http://www.nzherald.c...

Not sure if Skeptics is really the right forum for this (more an athiest/humanist thing) but thought it would be of interest to most. Seems to be the statement about "secular state" that is the real issue, as it would explicitly marginalise the validity of influence on state affairs by religious organisations.

Did anyone from the Humanists et. al. submit to the Human Rights Commission on this issue?

Ooh that makes my blood boil. Letting Roman Catholics have their own schools instead of forcing them to go at the time Church of England influenced state schools was the dumbest mistake of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries NZ government wise.

As they now a sizable percentage of the religous population try and drag New Zealand back down into the Dark Ages so too possibly will Muslims.

Rachael, are you serious?

Ooh that makes my blood boil. Letting Roman Catholics have their own schools instead of forcing them to go at the time Church of England influenced state schools was the dumbest mistake of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries NZ government wise.

As they now a sizable percentage of the religous population try and drag New Zealand back down into the Dark Ages so too possibly will Muslims.

Not sure if you are simply being sarcastic, but it does not come across well in a text post. Its hard to judge tone in short text form.

Either way, I think it is not appropriate for Skeptics to attack the rights of other groups to put their point of view across. I am an atheist, and try to apply critical thinking to all claims, including religious ones. The suggestion (tongue in cheek or not), that Roman Catholic or other schools 'drag NZ back down into the Dark Ages', I feel is just an ad hominem attack. My understanding of data (and personal experience) is that children attending Catholic schools in NZ have good achievement levels, perhaps better than the national average.

I personally don't feel comfortable with groups like the Exclusive Brethren church running a set of schools as I feel that they fall on the cult side of the religious spectrum. But if Skeptics or any other group want to set up a school, then as long as they play by the rules (i.e. standard syllabus has to be covered including evolution), then it should be tolerated.

In the letter to editors page this Saturday, was a letter from a Catholic bishop pointing out that the article quoted in the Herald used emotive language such as 'forcing' a secular 'retreat' and that the commission 'bowed'. That is sensational writing, and we as Skeptic's should always look at the facts behind the rhetoric in media stories. The facts are (as I understand them), that the commission released a draft for comment, and that the Catholic church and others put forward a submission pointing out (quite rightly) that religion in NZ is far more than a private matter and that NZ cannot accurately be described as a secular state.

You might want that to change, or it to be otherwise, but the human rights commission has a role to be inclusive of all groups. Mainstream Christian religions are in steady decline in NZ and I can't see that changing in the near future, but religion being a private matter when we still have minor political parties based around religious beliefs?

Well said, Grant. The churches have as much right to public discourse on their desired position within society as anyone else. I posted the link because I thought it was interesting, not a call to arms. No surprise, I guess, that the reporting was a little 'pumped up' in its language.

It does touch on the point that NZ is neither a secular or non-secular state; we have no state sponsored religion (though arguments could be made for the Church of England as de facto), nor fundamental constitutional protection of religious freedoms, but then there is also nothing explicitly requiring separation of church and state and nothing stopping religious belief being imposed as law. Documents like those being prepared by the HRC have nothing in the way of real legal clout, but they highlight the fact that we operate in a vague middle-world that only works because most of us in society are fair and reasonable. That could one day change, in either direction.

New Zealand is a secular state.
Secular, adj: of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred.

Our state is none of the above (religious, spiritual or sacred). Tamaki and friends may argue that Christianity underpins NZ institutions, and they are certainly welcome to their view point. However, no religious institution in NZ has power over government bodies, unlike in some states. They can lobby, comment upon and attempt to influence policy, as can everybody else. They do not have, and should not have, an elavated position of influence due to their belief system.

As for this article, yes a brush of sensationalism, especially in the first few paragraphs. Changing the wording from an anthropologists 'private sphere' to a calming 'personal matter' may sooth the souls of those who wish to take offence, but the objective here is to underscore the fact that no particular religious belief, or lack of belief, should be given precedence over any other.


BTW: secular definition came from dictionary dot com, not Wikipedia. ;P

New Zealand is a secular state.
Secular, adj: of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred.

Our state is none of the above (religious, spiritual or sacred). Tamaki and friends may argue that Christianity underpins NZ institutions, and they are certainly welcome to their view point. However, no religious institution in NZ has power over government bodies, unlike in some states. They can lobby, comment upon and attempt to influence policy, as can everybody else. They do not have, and should not have, an elevated position of influence due to their belief system.

My point was that there is nothing robust in place to prevent religious groups taking up a dominant position in government and applying their doctrines to the governance of the state as a whole. Unlike the USA, for example, which is a deeply religious country, but has strong constitutional protections preventing run-away religious control of governmental institutions.

BTW: secular definition came from dictionary dot com, not Wikipedia. ;P

:-)

It is so easy to offend people in text on the internet and often in real life as well.

I think 'why all New Zealand schools should be secular and why all religious schools should be banned' might be a good topic for a debate one night.

(Personally I have always loved relief teaching at Catholic schools, the kids are just adorable - loving, well behaved and I have always found their libraries well stocked with books on Darwin's theory of evolution)

James,
Point well made, but is that not the intent of the documents the HRC is forming?
What is the word on a NZ Constitution btw?

Rachael,
propose it for discussion.
Would be interested if anyone wishes to play devil's advocate on that one.
:)

NZ already has a constitution, albeit an unwritten one, embodied in a range of legislation and tradition, and governed largely by precedent.

Rachael: Sorry to disappoint you, but technically New Zealand is NOT a secular state. Our head of state's (The Queen's) official style is "Elizabeth, by the grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and her other Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". This is part of the constitution of New Zealand. We are a constitutional monarchy, and our monarch is defined in religious terms (including an old title that Henry VIII picked up from the pope before he dumped his first wife!). I would agree though that we are in the main a de facto secular state.

One advantage of becoming a republic, and perhaps adopting a new, written constitution, is that we could formally ditch the remaining religious vestiges in our structures of government, and in our constitution.