Why do we try to convert theists?

mossieh

A poster here recently pointed out that in arguments here and in the theist forms, we are (both sides) trying to convert, not converse. It struck me as very true, for me personally anyway, when I actually gave it some thought. It is or was, a subconcious thing for me so I thought 'why?' 'why would I care that a religious person believes what they do?'

It's clear why theists do, they feel that we are risking our eternal souls and I think for some of them, Kelly1 springs to mind, that concern is very heartfelt and our intransigence causes them real frustration. I appreciate this concern, on a human level, but I obviously don't share it. But surely there's no reason for us to want to convert them?

There are though, good reasons too. I'm going to try to express a few:

• Religion is used as a justification for armed conflict all over the planet.
• It is mixed up in the constitutions and laws of many countries, countries that contain atheists and people of other religions who are affected equally by those laws.
• It is used as an excuse for the lesser status of women in many countries.
• The hierarchy of most religions live in palaces, built from the donations of those who have often almost nothing for themselves.
• It has stifled the expansion of human knowledge by encouraging followers not to question, not to think, to cause (as an extreme example) people to actually accept that the world is 6000 years old.
• It has trapped people in loveless marriages, time spent in misery that they will never get back.
• It encourages people to forgoe pleasure in this life in anticipation of the next causing lives to be half-lived.

I think the world would be better off without it. I truly do. I don't think it will happen any time soon.

Religion has done good, or more accurately, some people with religious beliefs have done good.

• Comfort for the bereaved or the dying that comes from religious belief is a fine thing. It might ultimately be illusory but if it works, if it helps people then that's fine by me.
• Irish monks were a shining light of learning and knowledge at a time when the written word was barely surviving in Europe.
• The contribution of religious orders to hospital work over the years was huge.
• Churches have always provided a focus to communities, a reason for people to come together.

There are many other examples....but...it's just not enough, not to justify the bad stuff. Not nearly enough.

Dave!

Well for me it's simply a case of enjoying a debate..... and it's also a case of believing (heh) that religious beliefs are just plain silly and based on bullsh*t. If I had enough time to research properly I would go into the conspiracy theorists' forum and point out how they're talking bullsh*t, but that unfortunately involves a bit too much effort on my part. But basically if I encounter anybody talking out their arse I'll usually take the time to point it out to them. Sometimes I just get frustrated dealing with people though, and so stay out of certain debates and discussions, or else I'll be out of my depth because it gets a bit too scientific (both for example: creationism thread).

I'm not on any crusade to eradicate religion, because really I'm undecided as to how much of a difference it would make if it were removed. But even if it were desirable to remove it, the likelihood of doing so is so small that it's hardly worthwhile trying.

I'm really just out to point out flaws and errors and bullsh*t..... Religion happens to be full of all three, so it constitutes a natural target for me.

I'm not necessarily out to "convert" anybody, that's probably why I don't go around preaching in real life, but if someone starts spouting crap, then it's often natural to highlight that crap! A by-product of this is perhaps that some people "convert". Oh well.

robindch

I'm not out to "convert" anybody. That's a central part of most religions' cultural imperialism, and a part that I heartily detest.

It certainly would be nice to see the occasional religious person say something like "gosh, I didn't know that", but even that's rare -- once every few months perhaps.

I suppose that changing an opinion simply isn't compatible with maintaining an idea that's thought to be perfect to start with.

mossieh

I should clarify; I don't mean to imply that all posters here are out to covert or that that is the ultimate goal of every argument but I do think it is a constant subtext, particularly in some of the more heated discussions.

I also mainly concentrated on the more real and practical issues, as opposed to the whole theological/philosohical side of things. They are two separate discussions in my mind.

Convert? I don't want to convert anyone
except to using some sense maybe

jtsuited

i certainly don't aim to convert. i have a problem with people ignoring rationale and logic. that's why i get into these types of debates.

karen3212

I don't know, I've only met two or three people who want to convert people to religion because they fear the other person will burn in hell etc.

I thought it was more about fear, for their own safety and security, and the safeness and security of the others in their own society. I know I got a bit paranoid about religion when the US went to war in Iraq. I also am blessed by knowing a few Sth US people who are completely intolerant of any other culture/religion. They seem to be absolutely sure that the only way to live - and for other people to live, safely and well and morally- is their way.

