acgrayling

Have a question for A C Grayling?

Posted on by

In just over a week, renowned philosopher A C Grayling will be joining us the Sydney Opera House to lead our panel in a discussion on Church and State.

Grayling has just released his latest book, The God Argument, which The Newstatesman suggested was his announcement as the “fifth horseman” of new atheism (along with other Ideas alumni Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and Harriss).

If you have a question for Grayling or any of our other panelists then leave it as a comment and we’ll be selecting the best ones to ask on the night. The event is on Sunday, 24th March so get moving!

You can also join in or follow the conversation on the day using the Twitter hashtag #churchandstate.

You should go here to get yourself tickets and see the full line-up.

COMMENTS
32

  1. Scott Honeysett on said:

    How can church and state be separated in Australia?

    Reply ↓
  2. Trevor Weare on said:

    Parliamentary standing orders in Australia require the recitation of The Lords Prayer before parliamentary proceedings. The Lords Prayer is written in chapter 6 of the book of Mathew and is preceded by verses 5 and 6 where Jesus states that prayer should not be practiced ostentatiously in public, but in private, behind closed doors. Shouldn’t Christians themselves have a problem with their sacred words being publically and frivolously thrown around by insincere politicians? Is it fair to expect non Christian politicians to tolerate the supremacy of the Judeo-Christian bible in our secular democracy? Is the recitation of The Lords Prayer in parliment a breach of section 116 of the Australian Constitution?

    Reply ↓
  3. Tom on said:

    Why should atheist Australian tax payers subsidize the tax exempt status of religious organizations?

    Would it not be fairer to allow religious tax payers to donate a relative portion of their taxes to the church of their choice & allow atheist tax payers to donate a potion of their tax to science or ethics based organizations?

    Reply ↓
  4. Trevor Weare on said:

    Last year, the federal governments school chaplaincy program was challenged in the high court. They ruled that the way it was funded by the federal government was unconstitutional but that the program itself was not. The school chaplaincy program may also have bipartisan support but there are concerns among teachers, counsellors and parents that chaplains aren’t suitably qualified to provide grief counselling and ethical advice. What advice would a Chaplin give to a student who thinks they may be homosexual? What advice would a Chaplin give to a student considering an abortion? Is it appropriate to have chaplains in our state schools?

    Reply ↓
  5. Trevor Weare on said:

    As Leslie Cannold suggests, is Australia a soft theocracy?

    Reply ↓
  6. Matt Searles on said:

    Policy decisions revolve around informed opinions on what constitutes and improves human well-being and what does not. Given that canonical texts are so open to interpretation that there are hundreds of significant denominations of Christianity alone, can political decisions informed by unfalsifiable theological assertions on topics such as gender equality and sexuality equality be considered on ground as solid as ones informed by modern, falsifiable, peer-reviewed scientific data?

    Reply ↓
  7. Penelope Toltz on said:

    How can we keep church and state separate when, at the beginning of every session of parliament, our politicians say a prayer?

    Reply ↓
  8. Matt Searles on said:

    Many people seem to believe that if someone has a particular set of morals, we cannot say that their morals are wrong. It’s up to the individual to decide what’s best for themselves and their family. However, the moment we admit we know what promotes human well-being scientifically, for example, “sparing the rod” is exactly what we ought to do to promote learning and emotional health, we must admit, some individuals or cultures can be absolutely wrong about what promotes well-being, and what does not. What positive contributions to public policy could be made from a theological position, that couldn’t be made from one of scientific enquiry?

    Reply ↓
  9. Simon Daniel on said:

    As a libertarian, I think the basis of the legal system should be the non-aggression principle. That basically means we should be free to do whatever we like as long as we don’t violate the property rights of others. By this principle only the church is a legitimate entity, not the state. If the state didn’t restrict property rights (e.g. through taxation, regulation) it would not be a state, just another group of individuals! If, for argument’s sake, we assume the state is legitimate, doesn’t the church have as much right to influence it as any other individual or group? Does that mean that the only way to separate church and state is to minimise the state’s power?

