26 July 2010

The Canberra Declaration?

| johnboy
Join the conversation
41

There’s a lot of internet noise coming my way over the “Canberra Declaration” made on Friday.

Christian Today explains:

The declaration was drafted by over 20 Christian leaders, and it follows on from the 2009 Manhattan Declaration and the 2010 Westminster Declaration in stating that when Christian values are respected and allowed freedom of expression, not just confined to so-called sacred spaces but in the public, the society is richer and healthier.

Three areas are drawn into particular attention is the religious freedom, marriage and family, and the sanctity of human life.

Hundreds of leaders are expected to sign the Canberra Declaration in the coming weeks.

There’s a website they’re still working on if you’re interested.

Join the conversation

41
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

As rebcart suggested, this is a non-theist declaration that may have prompted the canberra declaration.

——————-

At our AGM last Saturday, Atheist Ireland adopted the following amended version of the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life. The original version was written and adopted by delegates at the world atheist conference “Gods and Politics” held in Copenhagen from 18-20 June 2010.

This version is based on feedback on the original from various sources. It is written more concisely, clarifies some ambiguous phrases, and categorises the points into groups. Like the original, it is a starting point for discussion and not an unalterable set of principles.

Declaration on Religion in Public Life

We support this amended version of the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life. We invite other people and groups to also support it.

Personal Freedoms

•Freedom of conscience, religion and belief are unlimited. Freedom to practice religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.
•All people should be free to participate equally in public life, and should be treated equally before the law and in the democratic process.
•Freedom of expression should be limited only as prescribed in international law. All blasphemy laws should be repealed.

Secular Democracy

•Society should be based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Public policy should be formed by applying reason to evidence.
•Government should be secular. The state should be strictly neutral in matters of religion, favoring none and discriminating against none.
•Religions should have no special financial consideration in public life, such as tax-free status for religious activities, or grants to promote religion or run faith schools.

Secular Education

•State education should be secular. Children should be taught about the diversity of religious beliefs in an objective manner, with no faith formation in school hours.
•Children should be educated in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge. Science should be taught free from religious interference.

One Law For All

•There should be one law for all, democratically decided and evenly enforced, with no jurisdiction for religious courts to settle civil matters or family disputes.
•The law should not criminalize private conduct that respects the rights of others because the doctrine of any religion deems such conduct to be immoral.
•Employers or social service providers with religious beliefs should not be allowed to discriminate on any grounds not essential to the job in question.

chewy14 said :

p1 said :

I bet these are the same people that try and claim that atheism and science are both religions too.

True atheism may not be anything like a religion, but the attitudes of a large number of people who purport to be atheists could be described as nothing else.

So, in your considered opinion: “religion = acting like a wanker”

I’m with you all the way!

Skygod, are you praying to yourself?

Perhaps time for a prayer:

Dear god, please protect me from your followers.

chewy14 said :

True atheism may not be anything like a religion, but the attitudes of a large number of people who purport to be atheists could be described as nothing else.

🙂 In the same way that people who very strongly promote walking, while denigrating motorised transport are actually motor sport enthusiasts.

You are right though, this argument it one of those situations where we only actually hear from the overly vocal nutbags on both sides.

p1 said :

I bet these are the same people that try and claim that atheism and science are both religions too.

True atheism may not be anything like a religion, but the attitudes of a large number of people who purport to be atheists could be described as nothing else.

Here we go, I found the document I was after produced before the last election, “21 Reasons Why Gender Matters”, the one that got Warwick Marsh fired.

Al throughout the document, it makes references to ‘gender confusion’, ‘gender disorientation pathology’, and as codewords for homosexuality, but still directly describes homosexuals within-text.

It shares a few authors with this Canberra Declaration.
Warwick & Alison Marsh
Bill Muehlenberg
Peter & Jenny Stokes
Barry Williams

Highlights:
Point 21: Gender disorientation pathology encourages the sexual and psychological exploitation of children.
Point 20: Gender disorientation pathology is preventable and treatable.
Point 17: Gender disorientation pathology will lead to increased levels of drug abuse
Point 16: Gender disorientation pathology, as in the form of sexual addictions, is often a symptom of family dysfunction, personality disorder, father absence, health malfunction or sexual abuse.
Excerpt from Point 15: Same-sex attracted people stagnate in their psychosexual development at the early teen stage

And here are their policy proposals from the last election.

