The Captcha at this site is broken so I couldn't post my comment, since I've written it, here it is in response to this article:
Atheism a 'delusion' - John Lennox
Which view of God would the good professor like the media to discuss? We know the answer to this but it begs the question. What makes Professor Lennox think that his God deserves greater media coverage? Would he be happy if it was the Hindu pantheon or godless Buddhist doctrine or perhaps Scientology that was given preference? All of these are recognised religions in at least some countries. Surely if the media is to promote religion they should promote all recognised religions in a particular country. In Western countries this would mean time for a large number of religions. My preference is the current secular neutrality, but it is up to Christians to decide. You don't get to enter the public sphere alone any more, if you go in you hold hands with your co-religionists, no matter how you feel about them.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
A reply to: The search for Islamic solutions
by Shafiul Huq
*The comments section for this article is still empty, even after I posted my reply...So I will post it here in its original form.
*Edit: The comments have since been approved. I will leave this here to acknowledge that I was wrong about the comments.
I would never allow women and men to be separated in Australia, I would fight it with everything I had. I would also support the right of any person in any country to do so. Everyone should have the right to criticise anything that they feel it is fair to criticise, even if I don't like what they are saying. Blasphemy? What is blashpemy exactly? Who gets to decide? What is blasphemy to one person may not be to another and it's particularly difficult to decide in the very interpretable field that is religion. Does the Shia blaspheme against the Sunni because of the their differing interpretations of the succession to Mohammed. Does the Protestant Blaspheme against the Roman Catholic because they do not follow the rituals of the church or believe the Pope is the head of the worldwide church? These are questions that have come up many times in history and caused many deaths. This is Muslims forcing their beliefs on other Muslims, Christians forcing their beliefs on other Christians. That is what secularism is really about. Stopping any one group from forcing their ideas on another. As a consequence some people will also be free to stop believing, in whatever tradition they started in. You live in Australia at the moment, surely you've noticed that you are as free to follow your religion as a women is to uncover her head. What if Australia was a strict Christian or even Atheist country, and we told you that you had to mix with women, drink alcohol and eat bacon to prove your loyalty to the Australian Christian or Atheist way of life, by law, not just some yobbo yelling at you, but law. I'm guessing you would think that wasn't ok. Whether Islamic Bangladeshi's like it or not, there are people in their country who do not believe that Islam is the correct way of life, and they have a right to be accommodated. That is why secularism is necessary. That is what Secularism is about.