John Bruton: Separating Politics and Religion is Naive

Wacker

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1117/1224258981090.html

THE BELIEF that religion and politics should be kept separate was “unrealistic” and “naive”, former taoiseach and former EU ambassador to Washington John Bruton said last night.

Such belief “pursued relentlessly” led to tyranny or the breakdown of democracy, Mr Bruton said during an address in Dublin last night at an event jointly hosted by the Jesuit quarterly review Studies and the Catholic think tank, the Iona Institute.

Speaking as a practising Catholic who has been involved in politics, he said he wished to address the relationship that should exist between the Christian churches of Europe and the EU.

“As long as religious belief exists, and there is every reason to believe it will always exist, a secularist notion that religion and politics should be kept entirely separate is simply unrealistic, even naive. And naive beliefs pursued relentlessly, as they often are, lead toward either tyranny or the breakdown of the pluralism that is required for democracy to function,” he said.

Secularists “should beware of committing the same errors of immoderation, of the sort they justly condemn in churches in the past, in pursuit of their own cause today,” he said.

“For example, to seek to use the power of the state to remove every symbol or sign of religious belief from the public space would be just as immoderate as were past efforts to harness the powers of the state to push one religion on people.”

He said it was worth recalling that the European Convention on Human Rights, agreed to in 1949 before the EU came into existence, guaranteed to every European the right to “manifest his religion, with others in public or private, in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.

The EU “submits itself to the whole convention, including to this article about how people may exercise their religious freedom”, Mr Bruton said.

It was “not possible entirely to separate the religion practised by a significant body of its members or citizens from any political entity such as the EU, or vice versa”, he said. But there were “clear distinctions of function which must be respected, as the Lisbon Treaty puts it, the union ‘respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches’ and ‘shall maintain open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches’.”

Equally, he said, the “churches have an obligation to respect duly constituted political institutions exercising their proper functions”.

Annoying that he would come out with this, although he is probably right, for the moment. Well, at least the notion of total separation of Church and State is now deemed worthy of being condemned.

Zillah

Bollox to that. What he is saying amounts to little more than ambiguous grumblings against the fact that Christianity is not allowed a privileged status any longer. Religious symbols in public places seems innocuous enough until you realise that in Europe they would be overwhelmingly Christian. So we need to let every religion be displayed, otherwise it is discriminatory. Which turns into a ludicrous cluster fuck. Scientology displays on Grafton Street, Jedi statues in hospitals, Islamic prayers at 5AM across Rathfarnham...

He thinks that secularists are ganging up on the religious...where we're actually trying to protect you from each other.

Edit: Typo, grr

Daftendirekt

It was “not possible entirely to separate the religion practised by a significant body of its members or citizens from any political entity such as the EU, or vice versa”, he said. But there were “clear distinctions of function which must be respected, as the Lisbon Treaty puts it, the union ‘respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches’ and ‘shall maintain open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches’.”

This comment annoyed me. While he's probably right that it's impossible to get people to completely separate their religion from their politics, this doesn't mean Church-State separation isn't possible.

It just requires that you apply equal scrutiny to any and all ideas without bias towards any particular religion or ideology.

And this comment:

“As long as religious belief exists, and there is every reason to believe it will always exist, a secularist notion that religion and politics should be kept entirely separate is simply unrealistic, even naive. And naive beliefs pursued relentlessly, as they often are, lead toward either tyranny or the breakdown of the pluralism that is required for democracy to function,” he said.

...is just plain idiotic.

So secularisation leads to tyranny, but giving a belief system that claims its own absolute moral authority more power doesn't?

The mind boggles.

bigeasyeah

As one who reads history I find this statement quite curious.
Whilst I believe Mr.Bruton was playing the pandering politician,I find his lacking knowledge of historical precedent worrying.
Speaking of precedents,I hope this doesnt break with the tradition of educated ambassadors exercising prudence abroad.
I could go on but nourishment awaits.

Dades

Why do some people always ignore current secular democracies like those in Scandinavia and allude to past and present dictatorships as the potential result of separating the Church and State?

That's rhetorical, btw. I know why. :pac:

Zillah

For the same reason people are convinced that universal health care, free education and good social welfare will ruin a society.

