Wikipedia gives two broad senses of secularism in that it:

• asserts the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief.
• refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence.

The first point relates directly to the conceptual seperation of church and state, a political philosophy codified in the constitutions of many of the world’s democracies. The second to the notion of public reason.

In Australia, the pertitent part of our constitution with regards to the separation of church and state is Section 116 which states:

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.

Section 116 may read in a familiar manner to many as it is based on wording from the First Ammendment of the United States Constitution. It is weaker in practice however, and Australian courts generally interpret it narrowly. The establishment clause is taken to simply mean that the Federal Government may not declare any religion to be the official religion of the nation. The maintenance of a government that operates independently from the influence of any particular religion is dependent on the promotion of secular values in the community at large, and the representation of these values in the parliament. This is what I intend to effect because I sense that these values are in peril.

Now what exactly would I stand against? Consider the following recent announcements by the Labor Party, and whether they truly reflect the way a secular society should conduct itself:

• The $222 million expansion to the Howard Government’s ill-conceived National School Chaplaincy Program which seeks to place a proponent of religious beliefs into all our schools. Many of these chaplains are dealing with social and psychological issues for which they are not qualified. Harm is being inflicted on Australian children as a result. This funding is on top of the $165 million dollars already spent since its inception.
• The provision of $1.5 million for the celebration of Mary MacKillop’s canonisation by the Catholic Church, a religious organisation that can hardly be considered as being strapped for cash.
• That they will not repeal the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act; an ammendment which codifed a narrow, discriminatory definition of marriage in line with the notion of the religious institution.
• That they will forge ahead with their planned mandatory ISP internet filter at the behest of various religious pressure groups.

On the other side of the House is the prospect of a Tony Abbott led coalition government. Mr. Abbott’s track record needs no reiteration but as a small sample:

• He wants a study of the bible to be compulsory, imposing a single faith on all of our students.
• He wants a return to at-fault divorce, presumably an initiative to decrease net happiness.
• He is opposed to embryonic stem cell research, perhaps because he doesn’t think the job of our medical researchers is hard enough already.

Given his background, his close associations with individuals such as B. A. Santamaria and Cardinal Pell, and his stance on many ethical issues, Prime Minister Abbott would likely be the worst defender of secular values in recent history.

Neither of the major parties seem to want to stand for secular values. There are candidates at this election who will.

Given the nature of secularism, people are often concerned that the movement intends to destroy religious practice and beliefs and trample on the right of the religious freedom which is also protected by our constitution. These concerns are raised by both the religious and irreligious. Let me assert that this couldn’t be further from the truth. Secularism is the only way to guarantee freedom of religion in a country that supports communities of multiple faiths and those of no faith.

I am a Humanist, and as such I strongly support the IHEU’s minimum statement of Humanism which, amongst other things, affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. Whilst I do not personally accept supernatural views of reality, I accept the rights of others to hold them. I understand that the questions of existence and the nature of life are amongst the most important and difficult we consider. I would never deny anyone the right to draw strength and purpose from their personal beliefs.

I am also an atheist. I do not believe in the god of Abraham. This motivates me about as much as my lack of faith in the gods of Olympus or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. What does motivate me is the fair treatment of all people in our society and the advancement of individual liberty. Individual liberty must always be considered within the context of the common good, but we are still getting it wrong, and I feel that in many of these respects that the ideology of the political religious right is having a major impact in maintaining the injustice. I can’t abide it; all it takes is a little empathy to understand the unjust nature of many of these issues.

Having said that, there is one aspect of my atheism that does shape my outlook on life strongly: I do not believe in an afterlife. I believe that we all only have one shot at existence, and I want to help people fulfil their potential in this single life as much as I am able. The clock is ticking. Many of the reforms that are being actively opposed at the moment will eventually come to fruition simply through generational changes in thinking and acceptance. However, such changes still require people to actively agitate for them; and for the many who are suffering right at this moment, sooner is so much better than later.

At this election, please consider voting for a candidate other than those from the two major parties. Neither deserve your vote. If a secular society is one you think is worth defending, then I would ask you all to consider myself, your local Secular Party candidate or a Secular Party senate candidate when casting your ballot.

–
Authorised by John Goldbaum, 7 Rockwall Crescent, Potts Point NSW 2001.

Here’s the low down for:

• how to vote for me in the seat of Sydney
• how your preferences will be allocated if you vote for the Secular Party group on the New South Wales ballot

Naturally, if you do not find the allocation of preferences on either ticket to your satisfaction, you should modify them to best represent your interests. belowtheline.org.au allows you to fully customise a preference allocation before polling day to make sure your vote counts the way you want it to. Numbering 84 boxes requires some stamina but technologists are certainly doing their democratic bit to help you out!

–
Authorised by John Goldbaum, 7 Rockwall Crescent, Potts Point NSW 2001.

A snippet from the survey

Full PDF version

As many of you who know me well will also know, I do not undertake such an action lightly. I have always considered voting at an Australian election to be one of the most powerful duties I perform, but standing for election is a much weightier thing. I do this because I must; I can’t bear what I hear and see in the media and what comes up in regular discussions with my peers any longer. Many friends, whose opinions and viewpoints I respect, were despondent about the choice that they were being asked to make on August 21, even to the point of pledging to vote informally. I fear for a democracy where the people can not even choose one candidate that they feel will represent them effectively.