    Reply ↓
  10. Matt Searles on said:

    Theism has a long history of applying the brakes to the technological and ethical progress of societies around the world. From Galileo and Darwin, to stem cell research, to condom use in the most HIV infested parts of Africa, from subjugating and enslaving females, to the bigotry and discrimination directed at homosexuals, to the 140 million women living today with the consequences of female genital mutilation, to the burning of witches in Indonesia just this year for practising ‘black magic’. With such clear and prominent failings, what reasons would assure us that theological arguments are reliable and capable of directing public policy towards the growth of a more ethical and informed society?

    Reply ↓
  11. Jamie Burns on said:

    Do you think philosophy, as a Western discipline and practice, can offer people something neither religion or science perhaps can?

    Reply ↓
  12. Jamie Burns on said:

    What social and political benefits can you see in having philosophy, as a Western discipline and practice, taught in State schools, from elementary level through to high school?

    Reply ↓
  13. Matt Searles on said:

    In 2009, Nick Sherry, the then Assistant Treasurer announced that Australia “should be open to the potential for Islamic finance to operate in Australia”. Given the enormous economic and political power of religious institutions, is there any appreciable risk that our government could be pressured or seduced into bending or Australia law to ‘comprise’ with a theological law, such as that of Shariah?

    Reply ↓
    • Matt Searles on said:

      *bending Australian law

      Reply ↓
  14. Matt Searles on said:

    About a quarter of the Australian population is non-religious, religiosity correlates positively with higher crime rates, negatively with Human Development Index scores, and non-religious people find an equal amount of happiness, hope and meaning in non-religious explanations of reality. Why then, do religious organisations by dint of their claims about reality, enjoy greater economic incentive than secular non-profits such as Oxfam and UNICEF, and why aren’t they required to be as transparent about their accounting?

    Reply ↓
  15. Urban Gmur on said:

    Shouldn’t governance be based on a rule system undergoing constant re-examination rather than a set of infallible and unchanging theistic rules? Doesn’t theistic influence set up governance without the ability to change? Can theism even be democratised?

    Reply ↓
  16. Bryn Hutchinson on said:

    In Australia the single biggest activist group against marriage equality for same sex couples has been the church.

    How should the state respond to religious bodies that work to exclude segments of society by influencing legislation and community debate, while also upholding liberal pluralism?

    Reply ↓
  17. Nicky Davis on said:

    Australia’s Royal Commission cannot do its job without access to the Vatican’s secret sex abuse files. In Ireland the papal nuncio refused to even respond to a similar request, far less comply with it.

    Is Australia justified in linking co-operation by the Vatican and local church officials with the Royal Commission’s requests to the continued tax free status of church organisations?

    Reply ↓
  18. John Turner on said:

    Alex Carey and Noam Chomsky have both stated that democracy is being deliberately undermined by corporate propaganda. The New York Times in November 2011 reported the results of a German survey into social justice in the 31 OECD countries. No countries where religiosity is high were in the top six places. Australia was 21st and the USA 27th. Phil Zuckerman reported on two leaders, Denmark and Sweden, after a years of study, by stating, “I experienced a society – a markedly irreligious society- that was, above all, moral, stable, humane, and deeply good.”
    How much do the two aspects, religiosity and corporate propaganda, play in the relative performances.
    The NYT’s chart is available at;
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/opinion/blow-americas-exploding-pipe-dream.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

    Reply ↓
  19. Apollo and Dionysus on said:

    Do you think polytheism will ever come back in force? Why//Why not? We’re inclined to argue that the Gods of antiquity, ancient Greece in particular, are far more interesting than those on offer today.

    Reply ↓
  20. Michael-Francis Polios on said:

    To what extent is the USA characteristic of the pre-modern state? (in regards to religion)

    Reply ↓

  21. Religions of all kinds, except perhaps Buddhism, have been responsible for terrible atrocities against people, eg wars (the Crusades), vendettas against other religions (islam), paedophilia (catholics and Anglican priests) etc etc. Lets abolish them all. Have the State provide ethics and morals education in all our schools in lieu of those teachings of the religions.

    Reply ↓

  22. Religion appears to confer a social benefit on society, even if its spiritual claims are wrong.
    People who believe an omniscient deity is watching their private conduct, rewarding or punishing accordingly, behave more altruistically; a spiritual panopticon.
    Despite our hopes, as secularists, that people can be good “for goodness’ sake”, does religion have us trumped here?

