the transcended, pure and simple, this is why groups like NZARH oppose the state funding all schools wether religious or secular the same way. People don’t like it when there monopoly on the teaching of ideas are challenged, and in true post modern fashion they try and claim there view is the “neutral objective” one.

  • Teaching children that a secular perspective on a subject is true…

    This is faintly ridiculous,That’s not secularism as anyone I know supports it. Secular education doesn’t teach irreligion is true (if that even means anything) it just doesn’t teach that any particular religious view is true.

  • This is faintly ridiculous,That’s not secularism as anyone I know supports it. Secular education doesn’t teach irreligion is true (if that even means anything) it just doesn’t teach that any particular religious view is true.

    David, I agree secularism doesn’t teach that any particular religion is true. A secular education however is compatible with teaching that certains secular perspectives on various topics are true, and these perspectives are often rival perspectives to religious ones.

    As to your claim that schools don’t don’t do this, thats manifestly false. Were my health education classes not implictly stating that the roman catholic perspective on contraception is false, .

    The science classes I took implictly taught me that fundamentalist views of origins were false and often implictly taught that scientific realism is true. Now I am not saying I disagree with these things, but lest be blatantly honest,, that this is what the current classes do.

    Moreover, I could go on as I have before about propadanda in history classes, which is quite well docmented in textbooks http://www.mandm.org.nz/2007/07/the-flat-earth-myth.html.

    When doing me teacher training sat in on history classes, where the text books on the vietnam war which use the national history of north vietnam as an example of a credible source about how westerners oppressed vietnamese.

    The same textbook noted that throughout vietnam there are huge bill boards with pictures of Ho Chi Minn next to smiling women and children, and stated this was evidence of how happy the people were under Ho Chi Minn and how much they revered him.

    But of course no one teaches secular perspectives in our schools today at all.

  • Matt, the fact that you refuse to provide the definition of “secular” that you are using makes it obvious to me that you are actually trying to pull a trick. You are using both definitions at once.

    This enables you to on the one hand apply it to our social arrangements in NZ (where secular means dealing with the real, non-“sacred” world – is inclusive, democratic and neutral towards religion and non-religion) but still pretend these arrangement disadvantage you (by mostly using “secular” to mean atheist, anti-religious).

    It enables you to rant against our democratic social arrangements because you misrepresent them.

    This is why you have hidden behind claims that your definitions are in your citations, etc. To have provided a single definition in the middle of this discussion would lay you wide open to commenters pointing out that it doesn’t correspond to NZ society. Or if the other definition is used your arguments would be destroyed by yourself.

    The alternative of providing both definitions and admitting that you were baiting and switching would expose you duplicity.
    I am pulling you and Madeleine up on this in Religious theology of secularism

    You are also using another little trick – an intentional category error. The equivalent of defining democracy as a political party, rather than a social arrangement.

    Democracy in our society is (in principle) neutral to political parties). Each different party can participate in the democratic system – precisely because it is democratic. This is like real secularism..

    Your behaviour is equivalent to the ACT Party claiming that democracy in undemocratic because it privileges democracy. And instead argue for the state to finance two different systems – the Democracy and the ACT party! Its equivalent to the ACT Party describing democracy as anti-ACT!

    I explain these tactics in more detail using your examples in my article.

    Madeleine also pulled these two tricks in her article attacking the NZAHR.

    I think you are both conscious of the tactics you are =using. it is purposeful.

    But it’s not honest.

  • Ken wrote

    ”Matt, the fact that you refuse to provide the definition of “secular” that you are using makes it obvious to me that you are actually trying to pull a trick. You are using both definitions at once.”

    Here is what I wrote in my article my

    “A particularly rigorous elaboration of this stance comes from Robert Audi. Audi argues that one should not advocate any “[policy] restrictions on human conduct unless one has, and is willing to offer an adequate secular reason for this advocacy or support”.[3] By ‘secular reason’ he meant a reason that “does not depend on the existence of God (such as through a divine command) or on theological considerations (such as a sacred text)”.[4] So qualified, the objection is that religious believers have a moral obligation to not advocate policies or positions that restrict others on the basis of beliefs about God’s commands. In discussions in public they are to appeal to secular premises that do not invoke God, scripture or specific theological authorities.”

    Note I provided footnotes

    So Ken’s claim that I “never provided a definition of secular” is again demonstrable false.

    Who is being dishonest here?

    Note also the article Madeleine sent Ken and refered him to numerous times, and that I linked to above, states.

    “a secular reason is a set of claims that does not include among its members any claim that has more or less explicit theistic content, such as the claims that God exists, that the Bible has been inspired by God, or that the Pope accurately represents the divine will. A religious reason, by contrast, is a set of claims that does include as a member a claim that has such content. Far more complicated is what to make of the concept of a “plausible” or “adequate” secular rationale. Advocates of the standard position have articulated widely varying accounts. We broach this issue in the next section.”

    The standard view is that reasons must be secular where the word secular is not defined the way Ken says that it is.

    Again Ken inform yourself of a topic before you attack others integrity based on your ignorance.

  • And we notice Matt that you refused to repeat that quote in the discussion, despite may requests.

    We can now see that the definition you quote:

    “By ‘secular reason’ he meant a reason that “does not depend on the existence of God (such as through a divine command) or on theological considerations (such as a sacred text)”
    is along the lines of a definition meaning dealing with the real, non-“sacred” world – a neutral stance. That is how it applies to our society and to education where all subjects normally taught in schools – relgioius and non-religious) (I exclude theology and ideological instruction) deal with the real, non-“sacred” world.

    However, in your attacks on our education system and social arrangements you have swithced to a meaning that implies “secular’ is not neutral, that it is an ideological viewpoint, that it is anti-religion.

    That is not honest.

    Yoiu have effectivley discredited your rants against secularism by present this one defintion.

    As I point our in my article, Madeliene does the same, as well as using the other switch (incorrectly defining “secular” as a viewpoint rather than an arrangement). She also changes some words, or introduces motivated words, in the NZAHAR document to make it seem hostile rather than inclusive.

    Matt, I do question your integrity (and Madeleine’s) for this bait and switch. I can accept that people very often resort to confirmation bias and rationalisation. (We after all are not a rational species). But to consciously use both defintions at the same time, effectively switching where your wish to distort, is not the sort of thing I expect from honest discusion.

    Mind you, perhaps this sort of behaviour is normal in theology?

  • And we notice Matt that you refused to repeat that quote in the discussion, despite may requests.
    Er No, in fact if you read the discussion you’ll see both I and Madeliene told you repeatedly that I had offered a definition in the original article you claimed to have read. We also refered you to the Stanford article on numerous occasions.
    All I have done is quote an article of mine you had already read and an article Madeliene had already refered you to.
    Apparently you comment on things without reading them first.
    We can now see that the definition you quote:“By ‘secular reason’ he meant a reason that “does not depend on the existence of God (such as through a divine command) or on theological considerations (such as a sacred text)””

    is along the lines of a definition meaning dealing with the real, non-”sacred” world – a neutral stance. That is how it applies to our society and to education where all subjects normally taught in schools – relgioius and non-religious) (I exclude theology and ideological instruction) deal with the real, non-”sacred” world.

    Actually no, it states one cannot appeal to any consideration that depends on the existence of God or on theological considerations. (You really have trouble reading what people write don’t you.)

    Of course if you assume that atheism is true this definition would entail that one deals only with the real world, because God would not be real. But then the definition of secularism includes a commitment to atheism which is what you have repeatedly denied.

    As to the claim that the secular deals with things relating to this world, as opposed to the hereafter, Madeleine pointed out ( in the article you claim to have read when you criticised it in your latest blog) that something can be secular in the sense that it deals with the temporal world, and yet involve a reference to God or divine commands for example divine commands to not steal deal with issues of theft in this world.

    ”However, in your attacks on our education system and social arrangements you have swithced to a meaning that implies “secular’ is not neutral, that it is an ideological viewpoint, that it is anti-religion.
    That is not honest.”

    Err No, what I did was not the fact that there are secular moral theories and theological moral theories. A perspective on ethics that does not include reference to God or a revelation such as Kantianism or Utilitarianism is a secular moral theory, one that includes an appeal to Gods commands or utilises scriptural injunctions is theological theory. Often these theories are rival theories so that endorsing one is rejecting the other.

    Similarly there are secular perspectives on the world and theological ones. Secular perspectives are philosophies which do not involve God. Marxism and Secular Humanism would be examples. Theological perspectives are ones that do involve a reference to God such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity. Secular and theological perspectives of reality are rival theories.

    What I said was that by insisting that only secular reasons be allowed in public debate Audi sets things up so that secular moral theories can be utilised in public debate and theological ones cannot. That is not neutral at all it means that theological theories cannot be utilised but rival secular theories can be utilised.

    No one has offered any argument that this is false.

    Similarly by having education secular, that means that secular perspectives can legally be taught and theological ones cannot be even though these perspectives are often rivals.

    Again this is correct.

    Matt, I do question your integrity (and Madeleine’s) for this bait and switch. I can accept that people very often resort to confirmation bias and rationalisation. (We after all are not a rational species). But to consciously use both defintions at the same time, effectively switching where your wish to distort, is not the sort of thing I expect from honest discusion. Mind you, perhaps this sort of behaviour is normal in theology?

    Well Ken, its been made repeatedly clear that the person who lacks integrity is you. We have esthablished that I offered a definition of secular in my original article. Yet in a series of comments which your wrote in response to this article you said I had not given a definition, did you read the article before you attacked it?

    Moreover you have repeatedly claimed that the claim that theological reasons should be excluded from public life is something conservative Christians invented. Despite Glenn, Madeleine and I repeatedly pointing out that in fact this is the standard view of mainstream liberal political thinkers.

    The fact is you waded into a discussion, showed you did not bother to read what was actually said, made clearly false claims attacking others integrity, and you continue to do so.

    Not knowing what your talking about, engagaing Caricature and ad hominen seems to be a common trait amougst certain scientists who think that because they are a scientist they can comment on philosophy or ethics or theology without knowing the foggiest about the subject.

    The fact is mainstream political liberal thinkers standardly argue that secular moral theories and perspectives can be legitimately appealed to in public debate but religious ones should not be even if they are rational. Again you are welcome to read the article I sent you. It pays to actually read something on a subject before you comment. Thats how we do things in the humanities.

    It’s not my fault you keep exposing yourself as a fool.

  • Take a deep breath and count to ten, Matt.

    My purpose was to get you to provide your defintion alongisde the actual discussion where you were ranting against secularism.

    This has enabled us to see how you have actually switched to a different meaning of “secular” (anti-religious viewpoint).

    A number of people had been pointing out your confusion of meaning and this has jsut cofirmed it.

  • Ken, actually you have just confirmed again that you either don’t read what others write or are a liar.

  • We’ve been here before Matt,

    I very much doubt your health class taught you catholic ideas about contraception were ‘wrong’ – just that contraception exists and some facts about the options and STIs.

    Evolution is a scientific fact, and should be taught as such in science class rooms. If fundamentalists don’t accept science that’s fine, they’ll have nothing to fear from learning about about an idea form a field they don’t think provides the last word. I really can’t begin to understand what life in North Vietnam has to do with secularism.

    I guess it’s possible you could argue it goes against someones religious principles to provide children with certain facts about science or contraception, but I don’t think it’s reasonable that we subsidise such parent’s religious choices.

  • David, unfortunately freedom of religion is not the freedom to teach true religious beliefs to your children. Nor is it the freedom to teach those beliefs which are considered acceptable by reigning orthodoxies. Its the right of people to hold unorthodox views which are widely believed to be false. Thats the whole point of freedom of religion.

    But your example shows quite clearly that in fact you have no problem discriminating against people and indoctrinating there children if you consider there religious views false and out of step with whats orthodox in secular circles. Apparently freedom of religion no longer applies when its scientific orthodoxy thats questioned. That I think is revealing.

    Thanks for confirming my point.

  • Ken – It seems to me that when you ask for “evidence” and it is then provided, you still argue as if it has not. Either your reading comprehension is atrocious,or it’s just plain ignorance.

    I do understand that you are a well read scientist and it would be correct for me to say that this is the field you are most knowledgeable in, but for you to try and apply that to other subjects is frankly arrogance on your behalf.

    The aim of these discussions is not be antagonistic but to maturely communicate.

    Maybe a good place to start, Ken, would be to attack the argument rather than the person.

  • Matt,

    What are you talking about? I didn’t say I wanted to prevent people from holding a particular view or that stupid word ‘indoctrinate’. I said I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect society to pay for some parents decision to not expose their children to certain types of evidence.

  • Lemon, unfortunately you don’t provide any clue as to what the hell you are referring to.

    Yes, I have asked for evidence or examples which to support specific claims (eg that the NZAHR was proposing measures to .eradicate religion.) None were provided – but as most of us aware around here Matt and Madeleine have their own interpretation, distortion and coloring of statements which they use to misrepresent to
    most innocent of policies.

    This then enables them to dishonestly claim they have provided real examples and then attack the commenter as a fool, liar, inept, illiterate, and unqualified to comment in the area.

    Water off a ducks back, however. It happens so often we get used to it – actually expect it.

    It is disingenuous to blame me for Matt’s anger. He got caught baiting a switching and lashed out. I think you should be talking to him about the need for mature communication.

  • “Secular education doesn’t teach irreligion is true (if that even means anything) it just doesn’t teach that any particular religious view is true.”

    Even on that definition [which I think is flawed as neutrality is not possible] a policy along those lines is assymmetrical. I believe Christianity is true. I want education that supports that. I do not want education that does not teach any particular view is true. Why do I have to pay more to get the education I want than a secular citizen?

