Good evening all,
I am finding these contradictory arguments a bit hard to follow. If I may
play devil's advocate (another entity supported by even fewer people, but I
digress) for a moment, without being labelled myself one way or another and
getting people off-side.
Sorry I jumped the gun and misread "do not recognise any religion at all"
as being atheists, but isn't that the issue - those who do not believe in
God, ie atheists, will be offended. If the number of atheists is indeed
quite low, as Trudy and Rod assert, (and regretting that atheists, and
agnostics, will be offended, but then name anything that does get 100%
agreement) than surely it is fair enough to include a reference to a belief
held by the overwhelming majority of Australians, and a form of words can
be found that incorporates the diversity of that belief.
Rod, you quoted a lot of statistics which boil down to the conclusion that
between 16.6% and 31% (allowing for growth) follow no religion. As Trudy
points out this is not the same as not believing in God, the preamble
statement would not claim that Australians follow a religion, but recognise
that Australians believe in God, which the census apparently says is true.
To go the other way and claim that we are a secular state, ie "concerned
with the affairs of this world, not spiritual or sacred" (Oxford Dict.), is
even more extreme than including a God reference and will offend a greater
number. It certainly does not recognise what we claim for the spirituality
of Indigenous culture.
Nevertheless, all that said, I think the indigenous references will be lost
if too many contentious issues are included in the same question.
Disempowerment increases as the number of questions put at referenda
decrease, instead we should be asked to assent to each part separately.
Anything else is tactical manoeuvring.
Please read this in the spirit it was intended, no offence meant.
Regards,
Peter.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rod Hagen
> Sent: Monday, 22 February 1999 18:06
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [recoznet2] RE: ABC Newslink - Labor Member
> questions God's
> inclusion inpreambl
>
>
> At 08:33 AM 22/2/99, Trudy and Rod Bray wrote:
> >I don't think he said that 30% were atheists, Peter, in fact, the
> >percentage of those is actually
> >very small.
>
> The last census doesn't indicate that 30% are atheists.
>
> It does, however indicate that 16.6% of people indicated that
> they followed
> no religion in 1996 and that a further 9% didn't answer the question.
>
> Moreover the number of people indicating no religion had
> grown by some 35%
> since the previous census compared with, for a example, a
> 2.9% fall in the
> number of people identifying as Anglican.
>
> If the same growth/fall rates have been sustained since 1996
> there are now
> far more atheists / agnostics in Australia than there are Anglicans.
>
<snip>
> (source ABS Web data on religious affiliation.)
>
> My own view is that the preamble should state that we are a
> secular state,
> which recognises the freedom of people to either believe, or
> not believe,
> as their personal conscience dictates.
>
> Cheers
>
> Rod
<snip>
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