That's really what I hate about some religions, our way is the only right way, preaching and teaching intolerance. Of course political ideologies are similar, but we can openly question them, and present the other side as it were without wondering are we doing a bad thing.

Also there are people out there(I think so anyway) who've never heard anyone say God may not exist. I think it's good that one can question the existance of anything one likes on forums like this. Plant a little doubt, so less people go charging wilfully ahead all agreeing they are doing the right thing.

mossieh

bluewolf wrote: »

Convert? I don't want to convert anyone
except to using some sense maybe

But why? How does it affect your life whether people 'use some sense' or not?

mossieh

karen3212 wrote: »

Plant a little doubt, so less people go charging wilfully ahead all agreeing they are doing the right thing.

A good aim, I think.

Dades

When we engage in a debate or argument about any subject, are we not trying to bring the other party around to our point of view? Even the most inane arguments are about "converting" the other person into sharing your belief on the subject.

So in that sense, like anyone involved with a discussion where beliefs (on whatever subject) differ - we are trying to persuade the other party to share our belief as to what is true. It's only in religious terms this is called "convert".

There are hundreds of threads all over Boards with people arguing two sides of a debate. But it's only when it involves religion that people even mention the word, which brings to mind priests with a cross in one hand, and a sword in the other.

PDN

mossieh wrote: »

A poster here recently pointed out that in arguments here and in the theist forms, we are (both sides) trying to convert, not converse. It struck me as very true, for me personally anyway, when I actually gave it some thought. It is or was, a subconcious thing for me so I thought 'why?' 'why would I care that a religious person believes what they do?'

It's clear why theists do, they feel that we are risking our eternal souls and I think for some of them, Kelly1 springs to mind, that concern is very heartfelt and our intransigence causes them real frustration. I appreciate this concern, on a human level, but I obviously don't share it. But surely there's no reason for us to want to convert them?

I am someone who spends a large proportion of his life attempting to convert others to a particular belief. I can assure you I would not waste hours posting here on the off chance that someone might be converted. In terms of hours invested per soul saved it would make no sense whatsoever in comparison with our church activities that produce a regular crop of converts.

So why do I post here? Several reasons I guess:
1. I've always liked a good argument. And one or two of the posters are actually very intelligent and give you a good enjoyable debate.
2. Generally I do not post on here to attack atheism, but rather to defend Christian beliefs and practices from attacks that I would believe to be unjustified or even untrue.
3. Some posters here seem to have pretty rigid stereotypes of what Christians think and believe. It's fun to mess with their heads by pointing out how their stereotypes don't apply. I sometimes go on American fundamentalist websites and stir up some **** for the same reason.

Religion has done good, or more accurately, some people with religious beliefs have done good.

This I find interesting. The bad things are all the fault of religion, therefore religion is bad.

The good things are to the credit of religious people, not religion itself. This enables you to believe that such people have done good apart from, or even in spite of, their religion, so religion is still bad.

Don't you think that's just a teenie bit biased?

robindch wrote:

It certainly would be nice to see the occasional religious person say something like "gosh, I didn't know that", but even that's rare -- once every few months perhaps.

I suppose that changing an opinion simply isn't compatible with maintaining an idea that's thought to be perfect to start with

That is rather unfortunate, but is hardly helped by the actions of certain atheist posters who regularly present themselves as having some knowledge of theology or church history when they manifestly have no idea what they are talking about other than the ability to cut and paste from some rather ill informed sources. I might add that such posters go on to the Christianity board, not to defend atheism from attack, but simply to attack and abuse any Christian belief or practice that happens to be under discussion. In my experience, the atheists and Christians on these boards display an equal inability to admit when they are wrong.

Of course some posters, on both sides of the fence, are wrong more than others, because they persist in arguing about stuff they know nothing about. If we all confined ourselves to discussing things that we actually had some knowledge of then there would be less need to admit that we were wrong. That's why I tend to steer clear of scientific discussions - why make a fool of myself by arguing about something on which I am ignorant? (That last sentence is pretty much an open invitation, so insert smart ass response as appropriate )

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

That's why I tend to steer clear of scientific discussions - why make a fool of myself by arguing about something on which I am ignorant? (That last sentence is pretty much an open invitation, so insert smart ass response as appropriate )

You certainly through your lot in the discussion on Huckabee's ridiculous views on evolution and tried to to bend all sorts of logic reasoning vis a vi evolution, aids, global warming. All matters of Science.

