Should religion be recognised by the state?

JustAnother

Sleepy wrote:

That's a fair analysis if the imposition of one section of society's religion upon all citizens isn't a big deal to a particular individual. In the case in point it's not a huge deal to me tbh, but it irks me enough to be interested in hearing others' opinions on it.

Well, that depends on the interpretation of "imposition". It is only two minutes out of the whole day and it could well be argued that opposing it is supporting censorship. I used to support the removal of it from RTE on the grounds that it was implicit state support for religion and I got replies ranging from "that's a pretty petty example" to implications that I was a West Brit.

I honestly don't see how. I don't recognise the church as a body with a right to take part in governance in any way shape or form. That's not to say that (as much as I'd disagree with it) I'd ever refuse someone's right to base their politics on their religious beliefs.


Well, if you'll take it second hand, I've heard my housemate complain of it happening in her class.

Wouldn't it be covered by anti-bullying policies?

It's an opinion that I think would be interesting to examine further. Anecdotaly, most 'Catholics' I know disagree with such swathes of the teachings of their religion that their belief system could more accurately be considered to be that of the Anglican church. I believe it is the demonisation of Protestantism in this country (not entirely unjustified historically speaking) that has stopped some of these people from switching churches.


Unless I'm mistaken, the Catholic church has never granted it's followers the right to form their own opinions on such matters. A 'Good Catholic' is supposed to take his opinion from his priest. This was one of the key theological aspects of Catholicism that lead to the Reformation.

True - the Catholic Church has a habit of doing this and also equivocating to interpret Church as hierarchy or including laity as they see fit.

As an agnostic, I would consider Atheism to be a faith. It's a definite belief that there no a God. This is taking a premise as fact based on faith in one's own logical reasoning. While I'm inclined to agree that there almost certainly isn't a God, the fact that it's impossible to prove such a negative means I can't completely rule it out.

It's such an odd definition of faith - it's so broad it could apply to dental hygene as much as atheism.

Sleepy

JustAnother wrote:

Well, that depends on the interpretation of "imposition". It is only two minutes out of the whole day and it could well be argued that opposing it is supporting censorship. I used to support the removal of it from RTE on the grounds that it was implicit state support for religion and I got replies ranging from "that's a pretty petty example" to implications that I was a West Brit.

You were right the first time. Just because something is an unpopular view, doesn't make it right. The assertion that being against such state support of religion makes one a 'west-brit' is ludicrous. Though, the kind of people who make these comments are the very ones that only describe themselves as catholic to differentiate themselves from "the tans" (i.e. ignorant twats).

Wouldn't it be covered by anti-bullying policies?

I'm sure it would but I see no reason for our schools to give children reasons to pick on each other. Conversely, I can see a few million things wrong with our schools being under such tight control of a religious organisation.

It's such an odd definition of faith - it's so broad it could apply to dental hygene as much as atheism.

Maybe it's odd to you but it's the only one faith stands up to logical questioning so I'll stick with it for now thanks.