  • I think that the government often tries to accommodate the majority of society on most things, including education.

    Although I am a christian,based off the assumption that the majority of society is not religious or have religious views It does make sense to have a higher price on education that is specific to a minority’s religious preference.

    However if private Catholic schools are getting funding from the government then shouldn’t private christian schools get the exact same benefit?

    Secular and Catholic school’s are obviously different and are yet still both receiving funding from the government that claims to have a secular education system.

    Why don’t private Christian schools fall into this category?

    If you want a secular education system don’t provide funding to any non secular schools at all.

    If a non secular education system provides funding to one religious group of schools (catholic) but not the other (Christian)
    then of course it is going to create arguments.

    There seems to be quite a major inconstancy.

  • @ Lemon

    For what it is worth, all schools in New Zealand, regardless of there philosophy, be it religious, such as christian, catholic jewish, secular, steiner, etc all receive government funding.

    State schools and state integrated schools are primarily funded by central government. Private schools receive a lower level of state funding (about 25% of their costs).

    Further to this, many former private religiously based schools have changed to become state integrated, but retain their religious character.

    So, using Madeleines’ argument, “Why do I have to pay towards the education of children whose parents choose to send them to a school that provides a religiously biased education?”

  • @ Madeleine

    Taking your thinking further, what is your stance regarding the inequity regarding schools decile funding in NZ.

    Given the fact that a significant portion of the extra funding is available, dependent on the decile rating,with low decile schools receiving the greatest amount per enrolled child and high decile schools getting the least, then perhaps you should start a campaign to ensure equal funding for all pupils, regardless of what decile rating their school has.

    Why do I have to pay more to get the education for my daughters in a high decile school, compared to the parents who send their children to lower decile schools?

  • Paul – a somewhat naive answer to your question:

    “Why do I have to pay towards the education of children whose parents choose to send them to a school that provides a religiously biased education?”

    By law in NZ children must have a secular free education. That is there are a range of subjects (science, mathematics, English, other laguages, history, accouintacy, social studies, health, etc., etc. which, in theory, the state should provide with free access.

    These are secular subjects – they deal with the non-“sacred”, real world. We can all (or almost all – there are always some silly people) agree on their content and approach, whatever our relgious beliefs.

    Practicioners in these subject apply exactly the same methodology, whatever their religious viewpoints.

    These secular subjects can be offered by schools which may have different “characters.” That is, they may offer (as well as a secular education some other subjects outside the normal range (eg., sports, toff speaking, etc., etc.) or non-secular subjects (dealing with the “sacred”) like one of the theist religions, Buddhism, atheism, humanism, historical materialism, marxism, etc.) – in theory.

    So, where by accident of history there are schools with different character but covering the agreed necessary secular subjects adequately then logically they should receive state funding in the some way as other schools. Logically, also, the non-secular component should not be financed by the state but by the parents or organisation imposing the “special character.”

    As I said this is a naive justification, although it may well guide government policy. In practice there may well be a downside to “special character” schools which impose a social cost. People of my generation remember the street fighting between kids from state and catholic schools. – The old “Them vs Us” problem. This problem is particulalry relevant to the multicultural issue in Europe these days. Many commenters see the “faith schools” as building a somewhat dangerous problem for the future.

    In fact UK Humanists have discussed the npossibleity of financing the humanist equivalent of “faith” schools, as a test of the genuineness of the legislation. My impression of the discussion is that most humnaists oppose the idea as only adding to the iun herent sepreateness of “faith” school approaches. Encouraging sperateness and the “them vs us” approach at early ages just promotes the dangerous conflicts we see in the less secular coutnriues.

    There is also the inevitable fact that in some cases the “spoecial character” will actually interfere with the required secular teaching. There are a number of cases documenting creation teaching in biology for example. As well as teachers who are employed on “faith” grounds teaching secular subjects for which they have no skiil, or may even be completely uninformed. (A recent BBC programme shopwed a glaring example opf this for pupils and the teacher at a Muslim “faith” school.)

    So, my naive consideration encourages me to support equal funding of schools with different character for providing the secualr education required by law. However, I do seriously question the social costs of such an approach of seperateness.

  • Everything is ideologically motivated to an extent. Until the secularists (and some Christians) grasp this the conversation goes past each other.

  • @ Ken

    Thanks for your reply, but I was hoping Lemon would attempt an answer. 🙂

  • bethyada – what do you mean by a “secularist?” It sounds more likle an inappropriate label, perhaps a term of derision?

    And why do you differentiate “secularists” from “Christians?”

    I ask because it’s a fact that many (I suggest most) Christians (Buddhists, atheistsm Muslims, Hindus etc.) are supporters of a secular soceity and secular arrangements.

  • Paul said,
    “Why do I have to pay towards the education of children whose parents choose to send them to a school that provides a religiously biased education?”

    For the same reason you’re paying for a giant plastic waka, and for hospitals to perform abortions – because we and the public do not have a choice as to where our tax payer money goes.

    Take it up with the government.

  • Those promoting the idea that the public square should be secular (ie, those that Matt, Glenn, and Madeleine have challenged)

  • It is not a fact that most or even many Christians support a society that places restraint on religion in public life.

    As argued, ad nauseum, to do so is incompatible with living an undivided life which is a requirement of one being a Christian.

    Anyone claiming otherwise either fails to understand Christianity or is inconsistent or is liberal (stand in the shoes of any of the cases I cited among my examples in the post above) or just isn’t very good at hearing and understanding – what is that saying? *the mind doesn’t work if it is closed* that might also explain it.

    If one sincerely and rationally believes that God commands X but one cannot provide any secular justifications for X then commitment to secularism means that one must deny X – disobey what one sincerely and rationally believes God has commanded. Monotheism does not allow one to put popular viewpoints above the will of God. To do so is to engage in idolatry. The suggestion that secular society can just trump God and that one can be a follower of God and yet be cool with not following him where society demands a secular justification for something he has commanded is ludicrous.

    Now can we get back to the topic? Where is the argument that justifies treating secular reasons differently to (as in privileging them over) religious ones? I am yet to hear any offered in any of the threads relating to our talk that was not addressed and rebutted by one of us in our respective posts.

  • “And why do you differentiate “secularists” from “Christians?””

    Let me see… Christians believe in God and that God requires obedience of Him in all things always and that where human laws trumps God’s laws, God’s law is higher even if that they cannot offer a secular reason for believing this (as exhibited by the real people in the real court case examples that Madeleine provided).

    Secularists believe that Christians can be fine with laws that just leave God out of things (and that there are no people and no court cases because Madeleine never gave any examples).

  • Paul you plucked my words from their context. This post and this discussion is not about how we allocate tax payer dollars it is about the lack of justification for the asymmetrical treatment of viewpoints – for the restraint on one and the privileging of another.

    [For the record I do not support state funding of schools at all though this is not the thread for that conversation.]

  • @ Lemon

    You obviously missed the irony of my reply. Namely, that Madeleine was complaining about having to pay to support secular education, while the reality is that if you are a tax payer in NZ, then you pay to support all forms of state sanctioned education.

    So, as an atheist, I am in fact supporting religious state intergrated schools and also, albeit to a lesser degree, private religious schools as well!!!

    But feel free to go on about how hard done by the religious are in this country – Yeah Right!!! (As the Tui Ads Would Say!!!)

  • @ Madeleine

    I fail to see how secular education is in a privelleged position, when the religious orientated educational institutions are equally supported in the case of religiously biased schools from within the state intergrated model.

    Even more ironically, NZ tax payers are quite happy to have some of their hard earned cash also support private schools, some of which are secular and others are religious in nature.

    A concept that would be deemed absurd in the UK, where a private education means exacylty that. Those who opt for it, pay for it, with no halp from the UK taxpayer!

  • Paul look at ss77 and 78 of the Education Act. There is asymmetry present. Can you justify it?

    (Again, I did not complain about having to pay to support secular education; I was complaining about assymmetry. Look at the context of my words. The issue of tax payer payments to schools arose because we were discussing the NZARH complaining about having to support integrated religious schools and their complaint that ss77 and 78 were not assymmetrical enough – they called for only secular schools to receive tax funding and for all religious education to receive no funding. Your comments might be better directed towards them as they are the only ones making the argument you accused me of, albeit in reverse. I support total privatisation of schools – no taxpayer funding to any school).

  • Ken: “I ask because it’s a fact that many (I suggest most) Christians (Buddhists, atheistsm Muslims, Hindus etc.) are supporters of a secular soceity and secular arrangements.”

    Any source for this ‘fact’?

  • Madeline you say “This post and this discussion is not about how we allocate tax payer dollars it is about the lack of justification for the asymmetrical treatment of viewpoints…”

    So if adequate justification were given, you’d be okay with the asymmetrical treatment of viewpoints?

    It seems “adequate justification” is a variable concept, and it also seems plenty of people feel adequate justification is available. So basically you’re just complaining that you feel others aren’t as rational as you (which of course is your own view).

    Your viewpoint is heard by many and dismissed. A secular viewpoint is heard by many and accepted. Does this mean these viewpoints are treated asymmetrically?

  • For historical origins of the provisions on religion in NZ state schools see the Jubilee History of Nelson:

    http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-LowJubi-t1-body1-d11-d6.html

    “The Anglican Bishop, the Catholic Priest, the Wesleyan Clergyman, and the Freethinker, all found places on the Board, which included, indeed, persons of all shades of religious opinions, and of no such opinions at all; and several men of liberal education, and broad and liberal culture; together with plain farmers and sturdy mechanics who, without much book-learning, were gifted with strong common sense. There was very little friction, for the spirit which animated the Board, as a whole, was a determination to administer the Act as benevolently as possible.”

    Public policy, in this case anyway, owes more to cooperative history than to partisan ideology.

  • Madeleine

    @ 7.59 August 31st Madeleine stated that:

    “Why do I have to pay more to get the education I want than a secular citizen?”

    @ 12.19 August 31st Matt stated that:

    “But this is false, the state does grant priveledge to none. If it privatised all schools it would be doing this. The state clearly grants political status and favour and funding to secular schools and not to any other. You welcome to pretend this is treating people equally it obviously is not.”

    Firstly, this shows that you do both associate taxpayer funding of schools as part of the issue

    Second, as I’ve already stated, mine and every other taxpayers dollars go towards the full funding of both secular and religious state integrated schools and, to a lesser degree, they also help fund private religious and secular schools.

    Finally, please don’t make statements as you did, then claim that that is not part of your argument and most concerning, stop ignoring the fact that you can enroll your child in a state funded intergrated school, which obviously shows that your argument in this respect is patently wrong.

  • Paul you need to do a little arithematic,
    Every child who goes to a private school or a State Integrated School of Special Character saves the taxpayer money compared to a child going to a ordinary state school. Private schools provide the land buildings and 75% provide the of running costs, SIS of SC provide land and buildings and have capped rolls, the state provides operational funding for a maximun set number of pupils. It suits the govt and treasury to partially fund these schools because the alternative is much more costly, ie having to fully fund the childrens education.
    So no, you are not subsidising private or religious education, just the opposite. People who send their children to such schools are effectively subsidising pupils in state schools because they pay the same taxes yet do not use the same proportion of the education budget. Homeschoolers even more so.
    You may have ideological objections, fair enough, but financial objections are fallacious.

  • Australia provides really good example, every now and then, ideological lefties get all upset and want to stop funding private schools in Aus [40% of schools in some places]. The private[church] schools say, “fine, we will close our doors tomorrow”, and the debate goes away. Govt knows full well that this would cost them much much more.

    NZs not really any different, state integration of religious schools suits the Govt because its cheaper than the alternative.

  • Bethyada – so you define “secularists” as “Those promoting the idea that the public square should be secular (ie, those that Matt, Glenn, and Madeleine have challenged)”.

    Does that mean there are only about 3 “secularists” (specifically those challenged by Matt, Glkenn and Madeleine), none of who are commenting here, and you exclude me (and most people from your definition)?

    Murph, those same Christians who might have the beliefs you describe, or similar ones use the same methodologies and sensitivities as non-theists when they do their jobs as scientists, plumbers and accountants. They accept the secular arrangements of society which enable everyone, whatever their beliefs, to participate (because it bases itself on what is common in humanity, not what a minority believes). They obtain secular training in their professions (because their professions deal with the real world, not the “sacred” world).

    We cannot actually differentiate people on the basis of their beliefs about gods, when they are involved in their day-to-day activity. Because their activities are secular. The only time we differentiate is when we get into the area of god beliefs (on a Sunday for example).

    Most, if not all of us, are involved in secular activity most of the time – so I don’t accept your differentiation. It is misleading because it imposes a difference which doesn’t exist. It is dangerous because it stresses differences, rather than what we have in common, and fuels the “Them vs Us” instincts.

  • If one sincerely and rationally believes that God commands X but one cannot provide any secular justifications for X then commitment to secularism means that one must deny X

    You keep saying stuff like this, but that’s not what thie secularist wants. I want you to believe whatever you want, but if you want to make a law about it, or place restrictions that apply to everyone you’re going to have to make an argument that doesn’t rely on ‘God says so’. Because I don’t think he does.

  • David, we (Matt, Glenn and I) are addressing the dominant argument put forward in the literature – (see the link to the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on this topic that I pointed Ken to numerous times above which gives an overview of the arguments put forward by the leading thinkers in this field).

    In particular, I identified where the dominant argument in the literature can be seen coming through in legal decisions, statutes, policy and where it can be seen in the thinking of groups, leaders and in our society generally.

    We were not addressing what the personal thoughts of individual atheists who have not read up on the debate might be on this topic. So the fact you do not hold to the dominant view is not really the point.