As for myself, I’m tired of equivocation; I’m tired of lackluster leadership; I’m tired of guarded responses and insipid discussion; I’m tired of petty, vacuous factionalism and I’m tired of policy driven by polling and focus groups rather than good governance. I’m tired of many things, and I think Australians deserve much better than all of this.

So why do I stand in this election? There are many reasons, but here are three main issues, concerning policies proposed by both major parties, that I simply can’t abide.

1) Depriving gay couples the right to be married

This is a fairly clear open-and-shut case of discrimination based on sexuality, and as such is a human rights abuse. One section of our community enjoys privileged status in the eyes of our state institutions, while another minority do not. It’s the same story repeated throughout history, just when we thought we’d left most of the bad old days consigned to the history books. I can not in good conscience stand by while people who love each other are denied the right to have their relationships recognised fully by a government that is meant to stand for their best interests. Gay couples contribute just as much to their communities as everyone else; governments have no problems levying taxes against them like everyone else; therefore they should have no problem granting them the same privileges as anyone else. The state should recognise relationships between couples universally.

2) The continued demonisation of refugees

It’s the 2010 Australian election. What’s one of the hottest election topics? I give you one guess! Yes! Just like every other election of the past decade, the miniscule number of boats carrying people seeking refuge from persecution and wars is a major debate. Do the major political parties have a “break glass in case of polling crisis” cabinet which contains a “demonise refugees” button that they can mash to gain another couple of percent in polling? They seem to reach for it all the time, and with a media that does not hesitate to sensationalise the arrival of “yet another boat” no wonder we can’t seem to shake this disgraceful treatment of human beings. People arriving via boat, seeking refuge in our country are an incredible minority of all international arrivals, and yet the subject dominates our country’s politics. At the centre of the issue, are real people, fleeing dire situations. I want to live in a country that treats these desperate people with respect and compassion, not contempt. We are an incredibly rich and privileged nation, and with such status comes both great responsibility and a great capacity to do good.

3) Conroy’s Internet filter

Stephen Conroy’s mandatory internet policy has to be one of the most exasperating examples of policy making I’ve seen. With an industry that continues to tell him that it won’t work, Internet users telling him they don’t want it, child protection advocates telling him it will not stop the exploitation of children, it still forms a part of Labor Party policy. Don’t let the two year delay fool you, it’s simply an election device to get a controversial topic off the agenda for August 21. If one of the intended aims of mandatory Internet filtering is to reduce the exploitation of children, the money would be far more effectively spent on the apprehension and prosecution of offenders. Just about every part of the policy stinks: from the secret blacklisting of URLs, to the laughable web-content only approach, to the definitions of refused-classification material. It’s bad policy; it is the policy of an Ostrich — just stuff every Australian adult’s head in the sand and all of the problems will disappear. Censorship is the tool of authoritarian governments the world over, and I will not idly let one of the greatest enabling technologies developed by humankind be subject to such unbridled and unwarranted political control.

These are not only my views, but the views of the party for which I stand. The Secular Party of Australia is a very young political party, and one of the main aims of this election is to promote awareness of the party and the ideals for which it stands. I encourage you to read about what we are trying to achieve.

In the end, I stand to provide one more choice for you to consider, and I hope it’s one that you find sensible, progressive and rational. At the very least, I would ask you to consider all of the candidates on your ballot, for both houses, and urge you to find some candidate that you can support. The Secular Party has candidates standing in nineteen seats, and Senate candidates for most states.

–
Authorised by John Goldbaum, 7 Rockwall Crescent, Potts Point NSW 2001.

Here’s a quote from an email sent out by Dale Clapperton, chairperson of Electronic Frontiers Australia:

EFA is quite simply appalled by this Bill. It is an affront to the rule of law and will likely be used as a tool of political censorship by the police. Australia is not a police state and the police should not be the judge, jury, and executioner of Internet content.

Parliament may not sit again before the Federal election is called. This Bill is typical of the contempt with which the coalition treats the Internet and the rights of all Australians to be free of ill-conceived government censorship. Should the coalition be returned to power, this Bill is likely to become law. Remember these issues on election day.

I grow more and more unhappy with the powers that legislatures are granting authorities in the name of defending our freedoms and values. I’ve always been particularly concerned with preserving our online liberties given the immense promise of a free Internet. I don’t particularly have the time however to be as vigorous as necessary to aid in this cause directly. That’s why I am a member of EFA. I basically contribute financially so that my rights in this digital age can be defended by people with the necessary expertise and means. If you have similar concerns and interests, I urge you to consider joining the EFA or equivalent advocacy group in your country. We need organised resistance to proposals such as these, lest they continue to erode our freedoms while ostensibly defending them.

Now the fury. Imagine my utter amazement during this morning’s broadcast of Channel Nine’s “Sunday” program in a segment extolling the successful political career of current Australian Prime Minister John Howard, where I am witness to a statement from the Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, in regard (or lack there-of) to the dissenters, the so-called “left-wing” elements of Australian society.

“It makes me happy that they are unhappy.”

This line delivered with a wry grin, dripping with contempt and self-satisfaction. The absolute gall of the man to sit there, reveling in the pain and dissatisfaction of some of his constituents. I assume it must be acceptable though, these anonymous people mustn’t of voted for him in the first place. Therefore they deserve no respect. Not even the fake respect they dole out to those in the set of people who belong to this government’s sycophantic approvers.

Do not be mistaken that I will not rejoice when he and his band of liars are ousted from power and consigned to the long list of megalomaniacs of whom history does not hold in much esteem.

If any at all.