They're credulous, shortsighted fools who care less about reality than they do about feeling comfortable in their biases.

Turtwig

What get's me everytime is that the US was founded on Secular principles and that it is those secular principles that mostly got us to where are today.
Religion had its chance and it fcked things up considerably.
Secularism, saved us.
Forget Jesus, Secularists died so humans could have this thing they call freedom.

doctoremma

Wacker wrote: »

Well, at least the notion of total separation of Church and State is now deemed worthy of being condemned.

The whole argument is bobbins. Honestly, what is the "worst" that could happen if you separate state from church?

Most of the laws we live by follow intrinsic notions of fairness/equality/etc (or at least, that's the ultimate aim). Apart from the religious bit, my daily conduct is indistinguishable from a believer - we both adhere to the same rules and hopefully have the same willingness to do so. If religious arguments weren't allowed to dictate things like abortion law/stem-cell use/etc, I'm not sure things would change radically.

Teaching religion in schools should be banned, if only under the same "human rights" statement he uses. What's happened to the right of people to be free from religion if they choose?

robindch

At least Bruton has said that religion is inherently a political movement.

Perhaps it's time for the various churches to stop pretending it isn't?

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

He thinks that secularists are ganging up on the religious...where we're actually trying to protect you from each other

Do you really believe that?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you really believe that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkLFG0CtdEo

Dades

That's a really embarrassing typo at the end of that clip. :pac:

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you really believe that?

Absolutely. You don't?

Galvasean

Wow, he came that close to invoking Godwin's law.

Hmm, does mentioning Godwin's law count as invoking Godwin's law?

Flamed Diving

I can't wait for the apologists. I can hear the thunder of their hooves.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

Absolutely. You don't?

I personally think that Christians and other groups work well together in the vast majority of situations. In fact I'd say it's our responsibility to do this. Christians can keep positive relations with people of other faiths, and I think Christians are as much involved in this protection you speak of as anyone else is.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally think that Christians and other groups work well together in the vast majority of situations. In fact I'd say it's our responsibility to do this. Christians can keep positive relations with people of other faiths, and I think Christians are as much involved in this protection you speak of as anyone else is.

That's all very nice, but I can't imagine that when Mr Bruton talks about religion in public places he means anything but crosses in schools and nativity scenes in hospitals. I have little doubt his tone would change if a scientologist wanted to put their displays up in classrooms or if we had Islamic prayers blaring over Dublin city centre in the morning.

Religions have a far longer and more colourful (blood red) history of combating each other than with the non-religious. You are too many, too varied, too intolerant of each other, too self-entitled and above all too self-righteous for all of you to be allowed special treatment in the public domain.

(Yes I'm sure you personally are very tolerant but the religious at large cannot honestly make that claim.)

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

That's all very nice, but I can't imagine that when Mr Bruton talks about religion in public places he means anything but crosses in schools and nativity scenes in schools. I have little doubt his tone would change if a scientologist wanted to put their displays up in classrooms or if we had Islamic prayers blaring over Dublin city centre in the morning.

Depends on what ethos the primary school has.

Zillah wrote: »

Religions have a far longer and more colourful (blood red) history of combating each other than with the non-religious. You are too many, too varied, too intolerant of each other, too self-entitled and above all too self-righteous for all of you to be allowed special treatment in the public domain.

1) You're tolerant of Christianity and other faiths?

2) Are you sure you haven't ever been self-righteous in discussion? Particularly when discussing about people and their right to faith?

3) Are you sure that atheists haven't been involved in atrocities in the past?

I think Christians can protect themselves, likewise of any other group. If you are saying that atheists and agnostics have been writing equality legislation against religious discrimination in Ireland, that's really absurd.

Zillah wrote:

(Yes I'm sure you personally are very tolerant but the religious at large cannot honestly make that claim.)

I find it hard to think that atheists can make a better case.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

3) Are you sure that atheists haven't been involved in atrocities in the past?

An atheist being involved in an atrocity is irrelevant unless his atheism was the motivation for the atrocity and not, for example, extreme communism under the command of a madman

philologos

Likewise with Christians being involved with atrocities, the teachings of Jesus weren't the motivation.

Point made I guess.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Depends on what ethos the primary school has.