I think you're a supressed barrister or politician and just enjoy arguing a particular side, no matter what.

death1234567

If someone thinks 2+2=5 would you not try to help them see the error?

Theists have an unfortunately high level of influence in the world today. Its in the interests of humanity that this level of influence be greatly reduced, as a result non-theists will naturally try to encourage theists not to be so stead fast in their views and open up to logic and science for the good of everyone. IMO of course.

ghouse

death1234567 wrote: »

If someone thinks 2+2=5 would you not try to help them see the error?

We are not dealing yet in terms of absolutes, either on the creationist side or our side. It just is not that simple.

I agree with the OP, perhaps there is too much argument, and not enough discussion.

I doubt however, that religion has that long to go. I mean, look at the more fanatical religious extremists, particularly the muslims. I doubt they'll be tolerated forever. It's all just a matter of time.

death1234567

ghouse wrote: »

We are not dealing yet in terms of absolutes

Of course, it was just a simple example to illustrate the point.

seamus

death1234567 wrote: »

If someone thinks 2+2=5 would you not try to help them see the error?

That's assuming that 2+2=5 is incorrect.

That is, you believe that their answer is incorrect, but you have no way to prove or disprove their correctness and neither do they. You can certainly justify your correctness without proof, but then so can they.

Fact is, you can only "help" someone if they want it. If someone is happy with what they believe, then you'll find more often than not that you can say whatever you like, but it won't change them.

I'm all for correcting people when they make factual errors, but trying to make them see your point of view is a whole other thing entirely.

From my experience of atheists, they're either passive - meaning that they will only discuss it when directly challenged - or aggressive - meaning that they will attack religion as soon as the subject is brought up.
The latter group tend to scoff and laugh when religious subject matter is raised and will then attempt to tell the religious people how wrong they are, even though that's not what they were looking for.

The former will generally have an "each to their own" attitude that's tolerant of people's choice of religion.

Of course, the nature of religion is that the passive type of atheist doesn't write, "I'm an atheist" on their forehead, whereas the aggressive type does. So to a religious person, it appears as though every atheist is arrogant, argumentative and aggressive because they're the only atheists they knowingly engage with.

ghouse

death1234567 wrote: »

Of course, it was just a simple example to illustrate the point.

Sorry if I seemed pedantic. I enjoy a good discussion with creationists and I feel somewhat open to their interpretation of evolution, but still maintain my own views from the scientific literature. Education is probably the best way to help people see the evidence presented.

Beating them down with absolutes and arrogance like Zillah (not just him, and my own opinion) is prone to doing, only drives people away from this forum. Hardly the point of a forum in the first place.

Tim Robbins

ghouse wrote: »

Beating them down with absolutes and arrogance like Zillah (not just him, and my own opinion) is prone to doing, only drives people away from this forum. Hardly the point of a forum in the first place.

Where's Hivemind these days?

Obni

PDN wrote: »

If we all confined ourselves to discussing things that we actually had some knowledge of then there would be less need to admit that we were wrong.

... and boards.ie would consist of mainly vacant forums.
Next, you'll be asking people to post opinions that are not only informed, but interesting!

ghouse

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Where's Hivemind these days?

A mod coming to kill me? Or a poster that was a bit crazy?

pH

seamus wrote: »

From my experience of atheists, they're either passive - meaning that they will only discuss it when directly challenged - or aggressive - meaning that they will attack religion as soon as the subject is brought up.
The latter group tend to scoff and laugh when religious subject matter is raised and will then attempt to tell the religious people how wrong they are, even though that's not what they were looking for.

The former will generally have an "each to their own" attitude that's tolerant of people's choice of religion.

I see things from a different perspective, as an atheist I think they're all wrong and wasting their time, but what I primarily object to is them pushing their religious morality on me.

I have absolutely no doubt that if it was possible the catholic church in Ireland would like a return to the power and influence they had up until the 50/60s. And here's my problem, I really couldn't care less if religious people want to live by additional morals - not use condoms, not eat pork, not drink alcohol but history tells us that these people are deeply hypocritical and what they really want is *me* to obey their rules, they can break these rules themselves all the time, after all won't their loving god forgive them?

