Comments on: Separation of Church and State http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/ Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day... Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:31:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Matt Page http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/comment-page-1/#comment-1083 Matt Page Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:43:37 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-1083 Sorry, I wrote that too fast. The statement made by Ewan about secularists is not a 'preference opinion' but a statement similar to the one you wrote about the 'Liberal Party being evil, corrupt, and monstrous' Bill - as I was saying from the start, it is immature to say something like that without justifying it, because it is just an opinion. So thanks Bill for articulating that for the benefit of all Matt Page, Melbourne Sorry, I wrote that too fast. The statement made by Ewan about secularists is not a ‘preference opinion’ but a statement similar to the one you wrote about the ‘Liberal Party being evil, corrupt, and monstrous’ Bill – as I was saying from the start, it is immature to say something like that without justifying it, because it is just an opinion.
So thanks Bill for articulating that for the benefit of all
Matt Page, Melbourne

]]> By: Matt Page http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/comment-page-1/#comment-1082 Matt Page Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:01:10 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-1082 Thanks Bill for clearing that up for everyone - I agree with everything you have said, and maintain my stance that the statement, 'secularists have a distorted and wrong viewpoint' is only a 'preference' opinion Matt Page, Melbourne Thanks Bill for clearing that up for everyone – I agree with everything you have said, and maintain my stance that the statement, ’secularists have a distorted and wrong viewpoint’ is only a ‘preference’ opinion
Matt Page, Melbourne

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/comment-page-1/#comment-1077 Bill Muehlenberg Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:04:42 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-1077 Thanks Matt I guess it depends on how you define ‘opinion’. If you mean a mild belief about something, then surely some opinions are closer to the mark than others. And it also depends on what the opinion is about. If I say ‘In my opinion, Dr Pepper is the best soft drink around,’ I am stating my preference, my taste, and then yes, it is neither right nor wrong. If I say, ‘In my opinion, the moon is made of green cheese,’ then I am mistaken in my opinion. My belief is out of sync with reality. Thus if an opinion is a view or appraisal of a given situation, then one can ask how closely that opinion conforms to the facts. So it seems there may well be right and wrong opinions, or at least opinions that are closer or further away from truth and reality. I think in the context of this debate, you were talking about someone’s views as being neither right nor wring. But if there are strongly held views about important subjects, then one really can and should judge those views. For example it was the view of the Nazis that Jews were non-persons, deserving of death. I think most people would argue that such a view was wrong. If a person were to argue that torturing baby kittens for pleasure is OK, then most would argue that this is a wrong view or belief. Other opinions need to be argued for more clearly. If someone says, ‘I believe the Liberal Party is evil, corrupt and monstrous,’ then that is indeed an opinion, but an opinion that needs to be justified. One would ask, ‘what do you mean by evil?’, or ‘in what ways are they corrupt?’ and so on. I guess I am trying to say that in matters of taste, yes, there is no right or wrong, only personal preferences, but in matters of truth, there are. Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks Matt
I guess it depends on how you define ‘opinion’. If you mean a mild belief about something, then surely some opinions are closer to the mark than others. And it also depends on what the opinion is about.

If I say ‘In my opinion, Dr Pepper is the best soft drink around,’ I am stating my preference, my taste, and then yes, it is neither right nor wrong.

If I say, ‘In my opinion, the moon is made of green cheese,’ then I am mistaken in my opinion. My belief is out of sync with reality.

Thus if an opinion is a view or appraisal of a given situation, then one can ask how closely that opinion conforms to the facts. So it seems there may well be right and wrong opinions, or at least opinions that are closer or further away from truth and reality.

I think in the context of this debate, you were talking about someone’s views as being neither right nor wring. But if there are strongly held views about important subjects, then one really can and should judge those views. For example it was the view of the Nazis that Jews were non-persons, deserving of death.

I think most people would argue that such a view was wrong. If a person were to argue that torturing baby kittens for pleasure is OK, then most would argue that this is a wrong view or belief.

Other opinions need to be argued for more clearly. If someone says, ‘I believe the Liberal Party is evil, corrupt and monstrous,’ then that is indeed an opinion, but an opinion that needs to be justified. One would ask, ‘what do you mean by evil?’, or ‘in what ways are they corrupt?’ and so on.

I guess I am trying to say that in matters of taste, yes, there is no right or wrong, only personal preferences, but in matters of truth, there are.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: Matt Page http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/comment-page-1/#comment-1073 Matt Page Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:34:01 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-1073 Frank The statement, "There is no such thing as a right or wrong opinion" is a fact. There is no way you could possibly classify it as an opinion, but I would like to see your reasoning behind this ridiculous claim I just can't understand how you could perceive that statement to be an opinion - this was taught to me in primary school!!! Matt Page, Melbourne Frank
The statement, “There is no such thing as a right or wrong opinion” is a fact. There is no way you could possibly classify it as an opinion, but I would like to see your reasoning behind this ridiculous claim
I just can’t understand how you could perceive that statement to be an opinion – this was taught to me in primary school!!!
Matt Page, Melbourne

]]> By: Frank Gashumba http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/comment-page-1/#comment-1061 Frank Gashumba Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:32:38 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-1061 Matt, is the statement "there is no such thing as a right or wrong opinion" an opinion? If so, is this opinion right or wrong? Frank Gashumba, Melbourne Matt, is the statement “there is no such thing as a right or wrong opinion” an opinion? If so, is this opinion right or wrong?