    That said I will bite. So you think the court cases I cited in the article were wrong? You think that Christians should be able to wear crosses to work? That professional sex therapists who are Christians should be able to refuse to counsel same sex couples even if the counselling is state funded? That Christian celebrants should be free to refuse to marry same sex couples even if they work for a state agency? Should Christian parents be allowed to be foster parents if they state that they intend to share their views encouraging restraint against acting on desires for homosexual conduct?
    Should Christians be able to vote in elections and in referenda based solely on Christian values? Should state schools be able to have prayers at assemblies if the community within the school by and large wants that?

    Or do you insist like Ken that the majority of Christians are/would be all happy about not having these freedoms and that requiring an absence of God from things that affect the “real” world, such as in these examples, would not and should not bother the majority of Christians?

  • Ken your “of the real world” definition of secularism makes the same flawed understanding of Christianity that the court did in the Liberty Intervening case where they seemed to think that manifesting Christianity in day to day life could be limited to a Christian’s ability to worship – for you, it is things “sacred” or “spiritual”.

    As we have repeatedly stated, God issues commands to Christians about the real world. In fact, most of what God commands is about the here and now and not the afterlife; he does not limit his commands to things sacred or spiritual and spends far more time talking about things like relationships, marriage, divorce, parenting, conduct between us and others and so on. God commands us to live a life undivided from his commands in the real world. Requiring him to be omitted or left to one side or for him to just not be commented on is not ok for a Christian. There are no secular subjects for a Christian because God must not be be divided from any task we do. Serving and obeying God in all we do includes seeking for our attitudes and actions in all tasks performed in this world to align with God’s will.

    Further your “of the real world” definition is not the definition being used in the literature or in the jurisprudence. It is also, clearly, not the definition the NZARH intended as demonstrated in my other blog post they equivocate on their use of the term. It seems that you have taken one option from the Oxford dictionary as to what the term can mean and have ignored the other options, ignored the options being used in the debate by the dominant writers in the field and now you are running around the internet insisting that this one possible reading is the only way of reading it and it is what everyone understands it to mean. This is just patently false. Further it is ensuring that your contribution to this discussion remains utterly off-topic and unhelpful.

    Read that Encyclopaedia article I referred you to so that you can get an overview from an independent source to ours as to what on earth it is we are talking about here.

  • You keep saying stuff like this, but that’s not what thie secularist wants.

    But as I noted its an implication of the secularist position, the position entails that if God exists and issues a command X, and I know this, I am obligated to disobey God if non believers think otherwise, you may not want this but its what the position entails

    ” I want you to believe whatever you want, but if you want to make a law about it, or place restrictions that apply to everyone you’re going to have to make an argument that doesn’t rely on ‘God says so’. Because I don’t think he does.”

    This is the argument I addressed in my article, the problem is analogous arguments can be made against almost any secular justification for a law, there will be some people who do not believe the premises of these arguments, and so secular people will be required to make an argument that uses premises everyone accepts. Seeing there is no substantive ethical issue which can be defended from premises everyone accepts this would rule out pretty much all secular justifications as well as religious ones.

  • Madeleine – in a democratic society – especially a pluralist society like ours, secularism along the lines I have defined it is really necessary. And it is largely what we have now. (Still tainted by the relics of religious privelige, though).

    The alternative would be a theocracy, diktat by a minority. Even if Christianity had uniform beliefs (I sincerely believe most NZ Christians think differently to you, by the way) the last Census showed 49.5% nominal Christians. Should a minority like that dictate to the rest of that when it comes to minority positions justified by their “god’s commands?” Especially as these gods can be such horrible, racist, sexist and inhumane monsters?
    Most NZers will reject such imposition of polices

    So your questions:

    1:
    Should Christians be able to wear crosses to work? Such policies will be covered by employment regulations, uniforms and health and safety. Any regulations should not apply separately to specific religious emblems. Any restriction should apply to other beliefs which have the same effect. In general I don’t think this is a real problem. (Can you provide a specific NZ example for examination?).

    2: Should sex therapists who are Christians be able to refuse to counsel same sex couples even if the counselling is state funded? And: Should Christian celebrants be free to refuse to marry same sex couples even if they work for a state agency?
    The same question could be asked of racial, political differences etc. Human rights legislation is clear. It is illegal to discriminate against same sex individuals or couples, or against people of different colour, etc. In the examples you state these individuals would be breaking the law.

    This does not violate their conscience because if they have such discriminatory attitudes they should not be doing the job – that would be a general benefit to society. The same applies to people who in all conscience could not counsel coloured people.

    Human rights trumps prejudice – and while you may think your god trumps everything else that is unacceptable to society. That way lies terror, murder, mayhem – not a free democratic society.

    3: Should Christians be able to vote in elections and in referenda based solely on Christian values? Yes, of course. The way you vote is your own business. The fact is that in NZ when voters have been given a clear choice of a Christian party they have kept away in droves.

    4: Should state schools be able to have prayers at assemblies if the community within the school by and large wants that? Well Madeleine, should these prayers be imposed? Should the views of “community” be assumed? Should parliamentary prayers be imposed when they represent only a minority of NZers, are ignored by parliamentarians. My local MP tells me most MPs oppose the prayers, ignore them (thereby disrespecting your religion), but are as yet unprepared to buy a fight with the Christian conservative and fundies.

    The fact is Madeleine, that all the examples you pull up are easily settled by giving priority to human rights and opposing discrimination. It would be undemocratic to allow one group to discriminate just because they run around saying the were commanded to by their “god.” At the same time they don’t have to put themselves in the position of being forced to go against their beliefs – just don’t take on jobs requiring non-discrimination.

    What you are really arguing for is privilege, exemption from human rights and discrimination legislation. That would not be democratic. It would be inhuman.

    I think you and your god demonstrate a sickness in seeing democracy and opposition to discrimination as you being denied “freedoms and requiring an absence of God from things that affect the “real” world.”

    I am sure most Christians are not so inhumane in their beliefs and justifications.

  • Madeleine – re meanings of “secular” – you say:“Further your “of the real world” definition . . . is also, clearly, not the definition the NZARH intended . ..”

    I reject that entirely – and you should be ashamed of putting words into others mouths (or articles). It is a desperate ploy.

    In my article Religious theology of secularism I show how you have used a couple of switches in your critique of the NZARH article. The bait and switch – taking the meaning provided and then switching to the opposit5e.
    And the category area – treating a social arrangement as a “viewpoint.”

    You have also introduced some of your own wording to supply an emotional slant not implied in the article.

  • Actually Ken, You don’t you assert that Madeliene engaged in bait and switch, and quote her out of context
    Madeleine on the other hand argued that NZARH are conflating to definitions. This is because they state
    The NZARH strongly believes that government should be secular; that is dealing with the issues of this world rather than following a religious agenda.

    Note the word “that is” suggests a definition, and they include in their definition the words “and not based on a religious agenda” Which of course means they understand secular to mean “not based on religion”

    Of course your welcome to read “and not based on a religious agenda” to mean that one can base public policy on religious beliefs, and as advocating a view which includes basing public policy on religious beliefs if you like.

    You have made it quite plain that when a person says X, you will repeatedly ignore it and say they did not say it. But that only shows that you are unable to read or are dishonest.

  • Ken wrote: ‘ “By ‘secular reason’ he meant a reason that “does not depend on the existence of God (such as through a divine command) or on theological considerations (such as a sacred text)” ”
    is along the lines of a definition meaning dealing with the real, non-”sacred” world – a neutral stance. ‘

    lol Ken? This is not a neutral stance. If a policy happens to be in blatant contradiction to a command issued by God , any reasons for that policy, albeit considered secular by that definition, must still assume that God does not exist. Not everyone accepts this premise (e.g. Christians). Therefore it is unfair to expect people to present only secular arguments when advocating against such policies.

  • Matt, is this a slip, or a deliberate change  of words and hence meaning?

    The NZAHR wrote:

    The NZARH strongly believes that government should be secular; that is dealing with the issues of this world rather than following a religious agenda.

    You have changed the words: “rather than following a religious agenda” to “and not based on a religious agenda”.

    Surely secular arrangements are not “based on any agenda” – they are a social arrangement not an ideological viewpoint. To confuse the two us a category error.

    In a democratic pluralist society one should not base government on any narrow agenda, religious or anti-religious. There is no need to and any other approach Would exclude a large section of society.

    I think it is essential when people are so ideologically motivated, as you obviously are,  that care is taken to accurately present text. Otherwise the wrong meaning can be introduced as both you and Madeleine have done.

  • Hugh, you have obviously refused to read properly anything I have written here.

    Nowhere do I suggest that I “expect people to present only secular arguments when advocating against such policies.”

     I have said the exact opposite.

    However, I have also pointed out that no-one is forced to take religious or any other argument seriously. It is only to be expected that an intelligent population is likely to ignore arguments based on mythology, fairy stories, or madness, racism or homophobia. If you can’t produce a more sophisticated argument than that don’t blame the listener.

    You need to face the fact that when you tell people your god is “commanding” something we might just question your sanity. Especially if the “command” is inhumane, discriminatory or otherwise morally repugnant (as such “commands” tend to be).

  • ” Nowhere do I suggest that I “expect people to present only secular arguments when advocating against such policies.” ”

    It might be a difficult concept to grasp, but not everything is actually about you. What I was referring to was the moral and even legal expectation placed on religious people, not by Ken, but by our current system. You continue to deny that this obligation exists despite the numerous times that both Matt and Mel have cited legal and philosophical texts which show that this is a pretty normal and widely held view. Holding on to an unjustified view in the face of substantive evidence is called being deluded.

    Ken is willing to keep calling Christians deluded but is unfortunately unable to face his own delusion in this case.

  • Edit: substantial evidence of the contrary**

  • First, Hugh, it’s a bit cheap to claim something of me, then when shown wrong to lash out with – “this is not about you.”

    At least that little episode shows you are prone to seeing positions or views which don’t exist.

    Now Matt, Glenn and Madeleine may be able to find people who express a view on the tactical wisdom of dragging their ideological beliefs into public discussion.

    So what. I can equally find people who have told me that I should not bring my views into public discussion. Specifically I should not comment in religion, philosophy, politics, climate change, and pretty much anything else.

    I treat those arguments with the respect they deserve-none.

    Dawkins has been regularly told he should not comment on religion. That he was not qualified to write “The God Delusion” and should not have. He rightfully ignores such attempts to limit his rights.

    Now I have not noticed any limitation on religious people bringing their religion into public discussion. Nor have I noticed any law, by-law or social convention holding religious people back.

    While there have been attempts to label any criticism of religion as blasphemy and defamation (and such restriction still exist in the laws of many countries – including ours I think) I don’t see any attempts to impose restrictions on those speaking in support of religion or condeming and slandering the non-religious.

    Do you?

    What Matt, Glenn and Madeleine are doing with this is attempting to justify religious privilege. Surely this is what is behind Madeleine’s desire to be exempt from laws prohibiting discrimination.

    If this is not so why are these situations even being raised here?

  • “First, Hugh, it’s a bit cheap to claim something of me, then when shown wrong to lash out with – “this is not about you.” ”

    Aside from the fact that the nature of my response was hardly ‘lashing out’, this discussion is about a view which is ‘prevalent in society’, not a view which is ‘prevalent in the mind of Ken’. You were wrong to assume that it was about at your personal view, hence my ‘lashing out’.

    “Now Matt, Glenn and Madeleine may be able to find people who express a view on the tactical wisdom of dragging their ideological beliefs into public discussion.”

    This shows that you really don’t have a clue what’s going on this discussion. This is not what they have been presenting. They’ve provided examples of opinions stating the exact opposite; that religious beliefs should NOT be brought into public discussion. Moreover, these opinions represent those which are regarded as authoritative in political philosophy – for example, the ‘standard view’ presented in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy published by Stanford University. It is such opinions that have greatly influenced western political thought, so it these that Matt, Mad and Glenn are arguing against. Not Ken’s opinion.

    “Dawkins has been regularly told he should not comment on religion. That he was not qualified to write “The God Delusion” and should not have. ”

    Lol. This was simply because he doesn’t know much about philosophy or religion. That book is an embarrassment to actual philosophers, even those with atheist convictions.

  • “You need to face the fact that when you tell people your god is “commanding” something we might just question your sanity. Especially if the “command” is inhumane, discriminatory or otherwise morally repugnant (as such “commands” tend to be).”

    Fascinating
    Given this generalisation could you please outline in detail which of the 10 commandments, which relate to our dealings with other people, you find morally repugnant? Please outline anything Jesus is recorded as commanding that you find morally repugnant.

    I have seen you make this kind of comment many times, but you never provide actual examples.

    Do you object to
    you shall not kill
    you shall not lie
    you shall not steal
    you shall not commit adultery
    you shall not covet your neighbours wife etc

    Maybe you object to
    do unto others as you would have others do unto you
    or
    love your neighbour as yourself

    Maybe you object to the idea that a peson needs to demonstrate integrity/faithfulness in small and personal matters before he can be trusted with larger matters.

    I trust you are intelligent enough to discern the difference between actual Biblical commands to us and the way that some people can and will twist anything to their own purposes

  • Again, Hugh, you are not reading properly. My reference was to “tactical wisdom of dragging their ideological beliefs into public discussion”. This surely includes, and was meant to include the opinion  “that religious beliefs should NOT be brought into public discussion. Again you are attempting a cheap shot and this influenced your reading.

    Re Dawkins, OK you have an opinion. Dawkins doesn’t let that stop him and I am very appreciative of that fact (it’s proved to be a very influential book, despite your opinion). Now perhaps you should take the same attitude towards the authorities Glenn, Matt, and Madeleine refer to. Just don’t listen to them, contribute to discussion freely. I certainly support you in doing that.