I'm annoyed that when I pay tax, the government then gives it to religious institutions so that can heal and teach us, with their own religious angle thrown in.

I don't like it that if I go to court someone will ask me to swear on the bible by default, many US atheists don't like the phrase "In God we trust" (which they clearly don't) on their currency, or "one nation under God" in their pledge of allegiance.

I don't like it that our national news organisations still go to Catholic leaders for a 'take' on issues of morality - catholic bishops should be free to teach their morality in churches, and Catholics should be free to follow it of course, but I couldn't care less what a Catholic Archbishop thinks I should or shouldn't do with my penis.

So yes possibly there are 2 types of atheists, those who don't care about the religious dogma still heaped on them in the 21st century and those that do, and yes the 2nd group are more vocal.

seamus

pH wrote: »

So yes possibly there are 2 types of atheists, those who don't care about the religious dogma still heaped on them in the 21st century and those that do, and yes the 2nd group are more vocal.

Well, that's not quite what I was referring to, but I see your point.

You will find that anyone who has religious morality "pushed" on them will tend to resist and enforce their position, regardless of how laid back they are.

People for the most part tend to not fight something if it doesn't really affect them. Swearing on the bible in court (do we still do that here?) shouldn't really affect an atheist. Theoretically it gives them carte blanche to lie their ass off because they don't believe that the bible has any authority, therefore they can swear on it all they like.
To an atheist, swearing on the bible to tell the truth, is about as binding as promising Santa that they'll be good. Or at least it should be.

pH

seamus wrote: »

Well, that's not quite what I was referring to, but I see your point.

Great! as long as people realise this is not about "being clever" or a smartarse debate on the net, this is about real issues which affect our freedoms and what happens to our tax money.

You will find that anyone who has religious morality "pushed" on them will tend to resist and enforce their position, regardless of how laid back they are.

I think that some atheists definitely are in a "don't rock the boat" mindset, out of disinterest or even a small amount of fear, and are quite happy to have their kids baptised to they can go to a local school etc.

People for the most part tend to not fight something if it doesn't really affect them. Swearing on the bible in court (do we still do that here?) shouldn't really affect an atheist. Theoretically it gives them carte blanche to lie their ass off because they don't believe that the bible has any authority, therefore they can swear on it all they like.
To an atheist, swearing on the bible to tell the truth, is about as binding as promising Santa that they'll be good. Or at least it should be.

Yes, I believe bible swearing is optional in Ireland, but this is still in our constitution:

The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

seamus

pH wrote: »

I think that some atheists definitely are in a "don't rock the boat" mindset, out of disinterest or even a small amount of fear, and are quite happy to have their kids baptised to they can go to a local school etc.

Well, I'd say it's a more of a, "This isn't restricting me in any way" mindset.
That is, if getting their child baptised to get into a local school, for example, is what needs to be done, then they'll do that for the sake of the child because having a person baptised ultimately doesn't restrict the child or the parent, nor otherwise remove any freedoms from them. The best interests of the child will override any principle of non-baptism, purely because baptism is inconsequential to an atheist. It's just some strangely celibate guy pouring water on babies' heads.

When religion or religious belief actually impacts on someone's freedom or otherwise requires to do something that they have a problem with, I find that even those who tend to not rock the boat will make their position clear.

Dades

ghouse wrote: »

A mod coming to kill me?

Nope, but this one's watching you to make sure you're done labeling individual posters.
No doubt said poster will be along in due course to respond.

pH

seamus wrote: »

The best interests of the child will override any principle of non-baptism, purely because baptism is inconsequential to an atheist. It's just some strangely celibate guy pouring water on babies' heads.

You've made this point twice now, let's turn it round - how many Christians to get into a good and convenient local school (which they have paid for with their own tax money) would be happy to have their kids undergo a Pagan ritual to get their kids into a school? They'd be happy to get up in front of their friends and family and swear to bring the child up in a pagan faith? All this to get their child into a pagan school where a Druid sits on the school board and they get to perform pagan rites twice a week ?

