How should we deal with religious belief in Irish society?

philologos

Religion should be restricted and forced into the private.

andrew wrote: »

America is very much the exception when it comes to being both wealthy and religious. Link.

Well, I'd personally value my belief more than mere materialism personally. I don't see it as an argument of much significance against believing in God.

andrew wrote: »

IMO, religious opinions get in the way of other more valid opinions. Yes, I am aware that there is no such thing as an objectively valid opinion.

Exactly, people disagree about what is valid. It's hardly a convincing argument if you want to get a theist to stop expressing their beliefs freely. People will believe what they will believe surely?

andrew wrote: »

I never said they should have to change their opinions, just that they're less inclined to do so, moreso than people who aren't religious.

What are you basing this on?

andrew wrote: »

Woah. No way to most people come to a particular religion because they decide that they want to. Most people are born into a religion. I would also say, (though this is based on what I perceive to be true, and I have no figures to back this up) that it is actually the atheists who come to being atheist because they decide that they want to through their own views, and they decide that this atheism has values that they want to advocate and support.

I'm just telling you from my personal experience, and from talking to other Christians about their faith. It is certainly the case for most that they genuinely want to believe what they do. They have thought about it, and they have accepted it. You can have Christian parents, but it isn't until you accept that truth for yourself that it becomes your own. Your post seems to suggest that you haven't actually talked with a lot of people about their faith before.

andrew wrote: »

Yeah some things are worth defending, it's just that conservatives seem to believe that some things are worth defending for the sole reason that they're traditional/old/you know what I mean. As well as that, conservatism seems to have a narrow definiton of what constitutes reasonable change.

Again, I don't think any conservative protects something just because they are old. Generally there are reasons why conservatives defend things. Why do conservatives support having stable families or taxing families less than those who are single? Well, that's a no-brainer really isn't it? Stable families provide for the stable upbringing of children, and reduce social issues within society at large. Many of which are attributed due to the lack of a father in childrens lives according to research that was done. Reasoning like this is why conservatives generally support the stances that they do I find.

andrew wrote: »

In general though, I would say religion tends to cause and encourage division.

I'm going to ask you again. What are you basing this on?

It appears that the only people you are going to consider are the 7/7 London tube bombers instead of people who would never go to such extremes, if you will, the average believer is excluded from your assessment because they don't confirm you bias. Only extremists are useful for criticism I guess.

andrew wrote: »

Believing in something just because the bible says it is so is not a 'different empiricism.' It is not empiricism.

Again, I don't think people believe in things because the Bible says so alone. People understand that the God question is open, there is plenty of room for a creator God to exist. People find reasoning that makes sense to them. It's a different empiricism, because they use a different source than you. The Bible still requires thought before it can be accepted as reasonable.

Questions like could there be a Creator will influence other questions like are miracles possible?

If you do not believe in a creator God, miracles are automatically absurd.
If you do, it's only rational to believe that if a creator God exists it could be present within it's creation and manipulate it.

ChocolateSauce

Atari Jaguar

I'm sure it's been said already Jakkass, but that was a badly worded poll-it gives the impression that mob rule is okay and that secularism is somehow oppressing religion. Regardless, I voted two, because I know how you meant it.

philologos

Religion should be restricted and forced into the private.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'm sure it's been said already Jakkass, but that was a badly worded poll-it gives the impression that mob rule is okay and that secularism is somehow oppressing religion. Regardless, I voted two, because I know how you meant it.

Both are secular. They just have different ways of going about it. Religion is more of a public matter in America than it is in Europe. You would concede that much?

Joey the lips

Religion should be restricted and forced into the private.

Restriction on religion is a restriction on one of your civil liberties and i am sure something that can be challenged in the european courts.

watty

I can't vote as your 1st post implies things into the questions that make it impossible.

watty

Jakkass wrote: »

Religion is more of a public matter in America than it is in Europe. You would concede that much?

Not at all.

ChocolateSauce

Atari Jaguar

Jakkass wrote: »

Both are secular. They just have different ways of going about it. Religion is more of a public matter in America than it is in Europe. You would concede that much?