I bet these are the same people that try and claim that atheism and science are both religions too.

From what I can tell, this stupid declaration is in response to a declaration drafted up a few weeks back at a big atheist conference, which tried to define a working set of secular ethics to follow.

Shows just how much religious nutjobs don’t get the point…

Religion: f#cking with people’s minds since Adam was a boy! 🙂

I’m a committed Christian (some say nutbag extremist) but personally I get a tad twitchy when religious groups become political. Jesus and his disciples didn’t try to change the politics of the day – he made a more significant change than that – and power often corrupts. That said I do appreciate having a govt that doesn’t oppose my freedom to believe the things that I do, and I’d generally defend the rights of others to practice different beliefs than me. Its fair for any group (religious or not) to try influence the law – thats the law.

The Canberra Declaration: sending all the outed priestly pedos to jail? Start there and ill read ya website.

As I an doing this one from my phone I don’t have the benefit of a link, but the head of ACVI is the same guy who was fired by Nicola Roxon from the Men’s Health Ambassador program a few years back.
Something about having his name as an author on a document about how gays cause drug abuse, are pedophiles, and generally eat babies.
Boringly titled “30 reasons why role models are everything” or somesuch???

On their website they say: “Police states and totalitarian nations inevitably begin….”

I say: “with nutbags like you”!

georgesgenitals4:25 pm 26 Jul 10

colourful sydney racing identity said :

georgesgenitals said :

I only had a quick look at the link, and it initially seemed pretty benign, although clearly others here have done more reading and research. I have to admit to being a little surprised, though, at the level of intolerance being shown to the website’s owners, and to religion in general. If you don’t believe or want to participate, no problem, but do we really need to be getting this worked up about it?

We should tolerate intolerance?

A good question. I’m not trying to defend this, just tease out what people really think about it.

georgesgenitals4:11 pm 26 Jul 10

Yeah, fair enough.

georgesgenitals said :

I have to admit to being a little surprised, though, at the level of intolerance being shown to the website’s owners, and to religion in general. If you don’t believe or want to participate, no problem, but do we really need to be getting this worked up about it?

As Erg0 said, when they start making calls to there members from the Parliament House to try and spread influence not just confined to so-called sacred spaces but in the public then it becomes something which should be debated in public by rational people. At this point I am able to bring up the fact that they are using 2000 year old heavily revised text purportedly written about a supernatural being to justify the exclusion of people who interpret life differently.

oops, I stuffed that up. I was replying to georgesgenitals’ comment: “but do we really need to be getting this worked up about it?”

colourful sydney racing identity3:22 pm 26 Jul 10

georgesgenitals said :

I only had a quick look at the link, and it initially seemed pretty benign, although clearly others here have done more reading and research. I have to admit to being a little surprised, though, at the level of intolerance being shown to the website’s owners, and to religion in general. If you don’t believe or want to participate, no problem, but do we really need to be getting this worked up about it?

We should tolerate intolerance?

Pommy bastard3:00 pm 26 Jul 10

Ah, the Boscastle Museum of Witchcraft.

Second only to the Jamaica Inn Smugglers Museum as the worst, and i really do me worst, museum in the world.

Thumper, Swansea is the proud owner of; “a museum which should be in a museum”. (Dylan Thomas)

Oh, and Jamiaca Inn is owned by one of Cornwall’s BNP candidates.

The cat did it said :

so the tribes of the uncircumcised had better look out , or they will be smitten

I’m safe.

georgesgenitals said :

I only had a quick look at the link, and it initially seemed pretty benign, although clearly others here have done more reading and research. I have to admit to being a little surprised, though, at the level of intolerance being shown to the website’s owners, and to religion in general. If you don’t believe or want to participate, no problem, but do we really need to be getting this worked up about it?