    There is nothing in our laws, by laws or social conventions which demand you not contribute to discussion. On the other hand there are still residual privileges to religion in NZ which could be used to inhibit expression of ideas critical of religion. They are infrequently used but surely we should be removing them (eg Blasphemy law, disrupting religious ceremony law, tax exemption for supernatural belief, etc).

  • Call yourself what you wish, atheist, humanist. While definitions are important at times it is irrelevant to my comment.

    Everything is ideologically motivated to an extent.

    Until people grasp this point, conversation goes past each other.

  • Yes, bethyada – and I guess the ideological motivation of your comment is clear.

    However, I think it is far more basic that that. We are an intelligent species but I think the scientific evidence is clear – we are not a rational species. More rationalising. Hence all the confirmation bias and distortion which proliferate in these sort of discussions.

    The author of a recent book expressed it this way – we evolved to be lawyers, not scientists. I guess that is why the truth eludes us so often.

  • ”Again, Hugh, you are not reading properly. My reference was to “tactical wisdom of dragging their ideological beliefs into public discussion”. This surely includes, and was meant to include the opinion ”that religious beliefs should NOT be brought into public discussion. Again you are attempting a cheap shot and this influenced your reading.”

    Actually Ken is not reading properly because the sources I cited did not as you say “express a view on the tactical wisdom of dragging their ideological beliefs into public discussion.” They said that citizens have a moral obligation to not base their public policy convinctions on theological considerations. This is not the same thing as saying its tactically unwise.

    “Re Dawkins, OK you have an opinion. Dawkins doesn’t let that stop him and I am very appreciative of that fact (it’s proved to be a very influential book, despite your opinion).”

    Actually the fact a book is influential does not mean its informed. Creationism is hugely influential but I am sure you will not take this to mean the authors are informed about evolutionary science. In fact one argument Dawkins uses as to why creationism should not be taught in public schools is that despite the influence of creationism. All the experts in evolutionary biology reject it and those who do not typically do not have scientific training and so aren’t qualified.
    Whats good for the goose is good for the gander

    “ Now perhaps you should take the same attitude towards the authorities Glenn, Matt, and Madeleine refer to. Just don’t listen to them, contribute to discussion freely. I certainly support you in doing that.”

    I agree, you should listen to the authorities and then contribute. In otherwords one should inform oneself about what the people in a feild are saying, understand there position accurately and the arguments for it accurately and then respond.
    That is very different from simply writing something without being informed.

    There is nothing in our laws, by laws or social conventions which demand you not contribute to discussion.

    But no one said there was anything in the “laws” or “social conventions” to this effect. What I said was that a standard line of argument was that it was morally wrong to do this. Madeliene said this line of argument had influenced court decisions. Thats again a different claim.

    Like Hugh said try reading what others write before attacking it.
    On the other hand there are still residual privileges to religion in NZ which could be used to inhibit expression of ideas critical of religion. They are infrequently used but surely we should be removing them (eg Blasphemy law, disrupting religious ceremony law, tax exemption for supernatural belief, etc).

    I see so tax-exemptions for churches and not secular organisations is a privilege. I take it then ken will now grant that giving tax benefits to secular schools and not church schools is also a privilege?

    Odd how we have had so many people in this thread argue that when secular schools receive tax benefits that church schools don’t its not a privilege but perfectly fair.

  • Matt, you are away with the birds again. Both religious groups and non-religious groups can qualify for charity tax exemption under the advancement of education clause.

    Only groups with a supernatural belief can apt under the advancebt of religion clause.

    A clear privilege for religion.

    Surely a democratic approach would remove that ancient residual advantage (originating in 1600). It would not in any way disrupt genuine charity work done by churches and others.

  • Matt, your debate with academics over religious restraint in public discussion is really of no interest to me (and I suspect most members of society). I think you keep going back to that as a way of diversion.

    My interest has been the way you and Madeleine have distorted the NZAHR document to introduce a meaning that is not there. Your bait and switch plus category error is aimed at arguing that the NZAHR aims to “eradicate religion” which is completely wrong. But that is your purpose in your switching the meaning of “secular.” very dishonest.

    Clearly your other purpose us to justify religious privilege. Whining about discrimination laws implies you actually would like to get the “privilege” of Christian exemption from such laws. All because your god has “commanded” you to hate somebody..

    It’s great how it is always he case that your god hates exactly the same people you do. Very convenient but not at all convincing.

    A bigot is a bigot. Even when they attempt to pass responsibility to their god’s commands.

  • ”Matt, you are away with the birds again. Both religious groups and non-religious groups can qualify for charity tax exemption under the advancement of education clause. Only groups with a supernatural belief can apt under the advancement of religion clause. A clear privilege for religion.”

    Yes and according to NZARH only non-religious schools should be subsided by the state whereas schools with a supernatural belief should not be
    .
    So again why is giving tax exemptions to one group and not the other a priveledge whereas giving tax payer money to one group and not the other is not a priveledge?

    Sorry but shouting “your away with the birds” does not really address the point does it.

    ”Surely a democratic approach would remove that ancient residual advantage (originating in 1600). It would not in any way disrupt genuine charity work done by churches and others.”

    Pointing out a law originates in 1600 tells us its age it does not tell us wether it is just. ( laws against homicide are even older) so this is just really bad ethical reasoning.

    But again this does not really address the issue, here again you assert that if the law grants religious organisations tax benefits which secular groups do not get ( even when they can get them under a different section of the act) that’s a privilege that should be banned.

    Yet when NZARH claim that the law should grant secular organisations tax benefits ( through subsidising them) that it should not give to religious organisations, you state its not privilege and I am being dishonest in saying it is.

    I don’t know about soil science, but in the real world, contradictions are false, and you don’t get to assert them by calling other people “out with the birds” or attacking their integrity. You actually have to develop a consistent position that follows the rules of logic.

  • “Matt, your debate with academics over religious restraint in public discussion is really of no interest to me (and I suspect most members of society). I think you keep going back to that as a way of diversion.”

    Actually that was what Madeliene and my posts were about. It’s not a diversion to discuss the actual topic at hand.

    ”My interest has been the way you and Madeleine have distorted the NZAHR document to introduce a meaning that is not there. Your bait and switch plus category error is aimed at arguing that the NZAHR aims to “eradicate religion” which is completely wrong. “

    Actually nowhere did I or Madeleine say NZARH wanted to “eradicate religion” so this is just a misrepresentation.
    Try responding to what we actually said it tends to advance discussion.

    But that is your purpose in your switching the meaning of “secular.” very dishonest.

    Actually as I showed you above NZARH’s definition of secular very clearly does conflate the two meanings of secular as one. Note what they wrote.

    The NZARH strongly believes that government should be secular; that is dealing with the issues of this world rather than following a religious agenda.

    The first half defines secular as of this world but it the second half defines it as not based on religious ideas. Your welcome to keep pretending it does not say what it clearly does but its just that pretending. Pointing out what a group actually explicitly says is not bait and switch.

    Moreover, perhaps you can point me to the legal case where the word secular in the education act was interpreted by the courts to merely mean “of this world” and not to mean that religious teachings and ideas be not allowed in schools. I think you’ll find that the meaning of words in laws are actually determined by what courts and case law say not by how a soil scientist chooses to define terms on his blog.

    ”Clearly your other purpose us to justify religious privilege. Whining about discrimination laws implies you actually would like to get the “privilege” of Christian exemption from such laws. All because your god has “commanded” you to hate somebody..

    This is simply more bad ethical reasoning,

    First we have an ad hominen attack on someones motives, that unfortunately is a fallacy.

    Second, the claim that God commands you to not assist two people in doing X does not entail he is commanding you to hate people who do X. Not assisting and hating are actually two separate things. Many religious people don’t believe they should assist people in having extra marital affairs or in getting intoxicated, it doesn’t follow they hate adulterers and people who drink. It just means they disagree with their choices in this particular matter and are exercising their moral autonomy by not supporting it.

    Third, your argument here seems to be that allowing people freedom to live in accord with their religious beliefs and not banning people from being foster parents or sacking people because they want to do so is “privileging them” that is clearly absurd.

    Suppose I said that atheists should be sacked if they refused to attend a chapel service. By your reasoning providing the law said atheist had to do this it would follow that this was fair, after all atheists can just get a different job.

    The whole point of freedom of religion is to prevent people from being required by law from practising their religion.

    ”A bigot is a bigot. Even when they attempt to pass responsibility to their god’s commands.”

    Actually calling someone a bigot instead of actually providing an argument as to why their position is mistaken, is not really a terribly compelling response. Again in ethical reasoning we try and reason. Perhaps in soil science you can establish conclusions by engaging in name calling, but in the real world you actually need to have grounds or reasons for your conclusions.

    My opinion is that freedom of religion means that the law should not ban people from engaging in certain professions or from fostering children because of their religious beliefs unless it has really compelling reasons to do so, when you can provide them let me now.

  • […] that allows all politicians to reflect on why they are they are there.” He claims this “states religious prayers should be banned from parliament”. He sees introduction of an inclusive ceremony as an attack on Christianity – what warped […]

  • Matt – your comments on state funding of schools are of course mainly diversionary. But a few points:

    The NZAHR does not say as you claim “only non-religious schools should be subsided by the state whereas schools with a supernatural belief should not be.”

    It does say: “The NZARH thinks that it is wrong that taxpayer money is being used to fund the segregation and religious indoctrination of children.”

    Quite a different thing. Your claim was not honest.

    In fact I interpret the document to mean that it does support state funding of the secular component that religious schools have to teach by law. Just not the indoctrination side of things (although one would find it hard to separate the funding of these).

  • 1: Matt, Madeleine actually wrote “the document seeks the eradication of religion from public life.” Check it out above. Clearly her’s is not an honest interpretation of the document.

    OK I didn’t include the whole quote (was not at my PC so couldn’t copy and paste). But I have raised this several times and both you and Madeleine ignore me.

    2: No the document does not conflate the two meanings of “secular” – you just wish to create that opinion because you can’t attack the actual definition it uses. In the process you and Madeleine use a transparent “bait and switch” trick followed by the category error of equating a social arrangement to an ideological viewpoint.

    The second half of the quote (“rather than following a religious agenda”) is not a definition, nor is it in conflict with the actual definition in the first half (“The NZARH strongly believes that government should be secular; that is dealing with the issues of this world”).

    3: Regarding religious privilege wrt discrimination laws:

    Do you (or Madeleine if she responds accept the current human rights legislation regarding discrimination?

    If not – specifically which do you oppose?

    If you oppose any of the clauses do you advocate that people should break these laws?

    If you are in this position do you accept that despite your attitude towards those laws that society has the right to make an appropriate judgement and sentence of those breaking the laws?

    Importantly, some people are advocating (in the UK) that Churches be exempt from such discrimination laws. Do you support this approach or do you accept the law should not discriminate on the basis of religious or belief convictions (one law for all)?

    4: Regarding “compelling reasons” for people being disciplined prosecuted or sacked when they refuse to do their legal job on religious grounds – you are of course referring to legal cases in the UK (If you are referring to NZ cases please be specific). Presumably the courts themselves found the reasons compelling, hence their decision.

    Do you reject the right of courts to make legal decisions in such cases where religious convictions are used as a defense?

  • Finally (and sorry I have had to break this up into several comments to deal with the issues Matt misrepresents me on).

    Matt, we have debated religious privilege in tax exemption before and you always wish to confuse the issue (people do when money is involved, don’t they?):

    The Charities Commission provides examples of the 4 purposes defined as charity for tax exemption:

    They are:

    1: Beneficial to the community
    2: Advancement of education
    3: Advancement of religion
    4: Relief of poverty

    The privilege in purpose 3 is clear – advancement has been defined (as tested in courts) as requiring:

    • “a belief in a supernatural being, thing, or principle, and
    • an acceptance of conduct in order to give effect to that belief.”

    Clearly only supernatural religious belief systems can apply under this purpose. Other beliefs are not covered. (It’s interesting that a number of organisations applying in this sector are being turned down at the moment – it’s obviously been an easy one to commit fraud in).

    So religious organisations can argue for tax exemption on the basis of 4 purposes (including supernatural belief). Non-religious organisations can only argue on the basis of 3 purposes (excluding supernatural belief). Non-supernatural belief does not qualify.

    Clearly a religious privilege.

    Note – a number of religious organisation apply using one of the other 3 purposes. As do the humanist organisations (Education / training / research). While other taxpayers are currently subsidising religion to quite a large extent this may be an overestimate because many more groups might be able to qualify on one of the other 3 purposes.

    Personally I think purpose 3 should be removed as antiquated and in conflict with our discrimination laws. Extending its coverage to include “beliefs”, while removing discrimination, could raise a public storm.

  • Ken you write “The NZAHR does not say as you claim “only non-religious schools should be subsided by the state whereas schools with a supernatural belief should not be.”
    It does say: “The NZARH thinks that it is wrong that taxpayer money is being used to fund the segregation and religious indoctrination of children.”

    Actually NZARH it says is

    In 1975 integrated schools were introduced without public discussion in order to prop up the failing Roman Catholic school system. The NZARH thinks that it is wrong that taxpayer money is being used to fund the segregation and religious indoctrination of children. Having integrated schools has created a two-tier public education system. Integrated schools have an unfair advantage over public schools.”

    You write

    ”In fact I interpret the document to mean that it does support state funding of the secular component that religious schools have to teach by law. Just not the indoctrination side of things (although one would find it hard to separate the funding of these).”