Well yes and no. The US is legally the most secular nation in the world, but it is also one of the most religious. The issues there is that many state-employed people are breaking the law, or at least the spirit of it, by bringing their beliefs into the public sphere. The great examples are creationism in schools, Bush basing his policy on what god told him, and the laws of god adorning court houses, where it is the law of man that is supposed to rule. Conversely, many countries in Europe are officially religious and even have state-sponsored religions. In the UK, the state and the church at legally integrated in the form of the Queen who is head of state and church, and yet because the people are less religious religion is kept private.

Long story short, if private individuals want to express their religion in public, that's fine, but elected politicians and appointed civil servants should not.

philologos

Religion should be restricted and forced into the private.

watty wrote: »

Not at all.

So you don't think there is a difference at all. You must admit Tony Blair had to be much more reluctant about his faith when he was PM, than Bush ever had to be, or Obama ever has to be.

watty

There was votes in it for Bush and Anti-votes for Blair.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Both are secular. They just have different ways of going about it. Religion is more of a public matter in America than it is in Europe. You would concede that much?

Badly worded poll TBH, I could have voted 1 or 2, it all depends on what you mean by "if people want it public let them"

Private citizens should be allowed express religion how ever they like so long as they are not harming others (I mean that in the physical sense, not in the Your views on gays upsets me, way)

But equally the state and people acting on behalf of the state should be religious natural when acting in that role.

Using a topical example, a nurse should be allowed wear or say what ever she likes when she is a private citizen. When she is on duty as a public nurse and thus representing the State that is religious neutral then she should be religiously neutral. She shouldn't express or given indication of preference for one particular religion over another.

The State is basically the people who work for the state, from TDs down to the man cleaning the gutter. If the State is religiously neutral the people working for the State should be religiously neutral when acting for the State.

I don't agree that there should be laws saying that children in schools (who are still private citizens) should be restricted in expressing religious preference. They should be allowed so long as they are in line with standard school uniform policy of the school (I don't think people should be granted exceptions to these policies based on religious preference either)

School children are not public citizens, they are not acting on behalf of the state. There is no justification for legally forcing them to be religiously neutral.

getz

prince charles believes, his job is to be defender of the faiths, which is a change from the defender of the faith,that was conferred on the english sovereign by pope LEO X, strange but true

philologos

Religion should be restricted and forced into the private.

watty wrote: »

There was votes in it for Bush and Anti-votes for Blair.

That's probably true, but it is a sad state of affairs when you have to come out as a Christian, or fumble around questions to do with faith when asked.

Gordon Brown has "done God", but is very reluctant to do so.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/mar/31/religion-christianity-gordon-brown

Like I mean even in Australia it seems that they have a more positive attitude towards it, and that's just as secular as the UK is. This is what Kevin Rudd had to say about the role of Christianity in Australia:

A Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not prevail. It must nonetheless be argued. And once heard, it must be weighed, together with other arguments from different philosophical traditions, in a fully contestable secular polity. A Christian perspective … should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere. If the churches are barred from participating in the great debates about the values that ultimately underpin our society, our economy and our polity, then we have reached a very strange place indeed.

I think the difference probably is, Kevin Rudd has stated exactly how he feels about it. Whereas Gordon Brown and Tony Blair didn't.

So your point about the votes, reflects on how British society deals with religion in comparison to how American society deals with it.

ChocolateSauce

Atari Jaguar

Wicknight wrote: »

School children are not public citizens, they are not acting on behalf of the state. There is no justification for legally forcing them to be religiously neutral.

Reminds me of that landmark American case where a court ruled that children do not leave their right to freedom of expression at the school gate (but teachers do).

Doctor DooM

Jakkass wrote: »

That's probably true, but it is a sad state of affairs when you have to come out as a Christian, or fumble around questions to do with faith when asked.

Some people simply consider their religion a private thing.

Also if someone who is confronted with questions on their faith starts fumbling with an answer, they really need to examine that faith?

philologos

Religion should be restricted and forced into the private.