I don’t see why not – once religious views are brought into the political sphere it becomes a competitive situation, not a “live and let live” scenario.

screaming banshee said :

Three areas are drawn into particular attention is the religious freedom, marriage and family, and the sanctity of human life. Wouldn’t that be four areas?

given the punctuation of this diatribe, ‘marriage and family’ comprise a single clause, so just the ‘one area’ for these two things. that said, “three areas…” should entail are the religious…, not “is”

clearly though, penny wong won’t oppose this, though perhaps she might be picky about the grammar.

georgesgenitals1:45 pm 26 Jul 10

Bosworth said :

“when Christian values are respected and allowed freedom of expression, not just confined to so-called sacred spaces but in the public, the society is richer and healthier

Three areas are drawn into particular attention is the religious freedom, marriage and family, and the sanctity of human life.”

Translation:

We want the Government to enforce our opinions upon others.
Specifically, we want the Government to impose conservative christianity upon the population, discriminate against the gays, and outlaw abortion under any circumstance.

I agree that no-one should have an opinion forced on them.

I only had a quick look at the link, and it initially seemed pretty benign, although clearly others here have done more reading and research. I have to admit to being a little surprised, though, at the level of intolerance being shown to the website’s owners, and to religion in general. If you don’t believe or want to participate, no problem, but do we really need to be getting this worked up about it?

The cat did it1:39 pm 26 Jul 10

Definitely at the extreme end of the christian spectrum, if the Statement of Faith on their website is any guide-

Bible literalists: ‘We believe that the Bible, consisting of Old and New Testaments only, is verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit, is inerrant in the original manuscripts, and is the infallible and authoritative Word of God’
ie creationists, and enthusiasts for Old Testament morals in their entirety (so the tribes of the uncircumcised had better look out , or they will be smitten …)

End of timers: ‘We believe that the return of Jesus Christ is imminent, and that it will be visible and personal.’ They’ve been believing this imminent return stuff for about the last 1980 years.

More half-baked theology inspired by backwoods USA

All the above – enough of these moral crusaders and their ‘Declaration’ – wow, let’s start our own here!

Now, what on earth would our ‘declaration’ be about I wonder…..???

Hells_Bells74 said :

Skid – you have been instrumental yet again in this case. Keep it up!

Seriously, I have a paid job already, if someone wants to pay me to muckrake though…

screaming banshee said :

Three areas are drawn into particular attention is the religious freedom, marriage and family, and the sanctity of human life. Wouldn’t that be four areas?

Marriage and family is a boolean statement, your confusion relates to the ambguity of Family and Marriage potentially being two separate topics, and English being a wierd language.
(ie: When I say “I stay inside when it is hot and when it snows” it means for most people “I won’t go outside if it is hot or if it is snowing”)
In this case, I suspect for ACVI Family means conception by sex OR sex for conception OR heterosex (ie: goodsex), and Marriage means marriage between Man AND Woman.
Logically, when issues arise where (Marriage = 'True' AND Family = 'True'),
ACVI are selectively vocal supporters.

By contrast, when issues arise such as:
IF
(Family = 'True' AND Marriage <> 'True')
(IE: unmarried breeders, adultery, divorce, adoption without marriage) or
(Family <> 'True' AND Marriage = 'True')
(childless hetero couples, IVF) or
(Family <> 'True' AND Marriage <> 'True')
(naturally childless gays, lesbians, etc),
THEN ACVI = fiercely against it.

What they mean by religious freedom is goodthink.
What they mean by Christian values are respected and allowed freedom of expression… in the public [space]… the society is richer and healthier is arguing with me is thoughtcrime.
What they want is even more exceptional treatment.

If they were really asking for religious freedom and equality, they wouldn’t call for only Christian values to be recognised, and would be powerfully supportive of Section 116.

Australian Constitution – Section 116 – Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

and here’s another pearler from the website:

http://www.canberradeclaration.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=18

Apparently people who live together unmarried are the main cause for society’s woes…. with these unholy folk consequently having children being “more than 10 times more likely” to have a broken family by the time the child is 16, and if they do eventually get married are more likley to divorce anyway. Damned if you, damned if dont it seems ;).

Im sorry, but I just had to take the time to read this ‘declaration’ in the hopes that the “freedom of expression” they are seeking is just that. Unfortunately it isnt.