    Unfortunately when one reads it in context that’s clearly not what it says the above paragraph opposes the existence of integrated religious schools per se. The first sentence identifies integration of Catholic schools as the issue, the sentence immediately after the one you cite again states that the existence of intergrated schools itself is unfair.
    Moreover the closing sentences of the paragraph state

    “As it is extremely hard to set up an integrated school with a special character justification that is not religious, the quality of the education available is restricted by the religious beliefs of the family. The NZARH strongly believes that public education should be free, secular and available equally to all children.”

    Here they object again to integrated schools because of their have religious special characters and state they oppose it because they think all public education should be secular

    “Quite a different thing. Your claim was not honest.”

    What’s not honest is quoting a sentence out of context and then claiming it says the opposite of what it says when you put it in context.

    But you again avoid the issue, you suggested that if religious organisations get tax breaks and secular organisations don’t that’s a privilege. On the other hand when secular organisations get tax funds and religious schools don’t that’s not a privilege.
    Sorry but trying to defend a contradiction by quoting a document out of context is not really a rational response.

  • Ken

    1. You write Matt, Madeleine actually wrote “the document seeks the eradication of religion from public life.” Check it out above.

    But that’s not what you said, in your Sep 3 9:48 comment you said (quote) “Your bait and switch plus category error is aimed at arguing that the NZAHR aims to “eradicate religion” which is completely wrong. “

    The claim that NZARH wants to eradicate religion from public life is not the same as saying they want to eradicate religion. Once again you snipped a sentence out of context to attack someones intergrity.

    You add “But I have raised this several times and both you and Madeleine ignore me.”

    Actually I responded to on August 27 at 4:46 pm, its in the thread above you just keep asserting I ignored you.

    The fact your dishonest about what others say is really your problem not mine.

    2. You write “No the document does not conflate the two meanings of “secular” – you just wish to create that opinion because you can’t attack the actual definition it uses… The second half of the quote (“rather than following a religious agenda”) is not a definition, “

    Actually the phrase is a single sentence “The NZARH strongly believes that government should be secular; that is dealing with the issues of this world rather than following a religious agenda.” It is not two separate clauses so one cannot claim that the first half is a definition and the second half is not without arbitrarily breaking the sentence up in a way unjustified by the grammar.

    The fact you go to hair splitting lengths to try and say it says the opposite of only again shows your dishonest.

    ”nor is it in conflict with the actual definition in the first half (“The NZARH strongly believes that government should be secular; that is dealing with the issues of this world”

    This is clearly false, as Madeliene already pointed out religions often have lots to say about the issues of this world. They command for example not to kill or steal or commit adultery all of which involve issues of this world. So one can follow a religious agenda and deal with issues of this world.

    Ignoring a point already made is not really a response.

    3. I don’t believe anyone has a “right” for a particular counseller to give you sex counselling. Nor do I believe anyone has a right for another person to not teach their child they disagree with you. If I was ordered to not teach a child in my care what I consider to be true and to teach them what I believed was false I would disobey. Similarly if I was ordered to give sex counselling to a couple in a relationship I believed was wrong then I would disobey.

    4. This again simply shows really bad moral reasoning, you suggest that (a) because a court made a decision to do something then they are justified in doings so and (b) its I am denying the courts right to make a decision. This is just confused,

    The first claim would mean that any time a court acts against someones rights they are justified in doing so that would make a mockery out of human rights. The whole point of freedom of religion is to protect citizens against the state passing laws against them practising there religion. The second claim is equally confused claiming that a court has acted unjustly is not the same as claiming the court has no authority to make decisions. If this were true then one could never criticise the government without denying they were the government.

    The court in the scopes trial ruled that evolution should be illegal does the fact the court did this mean it had compelling reasons to do so and scientists who disagree with it believe courts have no rights to make decisions.

    All your response shows again is (i) you misrepresent what people say (ii) engage in really bad ethical reasoning.

    I note however you ignored again my point that when a secular organisation gets a tax benefit its not a privilege when a religious group gets a tax break it is. Odd how you want to justify a contradiction Ken, I thought you were a rational scientist.

  • Matt, the document is clear. Even your quoted parts just do not support your interpretation. Clearly you are in the Christian whining mode.

    But your bitch actually seems to be with the actual situation as well as the NZAHR (which we cam understand you can’t be objective about).

    Perhaps you can provide actual examples of the number of religious schools satisfying the legal requirement in terms of subjects and staff which do my receive the appropriate state funding.

    When you do there might be something to discuss.

  • Ken what the law you cited shows is that organisations that teach religion can apply for a tax exemption under one clause and secular organisations that teach can do so under another clause. Both then can gain a tax exemption under the law
    But you again evade my point, when the law allows organisations that teach religion to get a tax benefit that secular organisations can also get you call this “priveledging” religion.
    However when the law grants tax payer funding to secular organisations that teach and denies it to religious organisations its not privileging secularism.

    Again how does contradicting yourself make your position rational?

  • Matt, you will obviously swear black and blue that the document says what it doesn’t.  I am happy with my reading of it and just can’t see how you get your interpretation.

    Perhaps you should contact the organisation and ask them to clarify what they mean by the term “secular.” Until you can provide evidence for your particular interpretation (such as the organisation’s clarification) I see little point in repeating the arguments. Any reader can check the document themselves (it is well worth reading) and make up their own mind. 

    I am satisfied that you are distorting its meaning.

    Re the eradication of religion in public life claim by Madeleine. You claim responding to my critique of that in your comment of August 27 at 4:46. I have checked twice – you don’t even refer to it.  It is clearly a false claim and you have not justified it at all. I  am sure you can’t.

    I notice you have chosen to avoid all my questions. Pity, as I think it would have been wiser to clarify your position. Still, we may take a horse to water . . . And we draw our own conclusions from your avoidance.

    Re the Scopes trial – it is just wrong to claim it found the teaching of evolution illegal. That law has already bern made. The teacher was found guilty of breaking the law.

    Finally, if a religious organization gets a tax exemption (paid for by the rest of us) which is not available to other beliefs then yes that is religious privilege. I can’t see how else that can be interpreted.

    Given your manipulation over the term “secular” I will rephrase your claim to ask for specific examples where a non-religious organization gets tax exemption that is not available to an equivalent religious organization. I am
    not aware of any and can’t see how the law would allow it.

    But, as I said, when people’s wallets are threatened their thinking really is not objective.

  • Matt, it is too simple minded to say “organisations that teach religion can apply for a tax exemption under one clause and secular organisations that teach can do so under another clause.”

    The silliness of your assertion really shows up (to religious people) – or should if they were honest- simply be reversing the situation. Just imagine the whining if an atheist organization had access to a firm of tax exemption Christians didn’t!

    I suggest you go through the registry and check this out. My research shows that many organizations teaching theology do register under the education sector. This also gives some other handouts available to educational groups such as financial assistance to overseas students.

    However, many organizations register under the religious sector. This would be necessary for an activity like worship and presumably pension funds for ministers of religion. Rates exemptions are also available for churches but not for non-religious groups.

    This would not be available to an organization purely advancing atheism or similar beliefs. (Again I will not use “secular” as you are manipulating that term.)

    The point is that religions can take advantage of the “advancement of religion” sector classification. There is no equivalent “advancement of belief” sectors 

    A clear contradiction of our human rights laws.

    The religion sector also has the distinction of not being at all obvious as charity. Clearly true charity is covered by the other sectors. The religion sector us an historical residue of the time when religion was extremely dominant. 

    It would be more honest if religious people accepted this and realised the selfish image it creates in the public eye. People do resent tax evaders and more and more of us are recognizing this privilege as tax evasion.

  • Ken
    Matt, you will obviously swear black and blue that the document says what it doesn’t. I am happy with my reading of it and just can’t see how you get your interpretation.

    This is simply an assertion you are correct and an assertion that I am swearing black and blue.
    It does not respond to the argument I have made

    Perhaps you should contact the organisation and ask them to clarify what they mean by the term “secular.” Until you can provide evidence for your particular interpretation (such as the organisation’s clarification) I see little point in repeating the arguments. Any reader can check the document themselves (it is well worth reading) and make up their own mind.

    I agree any reader can consult it I quoted it several times. It clearly defines secular as not being based on a religious agenda.

    For the record I debated the spokesperson of NZARH in 2002 in the debate he made it clear he did support the view I attributed to them, which is the one I critiqued in my article.

    I am satisfied that you are distorting its meaning.

    Another assertion, again you don’t respond to the arguments. Or documentation to the contrary.

    ’Re the eradication of religion in public life claim by Madeleine. You claim responding to my critique of that in your comment of August 27 at 4:46. I have checked twice – you don’t even refer to it. It is clearly a false claim and you have not justified it at all. I am sure you can’t.

    I actually responded to your comments point by point in that post, in fact I quoted them them in italics. http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/08/a-godless-public-square-do-%E2%80%98private%E2%80%99-christian-beliefs-have-a-place-in-public-life-part-iii-madeleine-flannagan-law.html#comment-155935. So I clearly did respond to you and clearly did refer to your comments on several occasions.

    I notice you have chosen to avoid all my questions. Pity, as I think it would have been wiser to clarify your position. Still, we may take a horse to water . . . And we draw our own conclusions from your avoidance.

    Actually I did respond to your questions as documented in the post I cited above.

    ’Re the Scopes trial – it is just wrong to claim it found the teaching of evolution illegal. That law has already bern made.
    The teacher was found guilty of breaking the law.

    Exactly, which means that the fact the courts rule against something does not mean that they are not violating some else rights

    Finally, if a religious organization gets a tax exemption (paid for by the rest of us) which is not available to other beliefs then yes that is religious privilege. I can’t see how else that can be interpreted.

    This again ignores my argument, I did not deny that you considered it a priveledge when a “religious organisation” got a tax exemption. What I said was that this position contradicts your stance that its not a privilege when a secular organisation gets a tax subsidy that religious ones don’t.

    Given your manipulation over the term “secular”

    Actually, I pointed out the term was used this way in literature. HeSo again you are telling lies when you accuse me of manipulation. Your also welcome to look up the Cambridge english dictionary http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/secular?q=secular

    Secular: not having any connection with religion
    We live in an increasingly secular society, in which religion has less and less influence on our daily lives.
    secular education
    a secular state

    Or Miriam Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secularism

    Definition of SECULARISM
    : indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations

    So, thats now the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy, an article from the texas law review, an article from Robert Audi leading defender of secularism and two major English dictionaries.

    So when you repeatedly claim I am misusing the term, you are clearly and unequivocally wrong.

    I will rephrase your claim to ask for specific examples where a non-religious organization gets tax exemption that is not available to an equivalent religious organization.

    That question would be relevant if I had said that non religious organisations get tax exemptions which are unavalible to religious ones, as I pointed out both organisations that teach religions and secular education organisations both get exemptions. Thats what I said in my previous comment.

    What I did point out is that secular schools get public funding which religious schools do not get.

  • Really Ken
    Here is what you said at August 27
    OK Madeliene – no specific example – either of law or of “politicians, people in the media, leaders in our communities, lecturers at university”.
    Why am I not suprised?
    The silliness of your assertion really shows up (to religious people) – or should if they were honest- simply be reversing the situation. Just imagine the whining if an atheist organization had access to a firm of tax exemption Christians didn’t!
    My point was that religious people do not have access to tax exemptions that secular people don’t the act you cited said both organisations that promote religion and secular educational organisations get tax exemptions.
    This would not be available to an organization purely advancing atheism or similar beliefs. (Again I will not use “secular” as you are manipulating that term.)
    Actually there are registered humanist trusts so this is false.
    The point is that religions can take advantage of the “advancement of religion” sector classification. There is no equivalent “advancement of belief” sectors
    Thats because one can do this under the educational heading, as humanist trusts do.
    A clear contradiction of our human rights laws.
    Again avoiding the issue, why is it a clear violation of human rights for organisations that advance religion to get tax exemptions that secular educational organisations do not and not a clear violation of human rights for secular educational schools to get tax payer subsidies which religious schools do not.
    The religion sector also has the distinction of not being at all obvious as charity. Clearly true charity is covered by the other sectors.
    This simply shows your ignorance of what churches do,

  • Matt, this us getting silly. You can’t be objective about the NZAHR document. I have said it stands clearly as evidence which shows your inability to represent it. And your behavior does discredit you as any reliable source on the thinking of the organisation. Come off it. Can anybody really rely on the claims you make after the clear evidence of your misrepresentation?

    You did not provide any answers to my specific questions at all. To claim you have just flies in the face of what is recorded.

    One could argue all night and get nowhere when there is such dishonesty.

    In such situations the scientific approach is to test claims against reality. I invited you to do so and repeat again:

    “Perhaps you can provide actual examples of the number of religious schools satisfying the legal requirement in terms of subjects and staff which do my receive the appropriate state funding.”

    The fact that you have refused to provide even one example does indicate you are all piss and wind on this subject.

    That will be my inevitable final conclusion if you continue to refuse to back up your claim with any examples.

  • Matt, you really should calm down and check the meaning of terms before sounding off. The advancement of religion sector of charitable purpose is not a description of the applying organisation. It is a description of the specific activity. Religious organizations cam apply under all 4 sectors as appropriate. If they are involved in educational activity it is expected that they would apply in that sector.

    They have an extra sector not available to the non-religious – advancement of religion. Notice it doesn’t say religion or belief. Non-religious belief is for specifically excluded from that sector. Humanists could not have applied under this sector for tax exemption on the grounds of advancing humanism – or any other non-supernatural belief.they cannot get tax exemption for that sort of work.

    That’s a ckear privelige to any sensible person. But when one’s wallet is threatened a person tends to lose all sense.