SoDoM wrote: »

Some people simply consider their religion a private thing.

Also if someone who is confronted with questions on their faith starts fumbling with an answer, they really need to examine that faith?

It seems to be more due to pressure. I know Tony Blair was fine speaking about it after he left Downing Street. However that was probably because his job was so motivated by public opinion at the time whereas his current job isn't as much.

Alastair Campbell seemed to have an excessive influence on him also.

I just don't understand how people can support a social norm which denies people the right to express themselves. Surely it's healthy to discuss faith rather than shutting it behind closed doors, I mean it is a rather big part of who people are.

ChocolateSauce

Atari Jaguar

SoDoM wrote: »

Some people simply consider their religion a private thing.

Also if someone who is confronted with questions on their faith starts fumbling with an answer, they really need to examine that faith?

They might just be nervous debaters. When I was 14 I was no less of an atheist than today (probably more), but if challenged I stumbled over everything for a fear of debate.

I hate public speaking:rolleyes:

Hookey

Atari Jaguar

Jakkass wrote: »

It seems to be more due to pressure. I know Tony Blair was fine speaking about it after he left Downing Street. However that was probably because his job was so motivated by public opinion at the time whereas his current job isn't as much.

Alastair Campbell seemed to have an excessive influence on him also.

The British (or rather the English) are one of the most secular societies on Earth and very suspicious of religion, even the one that's nominally their own. This plays out in public displays of non-religion, even if they believe in private. I used to work for a large global telecoms company in the UK, and it always made me chuckle when American colleagues would ask their Brit counterparts about church; in a country where avoiding embarrassment is a national obsession, the Americans may as well have just crapped on their shoes.

Jakkass wrote: »

I just don't understand how people can support a social norm which denies people the right to express themselves. Surely it's healthy to discuss faith rather than shutting it behind closed doors, I mean it is a rather big part of who people are.

With respect, it may be a big part of who you are, but a lot of people don't feel that way. Your early comment that most Christians have come to their faith themselves is laughable to be honest, especially in this country, and if you actually start to press people about their reasons for being catholic, things start to get shaky pretty quickly. Most people who call themselves Christian don't really have a clue what that means other than conforming by rote to ceremonies their mothers (not usually fathers) instilled in them as children. And this is why I think religion should be a private matter; better yet, no-one should be allowed to indoctrinate children with religious views at all; let them draw their own conclusions when they're adults.

philologos

Religion should be restricted and forced into the private.

Hookey wrote: »

The British (or rather the English) are one of the most secular societies on Earth and very suspicious of religion, even the one that's nominally their own. This plays out in public displays of non-religion, even if they believe in private. I used to work for a large global telecoms company in the UK, and it always made me chuckle when American colleagues would ask their Brit counterparts about church; in a country where avoiding embarrassment is a national obsession, the Americans may as well have just crapped on their shoes.

Britain as a nation is no more secular than the USA, or Australia. It's just that individuals in society are more hostile to religion than in either of the other two.

I don't think this suspicion of religion is healthy if it leads to denial of freedom of expression. That's when it becomes dangerous. People should be free to express themselves surely?

Again, I don't think there is wrong about asking people about church, and I don't think there should be. Another reason why I think the openness about faith in the USA is better than the repression of it in Britain and other European societies. We have a choice here. Secular but open to faith, or secular and closed to faith. The latter is the one I object to.

Hookey wrote: »

With respect, it may be a big part of who you are, but a lot of people don't feel that way. Your early comment that most Christians have come to their faith themselves is laughable to be honest, especially in this country, and if you actually start to press people about their reasons for being catholic, things start to get shaky pretty quickly. Most people who call themselves Christian don't really have a clue what that means other than conforming by rote to ceremonies their mothers (not usually fathers) instilled in them as children. And this is why I think religion should be a private matter; better yet, no-one should be allowed to indoctrinate children with religious views at all; let them draw their own conclusions when they're adults.