    Reply ↓
  23. John Turner on said:

    This is an amended version of an earlier comment with evidence sources included.
    Alex Carey and Noam Chomsky have both stated that democracy is being deliberately undermined by corporate propaganda much of it provided by and/or funded by the USA. Also, in November 2011, a German survey into social justice in the 31 OECD countries. No countries where religiosity is high were in the top six places. Australia was 21st and the USA 27th. After a year of study Phil Zuckerman reported on two of the leaders, Denmark and Sweden,, by stating, “I experienced a society – a markedly irreligious society- that was, above all, moral, stable, humane, and deeply good.”
    How much do the two aspects, religiosity and corporate propaganda, play in the relative performances in the German study?
    ——————————————————————————————————————-
    The panel members may like to see the question and the evidence before the discussion.
    A chart of the German results were published in the New York Times and is available at;
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/opinion/blow-americas-exploding-pipe-dream.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

    The Phil Zuckerman comment is from his Book, “Society without God,” last sentence of Ch. 1

    Alex Carey’s work is collected in, “Taking the Risk out of Democracy” edited by Andrew Lohrey
    Noam Chomsky’s latest comments were in a speech in February that can be found at;
    http://www.alternet.org/visions/chomsky-corporations-and-richest-americans-viscerally-opposed-common-good

    Reply ↓
  24. Alfred on said:

    The state is responsible for it’s citizens in the here and now. Religions mostly give priority to a claimed after-life, for which there is no scientific evidence. So why should religions be allowed to interfere in affairs of state?

    Reply ↓
  25. Trevor Weare on said:

    Religious fundamentalists are committed to opposing same sex marriage. They claim Gods authority and quote holy books that support their conclusions. The book of leviticus details an attempt to exterminate gays, and thousands of years later its apparent that there is no rational justification for the hated and discrimination they endured. I doubt there is any reason or evidence that would compel religious fundamentalists to reconsider their opposition. Should we allow an intransigent group of religious fundamentalists to delay and obstruct the legalisation of an act that won’t impact their lives, marriages or faith, in any way? Since same sex marriage doesn’t violate the harm principle, should religious fundamentalists have any influence over the redefinition of marriage?

    Reply ↓
  26. Trevor Weare on said:

    Section 116 of the Australian Constitution prohibits the imposition of any religious observance, and yet parliamentary standing orders require the recital of the Lords Prayer. Is this a breach of the Australian Constitution? Should we replace the Lord’s Prayer with something that reflects our diversity and humanistic values? Something from Graylings The Good Book perhaps?

    Reply ↓
  27. Tim Mannah on said:

    To the extent published media can be trusted I read that if the Greek Orthodox church gave up only part of their wealth that they would be in position to bail out their country’s financial problems. One only wonders what the Vatican could do for Europe. Is it not in this country’s best interests to keep church and state separate before it gets to the point where state will fall at the knees of the church for financial assistance or are they better of in bed to ease the pain of asking?

    Reply ↓
  28. William on said:

    Why is it that in this day and age a book, that advocates murder, genocide, torture, supression of women, discrimination and lots of other horrible things, is still aloud to interfere with the running of a country?

    Reply ↓
  29. Phillip Hamilton on said:

    Being a member of the Secular Society of UNSW, I am wondering what AC is thinking is a most effective way of promoting secularism amongst religious and irreligious university students.

    Reply ↓
  30. William on said:

    Why is it that religion is granted special privileges, tax exempt status and is treated differently by the law.
    Lets say hypothetically if it was found out that a company, lets say in the child care industry, had been found out to have its employees raping children repeatedly for decades, its CEO and other EO’s all knew about it maybe even participated in it themselves and their response to it was to squash any investigation and to silence all parties.
    A) Would it not be the law departments/governments response to shut this business down immediately.
    B) Identify all responsible parties and put them in jail for as long as possible.
    C) Seek reparations for its victims.
    D) Put into place laws/rules/guidlines/practices or whatever to stop this from ever happening again.

    I don’t see this happening to the Church and I do not know why. What will it take to outlaw the Church who throught history it has shown is evil, violent, power hungry, controlling and capable of doing such horrendous things that would, if anybody else done it they would be gladly wiped from existence.
    If we chase down murderers who killed people 50 years ago why can we not do the same to the Church for all its atrocities.

    Reply ↓
  31. Athena on said:

    Could you comment on the inclusion of secular ethics classes in Public schools in NSW as an alternative to religious classes, and about religions monopolisation of ethics?

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>