Would they really say all this pagan stuff is nonsense?, what harm's a bit of sheep blood?, we don't believe in this stuff anyway?

I really believe that no Christian would agree with that, and yet you're suggesting that atheists should?

seamus

pH wrote: »

You've made this point twice now, let's turn it round - how many Christians to get into a good and convenient local school (which they have paid for with their own tax money) would be happy to have their kids undergo a Pagan ritual to get their kids into a school? They'd be happy to get up in front of their friends and family and swear to bring the child up in a pagan faith? All this to get their child into a pagan school where a Druid sits on the school board and they get to perform pagan rites twice a week ?

Would they really say all this pagan stuff is nonsense?, what harm's a bit of sheep blood?, we don't believe in this stuff anyway?

I really believe that no Christian would agree with that, and yet you're suggesting that atheists should?

The difference is that atheism is unique in that it gives no stock to any religion. A Christian would mainly have an issue with it because a child would be practicing a religion in contravention of their own and otherwise damning their soul to eternal hell.

Religious people give weight to religious beliefs and rituals, both to their own and to those of other religions. Atheism by it's very nature doesn't because it is the very lack of any type of religion. So religion rites are nothing more than odd chants. They have no weight, authority or consequence.

If an atheist feels that there's little harm to be done by having a child particpate in religious rites, then where's the problem. I don't expect every atheist to feel this way, but I wouldn't expect anyone to consider an atheist a hypocrite for putting the interests of the child above inconsequential religious belief.

Tim Robbins

seamus wrote: »

The difference is that atheism is unique in that it gives no stock to any religion. A Christian would mainly have an issue with it because a child would be practicing a religion in contravention of their own and otherwise damning their soul to eternal hell.

Religious people give weight to religious beliefs and rituals, both to their own and to those of other religions. Atheism by it's very nature doesn't because it is the very lack of any type of religion. So religion rites are nothing more than odd chants. They have no weight, authority or consequence.

If an atheist feels that there's little harm to be done by having a child particpate in religious rites, then where's the problem. I don't expect every atheist to feel this way, but I wouldn't expect anyone to consider an atheist a hypocrite for putting the interests of the child above inconsequential religious belief.

what's your own religious stance Seamus?

seamus

"None", officially

I just spent five minutes (well OK, two minutes) trying to sum it up in a post, but "None" puts it best. There is no particular "box" that I can see I would fit properly into.

Tim Robbins

seamus wrote: »

"None", officially

I just spent five minutes (well OK, two minutes) trying to sum it up in a post, but "None" puts it best. There is no particular "box" that I can see I would fit properly into.

Sounds like an atheist to me.
What would you fill in on census?

seamus

"None".

Let's just say that the "is there/isn't there" debate doesn't weigh very heavily on my mind.

I've accepted that if there is a God, there's an equal chance that *I* am God, so it's win-win for me

Zamboni

seamus wrote: »

The difference is that atheism is unique in that it gives no stock to any religion. A Christian would mainly have an issue with it because a child would be practicing a religion in contravention of their own and otherwise damning their soul to eternal hell.

Religious people give weight to religious beliefs and rituals, both to their own and to those of other religions. Atheism by it's very nature doesn't because it is the very lack of any type of religion. So religion rites are nothing more than odd chants. They have no weight, authority or consequence.

If an atheist feels that there's little harm to be done by having a child particpate in religious rites, then where's the problem. I don't expect every atheist to feel this way, but I wouldn't expect anyone to consider an atheist a hypocrite for putting the interests of the child above inconsequential religious belief.

I think the point is that no publicly funded school should have these criteria in the first place.

seamus

Zamboni wrote: »

I think the point is that no publicly funded school should have these criteria in the first place.

Well, if I did take it up wrong, then I should declare that I agree completely. It's a debate for another thread/forum though.

Rev Hellfire

On the OP topic I suspect that forums such those under the 'Religion and Spirituality' forum give pretty views of the opinions of the majority of people who profess to fall under their various banners. By their very nature, the people who post here are either out for a good argument/discussion or fanatical in their belief/disbelief. I would say the number of active particpents of these forums is probably fairly small compared to the active userbase as a whole on boards.ie for example.

The reality of the situation ( I believe ) is that most atheists are as committed to the cause as most Christians are to their belief. ie not very, they're just going along with the flow. The issue is just plain unimportent.

