Curious Christian

In a recent article entitled Faith no more as World Youth Day fans flames of disbelief, Adele Horin commented, “I don’t know how World Youth Day is going down in your household but in mine it’s fanning the flames of militant atheism … Religions are best kept as a private matter of faith, with the state favouring none. When religion is in the heart or in the church, it can be happily ignored by non-believers or defended, if necessary, on the grounds of live and let live. When religion turns into a massive, publicly funded event that is in your face on a daily basis, the advocates of religious tolerance face a tougher task.”

Now, while I would contend that a private Christianity is oxymoronic (for Christianity is socially-orientated to its core) and that suggestions we abandon the public sphere reveal a deep lack of understanding (and indeed intolerance of a different sort), I agree that it is reasonable for citizens to ask questions as to whether public religion should be state sponsored. For instance, if alternative movement leaders like the Dali Lama or Brian McLaren or Richard Dawkins were capable of drawing a similar crowd, would the state go to similar lengths in underwriting their tours (indeed, as the Dali Lama is visiting Sydney in a week’s time we do actually have an opportunity to look into this closer).

But beyond all this, even if state sponsorship could be justified, might acceptance of state help still be unwise?

I can’t help thinking, if all this does is convert moderate Atheists into militant Atheists, well, should we not consider the possibility that state sponsorship may be a poisoned challis.