Yes, it's a big part of who many people are. I don't think it particularly matters whether or not a large amount of people feel that way but why should that fact hinder the free enterprise of religion, or hinder religion as being a part of public life?

As for Christians coming to faith themselves. I really don't care if you find it to be laughable, from my experience and from the people I know who have committed themselves to Christianity all of them made this decision for themselves. As I say, laugh all you want but it's a bit absurd to laugh at something that demonstrably true.

I think "religion as a private matter" is incompatible with many of our religions. Christianity cannot be a private matter if one is to take the New Testament ethic of standing up for Christ, and being separate from the worldly way of doing things. Likewise Islam cannot be a private matter if one is to take the Qur'an seriously. These things will be seen in society if people take it seriously. Unless, you find some way of making people afraid about it. But why should people be afraid? Should we as a society be encouraging fear? That's why I can't help but think that the Americans and the Australians have it right.

Parents educating their children is not indoctrination in any shape or form. This is a ridiculous notion considering that a childlike faith is very different from an adult faith. In most cases, parents educate their children in Christianity, then when they reach adolescence and early adulthood, they decide, should I keep this for myself? Yes, or no. I decided yes, after a few years of being unsure. I can't help but think that many atheists have a misunderstanding about how Christians come to faith, and worse still, when people correct them on it they ignore it.

As for banning parents passing on their faith to their children. That isn't secularism, that's State atheism. When the State denies people personal freedoms of expression, that's when democracy ends and fascism begins.

Thanks for the post though, outwardly disagree with it of course but that's the nature of discussion

Hookey

Atari Jaguar

Jakkass wrote: »

Britain as a nation is no more secular than the USA, or Australia. It's just that individuals in society are more hostile to religion than in either of the other two.

Sorry but I beg to differ. I've lived and worked in quite a few European countries, and worked a lot in the US and Canada, and England is easily the most irreligious society I've come across (amongst whites anyway). The standard English response to "what religion are you", is "well, I was christened CofE, but nothing really".

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think this suspicion of religion is healthy if it leads to denial of freedom of expression. That's when it becomes dangerous. People should be free to express themselves surely?

But to the non-religious, "freedom of expression" is synonymous with proselytising. This is what the English fear, the embarrassment caused by the "swivel-eyed religious nutter" stereotype. In a society where social conformity is actually far more important than people let on, "freedom of expression" is fine so long as it doesn't involve anything important. Ironically it goes along with a certain anti-science and anti-intellectualism in English society as well.

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, I don't think there is wrong about asking people about church, and I don't think there should be. Another reason why I think the openness about faith in the USA is better than the repression of it in Britain and other European societies. We have a choice here. Secular but open to faith, or secular and closed to faith. The latter is the one I object to.

See above. I didn't care (although it amuses me to tell Americans I'm an atheist, that embarrasses them), but it makes an Englishman squirm. They're not necessarily closed to faith, they're closed to talking about it.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, it's a big part of who many people are. I don't think it particularly matters whether or not a large amount of people feel that way but why should that fact hinder the free enterprise of religion, or hinder religion as being a part of public life?

As for Christians coming to faith themselves. I really don't care if you find it to be laughable, from my experience and from the people I know who have committed themselves to Christianity all of them made this decision for themselves. As I say, laugh all you want but it's a bit absurd to laugh at something that demonstrably true.

I honestly think you're deluding yourself. This is a country that effectively bribes children to make their Confirmation. I see very little evidence of true religious feeling here (certainly a lot less than when I left 20-odd years ago), except amongst the old. Catholicism is seen as a part of Irish identity, but its unthinking affiliation for the most part.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think "religion as a private matter" is incompatible with many of our religions. Christianity cannot be a private matter if one is to take the New Testament ethic of standing up for Christ, and being separate from the worldly way of doing things. Likewise Islam cannot be a private matter if one is to take the Qur'an seriously. These things will be seen in society if people take it seriously. Unless, you find some way of making people afraid about it. But why should people be afraid? Should we as a society be encouraging fear? That's why I can't help but think that the Americans and the Australians have it right.