    You are just a simple monetary materialist at heart, aren’t you Matt?

  • Ken being unable to apply for a charity under one category because your charity does not fit the criteria for that category does not give those charities that do fit that category a privilege. That is like saying trusts for educational purposes are privileged over trusts for the relief of poverty – they are just different categories, all trusts that get through gain the same benefit, there is not advantage to getting through in one category over another.
    There are 4 categories that between them basically cover every conceivable type of charity that benefits the public.

  • Ken

    “Perhaps you can provide actual examples of the number of religious schools satisfying the legal requirement in terms of subjects and staff which do my receive the appropriate state funding.”

    Two things here,

    First, your correct a religious school that meets the correct legal requirements in terms of “subjects” can get state funds, that hardly proves much does it. My point was that the legal requirements for public funds favour secular schools.

    There are literally hundreds of private religious schools all over NZ which are not allowed to get state funds, many of them are more than adequate in terms of the education they provide compared to the publically funded state school down the road. If you think private schools like this don’t exist you are truly tripping.

    Second, again your missing the context, NZARH stated in their documents that they opposed integrated religious schools, hence they are saying that even if the schools do meet the legal criteria they should not get public funds so your point really does not come to much.

    But finally Ken, note that any secular educational charity which meets the legal criteria will also get a tax exemption. So by your logic tax exemptions for religious trusts must not be a privilege.

    Like I said try not to contradict yourself.

    You have said repeatedly NZARH do not priveledge secular organisations, so perhaps you’ll

    The fact that you have refused to provide even one example does indicate you are all piss and wind on this subject.

    That will be my inevitable final conclusion if you continue to refuse to back up your claim with any examples.

  • Ken
    . Religious organizations cam apply under all 4 sectors as appropriate. If they are involved in educational activity it is expected that they would apply in that sector.

    They have an extra sector not available to the non-religious – advancement of religion. Notice it doesn’t say religion or belief.

    Yes and the education act has a clause which states that all public schools must be secular and explictly exludes religious instruction.

    religious schools have to apply under the integration section.

    But again you are avoiding the issue. Why is it that when an act gives a tax exemption to organizations that advance religion its a privilege. But when it gives public funds to secular educational organisation’s its not a privilege?

    Telling me that there is a special clause for secular educational charities in the law does not address this there is after all also a special clause for intergrated schools as well.

    You are just a simple monetary materialist at heart, aren’t you Matt?

    Sorry but insults don’t justify contradictions, that fact is there is immeasurably more money in the education sector which is given almost exclusively to secular schools. Odd how this money blinds you Ken, obviously a materialist at heart.

  • Madeleine – you actually isolate the real issue Matt has been trying to confuse when you say:

    “being unable to apply for a charity under one category because your charity does not fit the criteria for that category does not give those charities that do fit that category a privilege.”

    Sector 3 (advancement of religion) is discriminatory because it is restricted to relgion. To conform with our human rights legislation it should be “Advancement of relgion or belief” – or just simply “Advancement of belief” which covers all.

    Why should “or belief” be eliminated when practically all our other legislation includes “relgion and belief?”

    You say: “There are 4 categories that between them basically cover every conceivable type of charity that benefits the public.”

    Can you not conceive of “Advancement of belief” when that belief is non-religious?

    Madeleine – a simple quesiton: Would you be oppsoed to extending sector 3 to read “Advancement or relgion or other belief”?

    (This would of course require removal of the supernatural requirement to allow inclusion of non-religious beliefs.)

  • Sorry that question should read;

    “Would you be opposed to extending sector 3 to read “Advancement of religion or other belief”?

    A few typos there but don’t want people using them as another diversion.

    Really would value your answer to my question.

  • Matt – you say: “There are literally hundreds of private religious schools all over NZ which are not allowed to get state funds, ”

    Well, simple enough for you to provide a few examples (names, location, etc) for me to check out?

    Seriously Matt, I am happy to accept you claim as a fact – if it is a fact. But despite several requests you have not provided a single example. I don’t accept a single thing you say on faith – experience has taught me that you are not a reliable informant on these subjects.

    So Matt: Please provide identifiable infomration on these examples you claim

  • Matt – surely you are not so thick yopu cannot see what you are doing to distort the tax exemption situation. You claim:

    “any secular educational charity which meets the legal criteria will also get a tax exemption. So by your logic tax exemptions for religious trusts must not be a privilege.”

    True – both non-relgious (again I won’t use the word “secular” as you have distorted the meaning in this discussion) and religious educational bodies, trusts, etc., can claim tax exemption under the “Advancement of education sector.”

    You will note I have never claimed that religious orgnaisations get a privelige in this sectorr.

    But when it comes to advancement of belief it is impossible for non-religious bodies to get tax exemption – because their beliefs are not supernatural. Religious organisations do have a privelige under that sector – pretty obvious from it’s title “Advancement of religion.”

    So Matt – Can you answer the same question I put to Madeleine:

    “Would you be opposed to extending sector 3 to read “Advancement of religion or other belief”?”

    This would of course require the removal of the supernatural requirement from the requirments.

    Simple question – just requires a yes or no.

  • Matt – re the Tolerant Secular State Document. You claim it says:

    “even if the schools do meet the legal criteria they should not get public funds”

    I have checked – it says nothing of the sort. Obviously that is your interpretation – but a clearly unwarranted one. You are trying to put your own words in the mouth of the NZAHR.

    You are clkealry not a reliable informant on the policies of the NZAHR.

    What the document does say is: “The NZARH thinks that it is wrong that taxpayer money is being used to fund the segregation and religious indoctrination of children.”

    It finishes by stating:

    “The NZARH strongly believes that public education should be free, secular and available equally to all children.”

    The document clearly defines ‘secular” in this context in its first sentence (I repeat this because you are determined to misrepresent that word. Here it’s definitely not meant as a viewpoint or ideology – it’s a social arrangement):

    “The NZARH strongly believes that government should be secular; that is dealing with the issues of this world rather than following a religious agenda.”

    Now this attitude seems to me to be very much along the same line as our legislation. I take it you disagree with that legislation.

    So I take it you wish the state to actually fund a “relgious agenda” in education (and in other things). Am I correct?

    If so:

    What specific relgious agenda do you want impoosed on our state and public schools?

    Are you not concerned about the rights of NZers who don’t accept that relgious agenda?

  • Ken wrote: “Sector 3 (advancement of religion) is discriminatory because it is restricted to relgion. To conform with our human rights legislation it should be “Advancement of relgion or belief” – or just simply “Advancement of belief” which covers all.

    Why should “or belief” be eliminated when practically all our other legislation includes “relgion and belief?””

    I think you are probably right here Ken, the problem of course is that Charities law was formed centuries before the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Pemsel’s 4 heads of Charity was decided before NZ was settled as a colony!

    In true form Common Law did develop to ensure that charities with purely secular purposes could still get through under the other categories. This is probably why the law has not been amended as you suggest as the way the common law works means that the operational provisions of the Bill of Rights Act (ss 5,4,6) work sufficiently well with it.

  • “The NZARH strongly believes that government should be secular; that is dealing with the issues of this world rather than following a religious agenda.”

    the trouble with this statement is that it implies that in some way the governtment of NZ might be or is in danger of following a religious agenda.
    Is there any evidence anywhere of this? What motivated the NZARH to make this statement?

    How does recognising that religious people pay taxes too, and therefore the Govt recognising that contributing to the operational funding of State Integrated Schools of Special Character is not unfair or inequitable [ in fact financially advantageous to the State ] compromise the governments secularity? Seems pragmatic in the extreme, rather that following a religious agenda.

    Given the definition of secular that you insist on Ken [ie without religion cf opposed to religion] what cause do you have for complaint?

    Seems to me you simply dont like tax dollars going to anything that may be “tainted” by religion, even when its to your financial advantage. That smacks of ideology rather than reason.

    “The NZARH thinks that it is wrong that taxpayer money is being used to fund the segregation and religious indoctrination of children.”

    again why even make this statement, unless they either belive this is happening or are trying to imply it is.
    To back this up they need to demonstrate that this is actually happening.

    Lastly what ever the NZARH believe [and so what that they do, who are they that their belief should have any pre-eminence why should New Zealand taxpayers with religious convictions { Christian, Buddhist, even Jainist } be obliged to fund secular schools and have their children compulsarily integrated and subject to education within a solely naturalist worldview?

    This just sounds like some group trying to force their views on the rest of us, particularly hypocritical really.

  • Madeleine – Thaks for recognising the discrimination in the “advancement of relgion” sector.

    I agree, this anomaly is historical – deriving from the time when advancement of relgion was actually seen as an act of charity. (And a time when those who advance a disagreement woth religion were burned at the stake.)

    I suspect this is no longer the case (certainly thisd situaytion keepos being challenged) and that a more democratic soloution is to either remove that sector altogether or include “and other beliefs.”

    But here again I am not talking about “secular purposes.” Advancement of atheism is not covered by “secular” as it is expressing a belief on the situation outside this, or the real, world.

    Nor is raising money to support an ideological leader, and her pension, who is advocating for the advancement of atheism.

    it is best here to leave the word “secular” out of this because, as you have agreed, people do have different meanings and this leads to talking past each other.

  • Jeremy – I find the claim that NZ taxpayers are “obliged to fund secular schools and have their children compulsarily integrated and subject to education within a solely naturalist worldview?” just silly – I have learned that whenever a relgious fanatic uses the word “naturalist” (or even “worldview”) they are attempting to cover an arrogant sense of privelge and anit-humanity. And anit- modernist view.

    To follow this with “This just sounds like some group trying to force their views on the rest of us, particularly hypocritical really.” really does take the cake.

    Jeremy – are you opposed to a system whcih turns out people who can assist you with your accounts, treat your ilnesses, build your roads, parks, and other civil amenities?

    Help to rebuild a city like Chrsitichurch, help to identify areas which are dangerously earthquake prone, help to produce building standard which will ensure Christchurch survives a future earthquake without such horrible loss of life and property?

    The list could go on. The fact is that you get an incredible amount from our secular education system which trains people to deal with the real world, this world, to make life better for everyone.

    Its got nothing to do with ideological beliefs – its a matter of dealing with reality. How else dfo we deal with, for example, the situation in Christchurch or a seriously ill or harmed person?

    Surely ideological beliefs (and instruction) are the province of the family – not state paid educators.

    And it is even worse when these state paid educators start telling lies about the real world to the kids in their charge. That is a form of child abuse. The state surely should not pay for that.

  • I see you didnt actually answer a single question Ken, just insulted me , labelled me and as you are so good at doing selectively misquoted me.

    Who are NZARH that their view should have anymore weight than anyone else’s?

    Is there any evidence ” that taxpayer money is being used to fund the segregation and religious indoctrination of children.”

    “Its got nothing to do with ideological beliefs – its a matter of dealing with reality. How else dfo we deal with, for example, the situation in Christchurch or a seriously ill or harmed person?”

    Actually it has everything to do with ideology, “as a man thinks, so he is”.. Maybe you should go and read some news reports from other countries where buildings ,bridges and the like so often make the news as they collapse and kill people because corruption and greed lead to shoddy and deliberately under spec construction.

    The real world is full of real people, i surely hope that as Chch is rebuilt that morally good people adhere to building standards, do their best, choose excellence over “what can i get away with”. I hope that the unscrupulous and dishonest will be constrained by law and oversight from their real tendencies.

    Who is asking teachers to tell lies, certainly not me?

  • Jeremy, I am sorry you took my critique personally and feel insulted. On the other ahnd I found your questions insulting. There is not point in responding to straw men.

    However, you say:

    “The real world is full of real people, i surely hope that as Chch is rebuilt that morally good people adhere to building standards, do their best, choose excellence over “what can i get away with”. I hope that the unscrupulous and dishonest will be constrained by law and oversight from their real tendencies.”

    How the hell is that going to be acheived without a secular education which deals with this world? Provided it is well administered and the terachers are good it really doesn’t concern me it that is done in state schools or “special character” schools and I believe that is the intention of our education funbding system.

    Now if you belioeve that ” morally good people ” can only be supplied by relgious indoctrination “(instruction”), and those without this will be “unscrupulous and dishonest” – I pity you.

    However, I am not prepared to pay my taxes to fund an indoctrination (or “intsruction”) which teaches such rubbish and supports such separation. You can pay for it yourself – on a Sunday or in the unfunded part of your s”pecial character” school.

    And then I guess our secular society will have to deal with the damage this does. (as we are with the sexual abuse of children by clerics).

  • Matthew,

    Excuse the belated reply. Your response confirms to me that you don’t understand what secular means, or a playing word games (presumably because you are determined to set up school as opposing your particular religion, rather than any attempt to misleading [put another way, the only person you’re fooling AFAICS is yourself]).

    In particular the phrase “secular perspective” doesn’t make sense in the way that you use it. (See David response.)

    It’s nonsensical to write (passages in quotes are your’s):

    “by allowing secular perspectives on topics”

    “secular perspectives over religious ones”

    You are incorrectly setting up ‘secularism’ v. a particular religion. It’s nonsensical given what secularism aims to do. (It’s not opposing any religion, but trying to avoid favouring any of them; the pragmatic approach, esp. given how religions oppose one-another, is to favour none, thence secularism.)

    Could I suggest you try first *understand* this before trying to counter it?

    Quite a few of your responses are meaningless tit-for-tats. (Emphasis on meaningless), e.g.