Tim Robbins

seamus wrote: »

"None".

Let's just say that the "is there/isn't there" debate doesn't weigh very heavily on my mind.

I've accepted that if there is a God, there's an equal chance that *I* am God, so it's win-win for me

Most people who post here do care, have thought about it and feel able to discuss it. Be careful, judging atheists and to think you know where we are coming from.

Most atheists here have spent a good bit of time thinking about it and are perplexed why other people who have also spent a good bit of time thinking about it actually believe there is a God and believe in a particular one.

It's makes no logical, rational sense and there is an element of curious, fascination in it all.

pH

seamus wrote: »

The difference is that atheism is unique in that it gives no stock to any religion. A Christian would mainly have an issue with it because a child would be practicing a religion in contravention of their own and otherwise damning their soul to eternal hell.

No, a Christian should equally believe that chants or prayers to sun gods are meaningless, and as long as they continue to pray and worship their 'true' god on Sundays, and they're doing it all for the child's good then what harm could it possibly do?

I really dislike the idea that I'd be expected to attend a religious building and make promises in front of friends and family to bring a child up in the Catholic faith, just so they could go to a school *I'd* paid for with my taxes.

Rev Hellfire

pH wrote: »

No, a Christian should equally believe that chants or prayers to sun gods are meaningless, and as long as they continue to pray and worship their 'true' god on Sundays, and they're doing it all for the child's good then what harm could it possibly do?

Not quite true, since some christians for example would believe that these deities are that ball of laughs Satan. Praying to such 'satanic' entities would be very serious in their view.

pH wrote: »

I really dislike the idea that I'd be expected to attend a religious building and make promises in front of friends and family to bring a child up in the Catholic faith, just so they could go to a school *I'd* paid for with my taxes.

Society forces many things on people against their wishes in order to make them conform its own ideals. At present society deems the current setup suffiently good as to not require a radical reimplementation.

PDN

pH wrote: »

I really dislike the idea that I'd be expected to attend a religious building and make promises in front of friends and family to bring a child up in the Catholic faith, just so they could go to a school *I'd* paid for with my taxes.

Amen. Me too!

pH

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Society forces many things on people against their wishes in order to make them conform its own ideals. At present society deems the current setup suffiently good as to not require a radical reimplementation.

Which would have been an equally good argument for Apartheid.

Rev Hellfire

pH wrote: »

Which would have been an equally good argument for Apartheid.

True, except for one major difference. Here the majority are the ones who through approval or indifference are continuing the status quo. Apartheid was as we know the reverse with a minority dictating to the majority.

pH

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

True, except for one major difference. Here the majority are the ones who through approval or indifference are continuing the status quo. Apartheid was as we know the reverse with a minority dictating to the majority.

I for one an not particularly swayed by the idea that once you can get 51% of the population to agree with you the other 49% have no rights, but if this concept of "majority" matters to you then scratch my reference to apartheid in SA and replace it with:

Which would have been an equally good argument for the persecution of Jews in 1930s Germany or the continuation of US segregationist policies in the 50s and 60s.

seamus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Most people who post here do care, have thought about it and feel able to discuss it. Be careful, judging atheists and to think you know where we are coming from.

Well, the great thing about atheism is that you only need to apply logic to a situation to appreciate their viewpoint. There's no messy scripture or made-up rules to complicate things, it's just simple logic.
Being a pretty logical person myself and having one very vocal atheist relation, I don't judge atheists but I'm fairly confident that I see their point of view and share it in many respects.

While I say that the issue of theistic existence doesn't weigh heavily on me, the religion issue is one that does.

I really dislike the idea that I'd be expected to attend a religious building and make promises in front of friends and family to bring a child up in the Catholic faith, just so they could go to a school *I'd* paid for with my taxes.

More correctly, the school would have been built by the religious orders, but your taxes pay for everything else. In fact your taxes pay for everything that makes it a school, the religious order just runs the building. That's mainly why it bothers me that the religious order gets to decide who does and doesn't get in - they have very little input into the actual education.

I for one an not particularly swayed by the idea that once you can get 51% of the population to agree with you the other 49% have no rights, but if this concept of "majority" matters to you then scratch my reference to apartheid in SA and replace it with:

Which would have been an equally good argument for the persecution of Jews in 1930s Germany or the continuation of US segregationist policies in the 50s and 60s.