And now we're getting to it. You're absolutely correct that organised Christianity and Islam are incompatible with "religion as a private matter". Both are by design proselytising religions; the whole house of cards falls down without new recruits. You can couch it in terms of "standing up for Christ" or whatever, but bums on seats pays the bills. The problem for Christianity in particular is that people are wise to this and Christianity lacks Islam's, erm, "persuasiveness" in keeping the faithful in line. People don't fear Christianity, they're suspicious of it.

Jakkass wrote: »

Parents educating their children is not indoctrination in any shape or form. This is a ridiculous notion considering that a childlike faith is very different from an adult faith. In most cases, parents educate their children in Christianity, then when they reach adolescence and early adulthood, they decide, should I keep this for myself? Yes, or no. I decided yes, after a few years of being unsure. I can't help but think that many atheists have a misunderstanding about how Christians come to faith, and worse still, when people correct them on it they ignore it.

You say tomayto I say tomato. First of all, the word "educate" is questionable; teaching the history of religion is one thing, teaching religion itself as "fact" is entirely different. And if adults can come to religion in their own way (and I still contend the vast majority of "Christians" have no more knowledge of their religion as adults than they had at age 12), then why do they need to be given religious instruction from a young age? What is the point other than indoctrination? Moral lessons? A cursory inspection of the Old Testament puts that theory to bed pretty quickly. The catholic church in particular has always recognised the power of early indoctrination, and continues to concentrate its recruiting resources in that area.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for banning parents passing on their faith to their children. That isn't secularism, that's State atheism. When the State denies people personal freedoms of expression, that's when democracy ends and fascism begins.

Thanks for the post though, outwardly disagree with it of course but that's the nature of discussion

The state bans lots of personal freedoms of expression, where those "expressions" have a detrimental effect on others. I wouldn't regard it as "state atheism", but rather "levelling the playing field".

philologos

Religion should be restricted and forced into the private.

Hookey wrote: »

Sorry but I beg to differ. I've lived and worked in quite a few European countries, and worked a lot in the US and Canada, and England is easily the most irreligious society I've come across (amongst whites anyway). The standard English response to "what religion are you", is "well, I was christened CofE, but nothing really".

A common mistake to make. A secular society does not mean a irreligious society. It means a society whereby the State operates separately from religious authorities, and whereby society operates as a pluralism. It is a place of many faiths rather than just one. A secular society doesn't mean that it is an atheist society. The USA operates as a pluralism, as does the UK, yet how they deal with faith is more positive than in the UK.

Hookey wrote: »

But to the non-religious, "freedom of expression" is synonymous with proselytising. This is what the English fear, the embarrassment caused by the "swivel-eyed religious nutter" stereotype. In a society where social conformity is actually far more important than people let on, "freedom of expression" is fine so long as it doesn't involve anything important. Ironically it goes along with a certain anti-science and anti-intellectualism in English society as well.

That's tough. In a free market place of ideas they will be shared, they will be accepted by a few, they will be rejected by others. That's life. People will say things that will offend other people, but people will have to grow thicker skins and carry out their day. Proselytism comes under freedom of expression in most Western societies currently. The right of a Christian to express him or herself is no higher in importance than the right of an atheist to express him or herself, or a Muslim to express him or herself.

If atheists are allowed to express themselves in the public arena, I think it's to be expected that Christians, Muslims, and others can too.

Hookey wrote: »

See above. I didn't care (although it amuses me to tell Americans I'm an atheist, that embarrasses them), but it makes an Englishman squirm. They're not necessarily closed to faith, they're closed to talking about it.

Hm, what is embarrassing about being an atheist exactly? I think the Americans have their system right, people are more open about what they believe instead of feeling obliged to hide it. They have a healthy means of dealing with it rather than suppression.

There seems to be an exception and an unfair one at that in respect to religion, I mean if I said that people of a particular sexuality should suppress being open about it in society people would say that was out of line.

Hookey wrote: »

I honestly think you're deluding yourself. This is a country that effectively bribes children to make their Confirmation. I see very little evidence of true religious feeling here (certainly a lot less than when I left 20-odd years ago), except amongst the old. Catholicism is seen as a part of Irish identity, but its unthinking affiliation for the most part.