    “Ken asked for an example I provided it, if you don’t want us to point them out don’t ask.” – is simply dodging my question,

    “That hardly makes it equitable,” – is nonsensical: I pointed out your erred and were putting in my mouth something I didn’t say and corrected you. It does make a difference as classes don’t have to be in schools,

    “Actually part of it had to do with the fact that private instituions are not allowed to compete with state system.” – I believe you referred to *university* courses; I haven’t time to look bakc and check, but if so your reply doesn’t make sense,

    “If the state only funds secular schools is that priveledging secular perspectives?” – no, it illustrates that you don’t understand the aim of secularism.

    “If the state only funds Christian schools is that priveledging Christianity?” – yes.

    “If all public education has to be Christian would that be priveledging Christianity?” – yes.

    “If all public education has to be secular would that be priveledging secular perspectives?” – no, it illustrates that you don’t understand the aim of secularism.

    “so we are simply responding to what mainstream thinkers on this topic who represent your view actually say.” – don’t put words in others’ mouths, as you are here (mine in this case). That’s a petty way to try argue with others. You could offer the definition you’re using.

    “But this is false, the state does grant priveledge to none. If it privatised all schools it would be doing this. The state clearly grants political status and favour and funding to secular schools and not to any other.” – *Think* about what you’ve written. The government only sets up state schools. (Note also you’re jumping between two different things—state schools and schools in general—and points—funding and rights.)

    “Your welcome to document where I said those things, I never said it was repressing or anti religious. I said it treated secular perspectives and religious perspectives asymetrically and claimed the reasons for this did not stand up.” – erm, you just did in not so many words (as you have before); this makes me think it’s not that you don’t understand, but that you’re playing word games to justify your position.

    “You have failed to show this does not happen or to show its justified.” – don’t assert ‘victory’ over others like that; same general problem as putting words in other’s mouths. It’s a hollow assertion as it stands.

    “All you have done is attack the proposition that one cannot engage in religious instruction” – wildly misses my point by selectively picking out one aspect from the wider point. It also rigs the argument again as secularism v. religion in a way that doesn’t fit what secularism does.

    “ Try reading what I actually wrote, not what Ken said I did.” Take your own advice. I always write for myself.

    “Moreover your definition above is quite apt not you talk about priveledging one religion over other religions, why limit it to religion” – I didn’t, I gave examples outside of religion earlier; your focus on religion, so I took after your lead (see my response immediately above too)

    “Why are you not concerned with priveledging one perspective wether religious or secular, over all others?” – still playing the same incorrect comparison. [Hence why I picked up on it.]

    “I could just as easily say that making public life Christian is just about not priveledging any non Christian religion over another or any secular perspective over another, therefore I am being fair and neutral.” – this really, *really* nails that you don’t get it or are playing word games to satisfy that you want your religion above all else. *Sigh*

    “Its different because its part of the right to freedom of religion that parents have the right to educate there children in the religion of their choice, hence this issue touches on a human right. When the state rigs the education market so that those who excercise this right a particular way are subject to a massive economic disavantage, that I think is a civil rights issue.” – fallicious, as I pointed out earlier Christians *do* have an option, they can attend church classes. (You’re also travelling in a circle here. You basically seem to be just ignoring what I’ve tried to explain and repeat yourself.)

    “Teaching children that a secular perspective on a subject is true” – nonsensical for the reasons I pointed out earlier. It’s that ‘secular perspective’ phrase you have repeatedly trotted out in your reply to me. (David addressed very well IMHO.)

    “The fact you preface something with the word secular does not magically change what it is.” – The fact you preface something with the word religious does not magically change what it is 😉 (i.e. empty tit-for-tat.)

    “Much of what I was taught at a secular school in classes like english, social science, science, and history, was indoctrination, and the health education classes we recieved almost certainly were.” Paranoid, much? Sorry, but this is getting silly IMO. (FWIW, I’d agree that history can be presented in a eurocentric fashion and often is in Western schools – in my experience favouring too much the Christian perspective, ironically. Science by it’s nature has to be taught from evidence. Ditto for health. I can’t see why english is in there and social studies has the same issue as history IME – but indoctrination is the wrong word.)

  • Madeleine,

    “As argued, ad nauseum, to do so is incompatible with living an undivided life which is a requirement of one being a Christian.” – you’ll have argued what *you* believe (of course). That’s fine, but you can’t *insist* that other Christians agree with you, or that they are wrong and you are “just right”!

    “If one sincerely and rationally believes that God commands X but one cannot provide any secular justifications for X then commitment to secularism means that one must deny X – disobey what one sincerely and rationally believes God has commanded.” – rubbish, you’re making the same mistake as Matthew. Secularism isn’t opposing your beliefs. You keep trying to make out that it is. Perhaps, because you want to erect something (i.e. a strawman) that you can shoot down to foist your wishes on others. (See sam’s comment earlier – he suggested this is a reason religions should support secularism.)

    Some might argue that if you oppose secularism, you are harboring a desire to have your particular (religious) views “rule over” others (as the your earlier claim I quoted appears to, FWIW). Ironically, that’s a decent part of what secularism aims to address; disfavouring having one religious view ‘rule over’ others.

    “The suggestion that secular society can just trump God” – illustrates you’re missing the point or misconstruing it. It’s not trying to.

    “Now can we get back to the topic? Where is the argument that justifies treating secular reasons differently to (as in privileging them over) religious ones?”

    It *is* a key point, because you’re misrepresenting what secularism aims to do. It renders your whole argument moot until you get the right. “to privilege secularism over religious points of view,” (paraphrasing) is nonsensical given what secularism aims to do.

    “I am yet to hear any offered in any of the threads relating to our talk that was not addressed and rebutted by one of us in our respective posts.” – reads like denying what others have written and declaring a pre-emptive victory. Just a thought.

  • Madeleine,

    “We were not addressing what the personal thoughts of individual atheists who have not read up on the debate might be on this topic. So the fact you do not hold to the dominant view is not really the point.” – It’s a bit silly to erect this edifice to make out others views are minority, especially when they’re fairly self-evidently not, then use it as an excuse to dismiss them regardless of it it’s a minority point of view or not. How popular, or not, a view is, doesn’t make it right (or wrong). Furthermore, it’s ironic given your own views are fairly self-evidently a minority view.

    “Or do you insist like Ken that the majority of Christians are/would be all happy about not having these freedoms and that requiring an absence of God from things that affect the “real” world, such as in these examples, would not and should not bother the majority of Christians?” – *still* trying to put out this (false) view that secularism is opposing/repressing (a particular) religion?

    Why not try starting with that secularism is trying to not favour any one religion and see where it takes you?

  • “Who are NZARH that their view should have anymore weight than anyone else’s?

    Is there any evidence ” that taxpayer money is being used to fund the segregation and religious indoctrination of children.””

    if these questions are in some way Strawmen, then surely the fact that NZARH raises the subject is also a Strawman.

    You seem determined to miss the point Ken. Knowledge of the real world is not enough, if it is not tempered by wisdom, and guided by values. The question is what values?

    “And then I guess our secular society will have to deal with the damage this does. (as we are with the sexual abuse of children by clerics).’
    I love this chestnut, as i have documented before on this site, the incidence of this kind of thing is higher in American state schools than in the RC church. Its just your prejudice showing.

  • A secular education does not exclude wisdom and values, or deny their aquisition from society by at all.

    On the other hand religious indoctrination does not guarantee such things – as experience in the real world shows. And people are aware of this.

  • Gj
    Your response confirms to me that you don’t understand what secular means, or a playing word games

    You keep saying this, unfortunately as I noted the definition I used was not mine its the standard one in the literature. I have already documented this. I also followed it up with definitions from the Cambridge dictionary and Mirriam Webster.
    So asserting this does not count for much

    In particular the phrase “secular perspective” doesn’t make sense in the way that you use it. (See David response.)

    Actually it follows from the standard definition of secular which I used. A secular perspective is a perspective on the world which does not involve God or revelation or religion.

    It’s not opposing any religion, but trying to avoid favouring any of them; the pragmatic approach, esp. given how religions oppose one-another, is to favour none, thence secularism.

    I have already responded to this argument, you note that religions disagree so we should favour none. This however singles out religious disagreement as I noted. But secular ethical theories and secular philosophies also disagree so consistency would mean you did not favour any of these either.

    Could I suggest you try first *understand* this before trying to counter it?

    I actually noted that argument in my article and rebutted it. I have also done so several times in the thread now. Repeating a rebutted argument does not unrebut it.

    Quite a few of your responses are meaningless tit-for-tats. (Emphasis on meaningless), e.g.

    No they are analogies showing why a particular line of argument fails. It fails because you recognise its clearly unfair or false or unsound when its applied to secular perspectives or secular institution.

    “That hardly makes it equitable,” – is nonsensical: I pointed out your erred and were putting in my mouth something I didn’t say and corrected you. It does make a difference as classes don’t have to be in schools,

    No I pointed out repeatedly to you that this argument did not address my point. No one claimed you can’t do RE classes. What was claimed was that the current system priveledges secular schools over religious ones.

    You can also do classes in secular subjects elsewhere as well.
    “If the state only funds secular schools is that priveledging secular perspectives?” – no, it illustrates that you don’t understand the aim of secularism.

    That’s simply an assertion, and it ignores the point. Even if secularists do not aim to priveledge something that does not in any way entail that the policies do not priveledge something. The fact is secular schools are priveledged in that they get public funds and religious schools do not. Any secular subject can be taught in a school but religion can not be.

    “If the state only funds Christian schools is that priveledging Christianity?” – yes.
    “If all public education has to be Christian would that be priveledging Christianity?” – yes.
    “If all public education has to be secular would that be priveledging secular perspectives?” – no, it illustrates that you don’t understand the aim of secularism.

    No it shows your inconsistent, in the first two sentences you grant that a line of argument follows and then in the last sentence you deny the same line of argument follows, thats inconsistent. And again even if secularists don’t aim at being inconsistent doesn’t make them consistent.

    “so we are simply responding to what mainstream thinkers on this topic who represent your view actually say.” – don’t put words in others’ mouths, as you are here (mine in this case). That’s a petty way to try argue with others. You could offer the definition you’re using.

    I did in the article, try reading it. Moreover I have already provided citations of where I got it from. My definition is the standard definition in political philosophy. Its also the definition in several leading English dictionaries
    I respectfully suggest in light of this its you who does not understand the term.

    “But this is false, the state does grant priveledge to none. If it privatised all schools it would be doing this. The state clearly grants political status and favour and funding to secular schools and not to any other.” – *Think* about what you’ve written. The government only sets up state schools. (Note also you’re jumping between two different things—state schools and schools in general—and points—funding and rights.)

    This does not address my point, I said the state only allows secular schools to be state schools and only funds secular schools. Nothing in this is addressed by pointing out the state only sets up state schools. The state could adopt different policies whereby all schools where funded equally. It doesn’t. And this counts as priveledging secular schools over religious ones.

    “Your welcome to document where I said those things, I never said it was repressing or anti religious. I said it treated secular perspectives and religious perspectives asymetrically and claimed the reasons for this did not stand up.” – erm, you just did in not so many words (as you have before); this makes me think it’s not that you don’t understand, but that you’re playing word games to justify your position.

    Err no, your just failing to draw distinctions. Saying the current system treats secular perspectives asyemtrically to religious ones. Is not the same as saying the current system is “anti religion” or “repressive”. The latter are significantly stronger and more extreme accusations.

    “You have failed to show this does not happen or to show its justified.” – don’t assert ‘victory’ over others like that; same general problem as putting words in other’s mouths. It’s a hollow assertion as it stands.

    When I respond to arguments and they are ignored or not rebutted then I claim they are not rebutted.

    “ Try reading what I actually wrote, not what Ken said I did.” Take your own advice. I always write for myself.

    Again your not reading carefully because no where there did I say Ken wrote for you. I said that you had not responded to what I wrote and seemed rather to attack what Ken said I wrote.

    “Moreover your definition above is quite apt not you talk about priveledging one religion over other religions, why limit it to religion” – I didn’t, I gave examples outside of religion earlier; your focus on religion, so I took after your lead (see my response immediately above too)

    “Why are you not concerned with priveledging one perspective wether religious or secular, over all others?” – still playing the same incorrect comparison. [Hence why I picked up on it.]

    Sorry but asserting a comparision is incorrect is not really a response. An argument does not become invalid suddenly when its applied to secular perspectives.

    “I could just as easily say that making public life Christian is just about not priveledging any non Christian religion over another or any secular perspective over another, therefore I am being fair and neutral.” – this really, *really* nails that you don’t get it or are playing word games to satisfy that you want your religion above all else. *Sigh*

    Err No, I am simply using the same argument you did, like I said it does not become an invalid word game suddenly when its applied to secular perspectives. Logic does not work that way.
    I have defined the word secular and shown its the standard definition of the word in the literature so there are no word games.

    “Its different because its part of the right to freedom of religion that parents have the right to educate there children in the religion of their choice, hence this issue touches on a human right. When the state rigs the education market so that those who excercise this right a particular way are subject to a massive economic disavantage, that I think is a civil rights issue.” – fallicious, as I pointed out earlier Christians *do* have an option, they can attend church classes.

    Actually its not fallacious, note my argument was not that Christians are prohibited by law from excercising a choice. I said that the state rigs the system so that they are subject to massive economic disadvantage. So pointing out they have a choice does not address the argument.

    Suppose a government put a massive tax on Jews if they attended synagogues, they would still have a choice to attend synagogues. It would not follow however that the state was respecting their freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is more than freedom from a law banning religion its also freedom from certain state coercive pressures other than mere legislation.

    “Teaching children that a secular perspective on a subject is true” – nonsensical for the reasons I pointed out earlier. It’s that ‘secular perspective’ phrase you have repeatedly trotted out in your reply to me. (David addressed very well IMHO.)

    As I pointed out its not nonsensical the word secular has an esthablished meaning which allows it to be coherently and meaningfully predicated of perspectives.