Frank Gashumba, Melbourne

]]> By: Ewan McDonald http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/comment-page-1/#comment-1025 Ewan McDonald Tue, 24 Oct 2006 05:01:48 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-1025 Matt. I don't know exactly what your opinion is but for the sake of the argument I will assume it is some kind of secular worldview. If this is the case then your "opinion" says my "opinion" is wrong and vise versa. To say that there is no such a thing as a right or wrong opinion is not common sense. It is relativism. Ewan McDonald, Victoria Matt. I don’t know exactly what your opinion is but for the sake of the argument I will assume it is some kind of secular worldview. If this is the case then your “opinion” says my “opinion” is wrong and vise versa. To say that there is no such a thing as a right or wrong opinion is not common sense. It is relativism.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria

]]> By: Matt Page http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/comment-page-1/#comment-999 Matt Page Mon, 23 Oct 2006 06:41:28 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-999 Ewan, Your view of the world is only an opinion. My view of the world is only my opinion of the world. Since there is no such thing as a right or wrong opinion, then there is no point in me saying that your view (ie: opinion) of the world is wrong and my view (opinion) of the world is right. That isnt postmodernist at all - it's just common sense Matt Page, Melbourne Ewan,
Your view of the world is only an opinion. My view of the world is only my opinion of the world. Since there is no such thing as a right or wrong opinion, then there is no point in me saying that your view (ie: opinion) of the world is wrong and my view (opinion) of the world is right.
That isnt postmodernist at all – it’s just common sense
Matt Page, Melbourne

]]> By: Ewan http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/comment-page-1/#comment-998 Ewan Mon, 23 Oct 2006 06:35:18 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-998 I agree with Erik that in his words "most of those who have been crying for Australia as a republic also walk behind the banner of secularism." The Australian Democrats just released a discussion paper with the thinly veiled object being to completely expunge Christianity from Australian civil society under the guise of separation of church and state. One of their suggested "reforms" to achieve this is to call for a referendum on a republic. One wonders what the two issues have in common? It must be what Erik says above - the secularists want the opportunity to rewrite Australia's constitution to get rid of any mention of God. Ewan McDonald, Victoria I agree with Erik that in his words “most of those who have been crying for Australia as a republic also walk behind the banner of secularism.” The Australian Democrats just released a discussion paper with the thinly veiled object being to completely expunge Christianity from Australian civil society under the guise of separation of church and state. One of their suggested “reforms” to achieve this is to call for a referendum on a republic. One wonders what the two issues have in common? It must be what Erik says above – the secularists want the opportunity to rewrite Australia’s constitution to get rid of any mention of God.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria

]]> By: Ewan http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/comment-page-1/#comment-969 Ewan Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:15:48 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-969 Matt, you said you don't think my views are "wrong" just "very very different" to yours. How can this be? If our respective understanding of the world is so different, how can we both be right? Either you are right and I am wrong, or I am right and you are wrong. To say that neither of us are wrong sounds like postmodernism. Ewan McDonald, Victoria Matt, you said you don’t think my views are “wrong” just “very very different” to yours. How can this be? If our respective understanding of the world is so different, how can we both be right? Either you are right and I am wrong, or I am right and you are wrong. To say that neither of us are wrong sounds like postmodernism.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria

]]> By: Erik Werps, Melbourne http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/comment-page-1/#comment-968 Erik Werps, Melbourne Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:56:10 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/10/20/separation-of-church-and-state/#comment-968 Thanks Bill for an informative article. As Damian responded, we still have the Queen as head of state and thank God for that. The spiritual dimensions and benefits of that fact are enormous and have shaped Australia in to what it is today. The argument given by those who want to see a separation from 'Mother England' is that it is about time we as a nation stood on our own feet. After all we have come of age. The rewriting of our constitution is part of that and the secularists do not want God mentioned at all. This shows that most of those who have been crying for Australia as a republic also walk behind the banner of secularism. God save the Queen and may God save Australia! Erik Werps, Melbourne Thanks Bill for an informative article.

As Damian responded, we still have the Queen as head of state and thank God for that.
The spiritual dimensions and benefits of that fact are enormous and have shaped Australia in to what it is today.

The argument given by those who want to see a separation from ‘Mother England’ is that it is about time we as a nation stood on our own feet. After all we have come of age.

The rewriting of our constitution is part of that and the secularists do not want God mentioned at all.

This shows that most of those who have been crying for Australia as a republic also walk behind the banner of secularism.

God save the Queen and may God save Australia!

Erik Werps, Melbourne

]]>