Nice entry with "deluding", however, I hold my opinion to be by and large accurate.

As for confirmations, I think that churches need to take it more seriously and change the practice. I personally think the whole idea of giving money to make what is to many an ingenuine pledge to be ridiculous.

The people I describe, are people who would actively describe themselves as Christians and who would aim to live a Christian lifestyle. Contrary to popular opinion there are still quite a lot of us in Ireland. Most of the people I am talking about are in their twenties and thirties.

By referring to Christianity, I'm not just referring to Catholicism, but to all Christian traditions in Ireland, including Anglicanism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, Evangelicalism, Orthodoxy and others.

Hookey wrote: »

And now we're getting to it. You're absolutely correct that organised Christianity and Islam are incompatible with "religion as a private matter". Both are by design proselytising religions; the whole house of cards falls down without new recruits. You can couch it in terms of "standing up for Christ" or whatever, but bums on seats pays the bills. The problem for Christianity in particular is that people are wise to this and Christianity lacks Islam's, erm, "persuasiveness" in keeping the faithful in line. People don't fear Christianity, they're suspicious of it.

Exactly. Our society should be open to people expressing their Christianity and Islam as a part of who they are rather than telling them not to.

As for the house of cards falling down without new recruits, certain groups of Christianity are withering because there isn't enough effort made to reach out, however other groups are prospering even in the UK. We just need to rethink how we want to do Christianity and how it can be as relevant today as it was 2,000 years ago.

As for fear, I was discussing the fear of Christians to speak out about who they are and what they stand for in public, when they are in a dilemma not to be afraid about putting their faith in practice and so on. Nobody has anything to fear from Christianity.

Even if churches died though, we still have the message with us forever. The Bible is the most published book in the world, one can easily find one if one needs one. However, I doubt that Christianity will ever die completely in Britain.

Hookey wrote: »

You say tomayto I say tomato. First of all, the word "educate" is questionable; teaching the history of religion is one thing, teaching religion itself as "fact" is entirely different.

Indeed it is. The best thing a parent can do is to say, "I believe this", "Other people do not". It is up to you to decide whether or not God is going to have a role in your life. In my personal experience I found that He has and I want you to have the same privilege and opportunity in your life to find truth in this as I have.

Hookey wrote: »

And if adults can come to religion in their own way (and I still contend the vast majority of "Christians" have no more knowledge of their religion as adults than they had at age 12), then why do they need to be given religious instruction from a young age? What is the point other than indoctrination? Moral lessons? A cursory inspection of the Old Testament puts that theory to bed pretty quickly. The catholic church in particular has always recognised the power of early indoctrination, and continues to concentrate its recruiting resources in that area.

Right, for a lot of people who are nominally Christian that could be the case, that they have never looked to the Bible for themselves. That's another matter. However, the type of people I have mentioned and the people I know are rather active in the Christian faith. There are still people like this to be found.

As for religious instruction, I feel that it does have moral values. Yes even the Old Testament. I consider the Old Testament to be one of the finest pieces of religious literature we have, and I won't apologise for that view. Often atheists like to take passages out of context and twist them not realising that Christianity is different than Judaism. That is their loss not mine. I can give you numerous examples of positive morals that can be inherited from the Old Testament.

If you want to discuss this, PM me and I will put a thread up in the Christianity forum so that you and other atheists can put your case against the Old Testament there and I will put forward my Christian case for the morality of the Old Testament and let's put this straight once and for all.

Again, I disagree with you that teaching your children a Christian lifestyle is indoctrination.

Hookey wrote: »

The state bans lots of personal freedoms of expression, where those "expressions" have a detrimental effect on others. I wouldn't regard it as "state atheism", but rather "levelling the playing field".

Expression of religion, proselytism, and passing ones faith onto ones children are not harmful in the slightest, hence why I consider it the promotion of atheism to ban these things merely because you an atheist and do not like them.