    In fact John Rawls one of the leading writers on religion and public life and one of the most influential liberal political philosophers in the world refers to comprehensive perspectives which are secular. In ethics people refer to secular ethical perspectives all the time.

    “The fact you preface something with the word secular does not magically change what it is.” – The fact you preface something with the word religious does not magically change what it is (i.e. empty tit-for-tat.)

    I agree entirely, changing a word does not change its substance. This is not tit for tat its reasoning by analogy.

    “Much of what I was taught at a secular school in classes like english, social science, science, and history, was indoctrination, and the health education classes we recieved almost certainly were.” Paranoid, much?

    Name calling is not really a response.

    Sorry, but this is getting silly IMO. (FWIW, I’d agree that history can be presented in a eurocentric fashion and often is in Western schools – in my experience favouring too much the Christian perspective, ironically.

    Great so you acknowledge that “secular” subjects can be taught from a particular ideological perspective. Good.

    Science by it’s nature has to be taught from evidence.

    Read some philosophy of science. Science does not merely just follow evidence.

    Ditto for health.

    Actually no, health education often involved substantive moral content such as wether one should use contraception, be sexually active, have abortions, wether masturbation was legitimate, wether homosexual conduct is a legitimate lifestyle and so on. This was simply teaching people to make moral decisions within an assumed liberal framework.
    I can’t see why english is in there

    This assumes that novels don’t put forward ideas. Or that you can’t put forward substantive philosophical positions by the stories one assigns others to read. Since the time of Plato people have recognised this is false.

    and social studies has the same issue as history IME – but indoctrination is the wrong word.)

    I am just using it in the sense people do when they refer to religious indoctrination. If teaching a particular religious teaching is true counts as indoctrination, then teaching a scientific theory is true is indoctrination. It may be that this is quite justified and sensible, we after all want our children to learn the truth. But lets be honest, we are indoctrinating them in the views on various issues we think are correct and its important they learn.

    If you don’t like the word indoctrination use another, only apply it consistently and don’t suddenly use the word “ religious indoctrination” for religious education when what you mean is teaching a religion is true.

  • Matt – you are so bloddy predictable.

    You will have an arrogant swipe at a working scientist with this sort of rubbish:

    “Science by it’s nature has to be taught from evidence.

    Read some philosophy of science. Science does not merely just follow evidence.”

    But you refuse to answer simple question I ahve put to you – many wo=hichg would involve only a simple yers/no but provide a huge amoluint of clairification.

    As for my question of a few days ago requesting example to support you claim – complete silence. Why am I not surpised.

    I repeat my comment her:

    “Matt – you say: “There are literally hundreds of private religious schools all over NZ which are not allowed to get state funds, ”

    Well, simple enough for you to provide a few examples (names, location, etc) for me to check out?

    Seriously Matt, I am happy to accept you claim as a fact – if it is a fact. But despite several requests you have not provided a single example. I don’t accept a single thing you say on faith – experience has taught me that you are not a reliable informant on these subjects.

    So Matt: Please provide identifiable information on these examples you claim.

  • OK formatting and spellling a disaster – but surely you get the message Matt?

    I have put this question to you so many times.

  • Matthew,

    Your arguments re that you have “shown this definition“ are ‘just so’ – they don’t make you *right*, regardless of what the thing says.

    e.g.

    “I did in the article, try reading it.” – I’m just asking asking for a straight definition of what you think it is; your article doesn’t do that: you defer to a footnote, that deferred to an article that in turn doesn’t really define it as such.

    “I respectfully suggest in light of this its you who does not understand the term.” – Rather than keep asserting that I am wrong, how about trying to read and understand what I’m writing? I asked for *YOUR* understanding of the term, as a simple definition. Why not just give it? I can’t just point one on your head. I know mine. I’m well aware of some meanings: some of which can be misappropriated through using them in different contexts. Hence asking what *your* use of it here is.

    I’ll stand by my point that you are confusing/conflating not privileging something with opposing it because that’s what comes through in your comments – it’s why I’d like to see your definition.

    You have tried to tried to argue that a lack of privilege is opposition in your *comments* (i.e. whatever your article says). That’s wrong-headed.

    Take any extra-cirricular activity. Parents/kids have to find another venue. It’ll likely cost them something. Do they create extended philosophical (some would say bafflegabble) arguments over it? Point is, why the tortured pleading? My reading is that you’re trying to demand a privilege by crying martyr. It’s gauche.

    The pragmatic thing is that it’s a solution that more-or-less works for everyone.

    A religion isn’t a right in that sense, it’s choice you made. You get to carry what comes with that choice.

    Not incidentally you’ve left out that churches (who are open to offering religious classes) have some privileges, ones that other extra-cirricular activity groups don’t enjoy. I’d personally say that’s a privilege not deserved myself. (It seems to me that it’s based on historical privilege, rather than a ‘right’ as such.)

    You’re trying to create a ‘cry martyr’ scene by pointing to state funding. Begging to be supported is asking for a privileged position, same as if any other extra-cirricular activity did. That’s not a ‘right’. The right is to exercise freely your choice of religion. You already have that. Similarly people choose different sports, etc. They have a right to choose that, but there is not “right” that obliges a school to offer their particular sport. In the case of religions, it’s compounded by historical tensions and that religions oppose one another. In order to stay out of all that, the state has opted to make it’s schools secular.

    “The state could adopt different policies whereby all schools where funded equally. It doesn’t. And this counts as priveledging secular schools over religious ones.”

    Taken literally, there’d be no private schools in that case and it doesn’t quite make sense. If a private school is set up, why should the government then be *obliged* to their wants? When it comes down to it, a private school is essentially a business (one that has to meet particular standards).

    Remember too, that religion is a choice: a want not a need. Also, I don’t think the govt ‘recruits’ schools as in “allows [-] schools to be state schools”.

    Here’s another option for you to think about. Set as a requirement that all schools (i.e. private or public) have no religious instruction at all. It’d make it completely even-handed with respect to private schools v. state schools with respect to religious instruction.

    (One reason I’m putting this up, is the difference in funding of private and state schools isn’t “about” religion.)

    To quickly address your other remarks:

    “This however singles out religious disagreement as I noted.” – firstly, you claimed I was focusing on *opposition* to religion, not disagreements *between* religions as you do here. Secondly, you’re turning this on it’s head. I’m not singling these things out – I wrote asking *you* not to extract portion of what I wrote (i.e. single out my phrase) from the context I wrote it in. You’re doing it again here! 🙂 They sit in a wider context.

    “I actually noted that argument in my article and rebutted it.” – your replies in comments illustrate — to me — that you don’t understand – that’s where I’m getting it from (i.e. regardless of what is in your article)

    “Repeating a rebutted argument does not unrebut it.” – for goodness sakes, this is silly. I’m not trying to ‘unrebut’ anything. The only reason I’m having to repeat myself is you seem to stubbornly refuse to even *consider* the point being made.

    “That’s simply an assertion, and it ignores the point. Even if secularists do not aim to priveledge something that does not in any way entail that the policies do not priveledge something.” – it wasn’t an assertion in the way you’re making out here and it was very much of the essence, but never mind.

    [Hope you don’t mind, but privilege has two ‘i’s and no ‘d’ – at least you’re consistent about I suppose; your spelling-check software ought to be flagging it.]

    “No it shows your inconsistent, in the first two sentences you grant that a line of argument follows and then in the last sentence you deny the same line of argument follows, thats inconsistent.” – no, it’s consistent given your misunderstanding. I know it’ll annoy you, but your reply here is re-affirming that (and a very good re-affirmation IMO). You can’t juxtapose secular and a particular religion in the context of state secularism in the way your questions tried to set up, as I tried to point out.

    “The latter are significantly stronger and more extreme accusations.” – trying to “win” by degree. (It reads to me as realising you’ve erred and trying to wriggle out it rather than just admit it.)

    “Again your not reading carefully because no where there did I say Ken wrote for you. I said that you had not responded to what I wrote and seemed rather to attack what Ken said I wrote.” – You made out I was writing things because Ken did; I pointed out I write for myself and am I’m replying to your comments.

    “Sorry but asserting a comparision is incorrect is not really a response.” – dismissing out of hand is not a good approach and, sorry, but you don’t get to duck this as it seems (to me) to be the nub of why your argument falls flat.

    “Err No, I am simply using the same argument you did,” – you’re not actually – *that was (the main) part of my point*. I can see what you’re trying to do, but it doesn’t work as it’s nonsensical to substitute a particular religion for ‘secular’ in the way you have given the aims of secularism.

    “the state rigs the system so that they are subject to massive economic disadvantage.” – there’s no conspiracy 😉

    “This is not tit for tat its reasoning by analogy.” – empty responses are tit-for-tat essentially by their nature 😉 (You’ve acknowledged it was empty, I swopped the word to illustrate it.)

    “Name calling is not really a response.” – I didn’t name call, I pointed to the thinking involved. (It did strike me as a little paranoid. Your use of ‘rigged’ earlier is similar.)

    “Great so you acknowledge that “secular” subjects can be taught from a particular ideological perspective. Good.” – you’re mixing up different uses of phrases. *Sigh* Not ideological in the sense you were referring to (i.e. shifting contexts), nor related you your previous use of ‘perspective’, etc., etc.

    “Read some philosophy of science. Science does not merely just follow evidence.” – don’t be arrogant, please. As is happens, I do (causally) read PoS (to the former) and the latter doesn’t follow from what I wrote.

    “This assumes that novels don’t put forward ideas.” – OK, I see where you’re coming from here now, but *good grief*. What are you proposing? A ‘banned reading list’? Of course novels present ideas – the idea is get readers to explore them, whether they agree with them or not or use them or not. Presenting novels with different ideas doesn’t (in itself) ‘have an agenda’ or oppose religions.

    “If teaching a particular religious teaching is true counts as indoctrination, then teaching a scientific theory is true is indoctrination.” – No, There is a *huge* difference here, although that’s a different debate. (Incidentally, if you think it through, you’re back at posing things as opposing your religion that are not.)

    “If you don’t like the word indoctrination use another, only apply it consistently and don’t suddenly use the word “ religious indoctrination” for religious education when what you mean is teaching a religion is true.” – I was not the one who used the phrase! 🙂 — I was pointing at *your* use of it, saying it didn’t seem appropriate.

  • Perhaps the length of my reply has caught the spam filter – it was rather long! – just a head’s up.

  • Matthew,

    No chance you could lift my comment from earlier today out of the spam (or wherever it’s sitting) ? – thanks.

  • [Guess I’ll try do what I can myself 🙂 Dug out of cache, etc. & lightly edited. Part 1 of 2. Part 2 later when I’ve time.]

    Matthew,

    Your arguments re that you have “shown this definition“ are ‘just so’ – they don’t make you *right*, regardless of what the thing says.

    “I did in the article, try reading it.” – I’m just asking asking for a straight definition of what you think it is; your article doesn’t do that: you defer to a footnote, that deferred to an article that in turn doesn’t really define it as such.

    “I respectfully suggest in light of this its you who does not understand the term.” – Rather than keep asserting that I am wrong, how about trying to read and understand what I’m writing?

    I asked for *YOUR* understanding of the term, as a simple definition. Why not just give it? I can’t just put one on your head. I know mine. I’m well aware of some meanings: some of which can be misappropriated through using them in different contexts. Hence asking what *your* use of it here is.

    I’ll stand by my point that you are confusing/conflating ‘not privileging’ something with ‘opposing’, because that’s what comes through in your comments – it’s why I’d like to see your definition.

    Take any extra-cirricular activity. Parents/kids have to find another venue. It’ll likely cost them something. Do they create extended philosophical argument over it? Why the tortured pleading? My reading is that you’re trying to argue for a privilege by crying martyr.

    Begging to be supported is asking for a privileged position, same as if any other extra-cirricular activity did. That’s not a rights issue. The rights are to exercise freely your choice of religion. You already have that. Similarly people choose different sports, etc. They have a right to choose that, but there is no “right” that obliges a school to offer their particular sport or your particular religion. In the case of religions, it’s compounded by historical tensions and that religions oppose one another. In order to stay out of all that, the state has opted to make it’s schools secular.

    A religion isn’t a right in that sense, it’s choice you made. You get to carry what comes with that choice.

    The pragmatic thing is that it’s a solution that more-or-less works for everyone.

    Not incidentally you’ve left out that churches (who are open to offering religious classes) have some privileges, ones that other extra-cirricular activity groups don’t enjoy. I’d personally say that’s a privilege not deserved myself. (It seems to me that it’s based on historical privilege, rather than a ‘right’ as such.)

    “The state could adopt different policies whereby all schools where funded equally. It doesn’t. And this counts as priveledging secular schools over religious ones.”

    Taken literally, there’d be no private schools in that case and it doesn’t quite make sense. Firstly, if a private school is set up, why should the government then be *obliged* to the wants of the private school? When it comes down to it, a private school is essentially a business (one that has to meet particular standards). Secondly, in the end the government should only be funding the secular bits of private schools in this scenario, in which case nothing has really changed. The parents are still paying for their choice of religious teaching for their child.

    (Also, I don’t think the govt ‘recruits’ schools as in “allows [-] schools to be state schools”.)

    Here’s another option for you to think about (i.e. as a thinking exercise). Set as a requirement that all schools (i.e. private or public) have no religious instruction at all. It’d make it completely even-handed with respect to private schools v. state schools with respect to religious instruction.

  • […] Bill, in its present form, fails to protect individual freedom of religion and belief (belief being a comprehensive viewpoint not based on religion). The proposed amendment only protects group religious rights, which is little protection at all […]