In reading the declaration at their website http://www.canberradeclaration.org.au, it seems just a little bit hypocritical.

It revolves around 3 principles, Religious Freedom, Marriage And Family, Human Life… which are very noble until you read the fine print. Then it gets scary… very scary.

Anyone who signs this declaration is against legislation that prevents- discrimination, hate crimes, and relgious and sexual vilification. Their arguement is that these laws can restrict their right to express their religious views. Absolutely rediculous proposition.

Anyone who signs this declaration is of the view that the only family unit that can provide protection, education, love, support, and nuturing is that provided by a married man and woman… in fact this declaration proposes that the child is “guaranteed” these family benefits soley because each parent is of a different gender.

Anyone who signs this declaration is of the view that the church is ultimately responsible for your life, not you. Those that share this view are against abortion, euthanasia, and some reproductive technologies. They “insist on the right of all persons… to be protected” from such medical intervention, even when those people might actually want it. They are using the word “protect” when what they are really saying is “controlled by a 3rd party”.

And do you know what the really scary thing is here? Almost half the population of Australia is prepared to vote in a man who believes in each and every one of these far right wing ultra conservative points made in this declaration. God help us if Abbott gets in (pun very much intended).

“when Christian values are respected and allowed freedom of expression, not just confined to so-called sacred spaces but in the public, the society is richer and healthier

Three areas are drawn into particular attention is the religious freedom, marriage and family, and the sanctity of human life.”

Translation:

We want the Government to enforce our opinions upon others.
Specifically, we want the Government to impose conservative christianity upon the population, discriminate against the gays, and outlaw abortion under any circumstance.

screaming banshee11:04 am 26 Jul 10

“You are free to do what we tell you” – arm waving nutbags!

Three areas are drawn into particular attention is the religious freedom, marriage and family, and the sanctity of human life. Wouldn’t that be four areas?

Pommy bastard11:01 am 26 Jul 10

You have to be careful you know, look at Boscastle. They had a museum of witchcraft there, and then they took on a woman vicar. God was so displeased with this he sent a flood of biblical proportions to ruin the village…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boscastle_flood_of_2004

Of course, they repaired it.

Hells_Bells7410:44 am 26 Jul 10

Skid – you have been instrumental yet again in this case. Keep it up!

As long as there is ‘freedom’ from religion, we’re pretty right. It’s okay to chose it, lose it or never have it.

I have no time for these sneaks.

The problem with Christian values is that they are not terribly universal (even amongst Christians) and are at times mutually exclusive.

Three areas are drawn into particular attention is the religious freedom, marriage and family…

I trust, then, that they will be fully in support of my religious beliefs which allow gay marriage? Or is the the whole “freedom to believe what we tell you to believe” type of “freedom”?

“… when Christian values are respected and allowed freedom of expression, not just confined to so-called sacred spaces but in the public, the society is richer and healthier.

Society is richer and healthier when the values of ALL PEOPLE are respected and allowed freedom of expression, regardless of their religion.

I blame an antheist Prime Minister for the decline in moral values in our society.

Would never happen in the US of A

Tolerance, not so much.
Australian Institute for Christian Values (aka Australian Christian Values Institute) share a Research Director with Salt Shakers, Jenny Stokes.
Peter & Jenny Stokes at ACVI (two thirds of the way down)
Peter & Jenny Stokes at Salt Shakers

Jenny Stokes is something of an active contributor to the various causes of Catch the Fire people.

I could do deeper muckraking on everyone else with the group’s elements, but frankly I have better things to do.

Tolerance from an extremist group? Yeah right. My god is better than your god and he plays guitar and wears cool threads. Mmkay.
Gotta love blind faith. Crackpots.

colourful sydney racing identity9:15 am 26 Jul 10

Society is richer and healthier when people think for themselves rather than follow the teachings of Jesus, the purportedly magic jew; Mohammed; the Great Green Arkleseizure or any other mythical beast.

georgesgenitals9:07 am 26 Jul 10

Seems like a declaration of tolerance more than anything. If this helps people to accept others, then great.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.