Except that in the case of schools, it's not so much a case of "being forced" to deal with these schools, it's a case of us being left to deal with these schools. The number of non-denominational schools is growing, so while it's presently difficult to get your child into a non-denominational school, you're not prevented from doing so and the option is becoming more available all the time.

Change will always be quite slow and while the trend is now to build non-denominational schools, the pressure (political and public) just doesn't exist to force all public schools to take the non-denominational stance. It's not so much a matter of there being an active policy of discrimination, just a will to ignore that any discrimination exists.

Rev Hellfire

pH wrote: »

I for one an not particularly swayed by the idea that once you can get 51% of the population to agree with you the other 49% have no rights, but if this concept of "majority" matters to you then scratch my reference to apartheid in SA and replace it with:

Which would have been an equally good argument for the persecution of Jews in 1930s Germany or the continuation of US segregationist policies in the 50s and 60s.

You can hardly compare the persecution of the Jews and by implication the consequent holocaust which followed with the issue of religious sponsorship in primary schools. But either way to answer your question then yes both are permissible within a democracy, the morality of the actions of the majority does not in my view invalidate democratic principles.

Its a side issue really, but ties into the OP post in that the schools are the way they are because most people (athiest & believer) really don't care and are happy to just work within the system as long as it doesnt cost them.

Dades

Godwin's Law already and it's only page 3!

mossieh

mossieh wrote: »

But why? How does it affect your life whether people 'use some sense' or not?

It doesnt - it would affect theirs

pH

seamus wrote: »

More correctly, the school would have been built by the religious orders, but your taxes pay for everything else. In fact your taxes pay for everything that makes it a school, the religious order just runs the building. That's mainly why it bothers me that the religious order gets to decide who does and doesn't get in - they have very little input into the actual education.

Not correct - currently as it stands for new schools:

Building costs
There is still a local or patron contribution to building costs. It is now limited to 5% of the total cost and capped at €63,486.90.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/education/primary-and-post-primary-education/going-to-primary-school/ownership-of-primary-schools

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

You can hardly compare the persecution of the Jews and by implication the consequent holocaust which followed with the issue of religious sponsorship in primary schools.

Which is why I said the 1930s, so as not to be accused of comparing catholic ownership of primary schools with the holocaust.

But either way to answer your question then yes both are permissible within a democracy, the morality of the actions of the majority does not in my view invalidate democratic principles.

No they're never permissible in a democracy, a democracy is about fair and equal rights for all, not about the majority inflicting its views and morality on everyone else.

seamus

pH wrote: »

Not correct - currently as it stands for new schools:

But how many new catholic schools were built last year or 2006? (not a rhetorical question, I'd be interested to know )

Rev Hellfire

pH wrote: »

No they're never permissible in a democracy, a democracy is about fair and equal rights for all, not about the majority inflicting its views and morality on everyone else.

Actually that's exactly what a democracy is all about, what ever 'rights' it grants to minorities it does so though the principle that the majority are in assent to the granting those 'rights'.

pH

seamus wrote: »

But how many new catholic schools were built last year or 2006? (not a rhetorical question, I'd be interested to know )

I guess you could start by counting the ones with religious sounding names from this list.
http://www.maryhanafin.ie/september29.htm

Ekancone

death1234567 wrote: »

If someone thinks 2+2=5 would you not try to help them see the error?

No, it is not my responsibility to teach that person, and it is their right to be wrong. However, i would not accept this person demanding that 2+2=5 be taught alongside 2+2=4 in schools. This is my problem with religion, they try to force it on people, especially children. I consider this behaviour abusive and it is mostly the vulnerable who fall for it.

karen3212

mossieh wrote: »

But why? How does it affect your life whether people 'use some sense' or not?

Because if they decide to use nonsense to decide what to do, then all sorts of ridiculous decisions can be made on behalf of the society you live in.

Of course it affects everyone's life if you use rubbish as an argument to decide what is the right thing to do. Surely, it's better if everyone thinks about it - arguments, facts and gut instinct opinions are presented from all sorts of angles, then people can come to fairly reasonable conclusion about the best thing to do.