Public schools should have no ethos, and hence no excuse for discrimination. This is my point. You should not be allowed to take a public school and turn it into a religious institution.

1) You're tolerant of Christianity and other faiths?

I'm not demanding that I be given special treatment in the public domain. For example, I don't want humanist displays in schools or satanic ethics in courts.

2) Are you sure you haven't ever been self-righteous in discussion? Particularly when discussing about people and their right to faith?

I'm not demanding that I be given special treatment in the public domain.

3) Are you sure that atheists haven't been involved in atrocities in the past?

Are you sure that has anything to do with the conversation? (Hint: It doesn't)

I think Christians can protect themselves, likewise of any other group. If you are saying that atheists and agnostics have been writing equality legislation against religious discrimination in Ireland, that's really absurd.

I never claimed that and I fail to see how it would be relevant.

I find it hard to think that atheists can make a better case.

Also irrelevant. Basically your whole post boils down to "Yeah well atheists suck too!" which is fun and all, and maybe you're stuck in our normal "religion sucks vs atheism sucks" pattern, but it doesn't actually add anything to the discussion, which really is a very specific issue: There are too many religions, who have a habit of attacking and criticising each other, to allow them all equal access to public representation, and that if we do not allow all of them such access, then it would be discrimination. Hence the only fair solution is to allow no one such representation.

philologos

It's true though. Atheists are no better than people of faith in this respect, and it's false and deceptive to suggest so as both yourself and robindch said.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

It's true though. Atheists are no better than people of faith in this respect, and it's false and deceptive to suggest so as both yourself and robindch said.

WE ARE NOT DEMANDING SPECIAL TREATMENT IN THE PUBLIC REALM.

Comparisons between atheists and the religious are utterly irrelevant. You are ignoring the topic at hand and dragging this down to yet another petty religion vs atheism debate. This is about secularism and I've made my argument. I can only assume I have made it well considering your inability or unwillingness to respond.

philologos

I'm merely holding you to your post. How do you believe that you are protecting people of faith?

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm merely holding you to your post. How do you believe that you are protecting people of faith?

We're stopping you from offending your oh so offendable faithful kin by the appearance (and reality) of favouritism, and by the regrettable reality of pure hateful intolerance for other beliefs. Are you actually claiming that the religious do not have a history of starting fights, taking umbrage and generally kicking up a fuss over other religions?

In terms of your own feelings on the matter, would you be happy having Islamic prayers blaring across Dublin? Or would you take umbrage to such a thing? How about a gigantic fucking Jedi statue in the middle of St James' hospital? Scientology tracts in classrooms? Seriously, would you be ok with these things? Who decides what religions are allowed such representation? Who decides what counts as a religion? It is an unworkable mess, the only fair way to approach it to stop it altogether.

Or...dare I cut to the issue here: Would you prefer things to stay as they are now, with blatant favouritism for Christianity and be damned to the heretics, as our dear Mr Bruton surely does?

WooPeeA

Well, religion always harmed brains of people...

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

it's false and deceptive to suggest so as both yourself and robindch said.

As Zillah says, do you really think that the religious leaders of this world have demonstrated any ability to tolerate each other peacefully, calmly and with good grace?

I think you're right to believe that this is less of an issue now. But that seems largely to be the case simply because most religions have already been exterminated (frequently with their client populations) by one or other of the three large monotheistics. And none of these seem all that interested in taking each other on, suicide bombers in Israel and Ahmadinejad's hot-headed nuclear threats notwithstanding.

History shows quite clearly that the religious cannot be trusted not to want to do violence against each other and against the irreligious.

Hence the wisdom of ensuring that no religion is preferred, and that combustible sentiments and situations can be minimized.

Antbert

“As long as religious belief exists, and there is every reason to believe it will always exist, a secularist notion that religion and politics should be kept entirely separate is simply unrealistic, even naive. And naive beliefs pursued relentlessly, as they often are, lead toward either tyranny or the breakdown of the pluralism that is required for democracy to function,” he said.

This is the part that really irritated me. He doesn't even justify it. How about, as long as there are people who have no religion there should be a secularist society? Is it basically saying that as long as a lot of people believe something they should get special treatment?

Jakkass wrote: »

1) You're tolerant of Christianity and other faiths?

I admit it's harder when people say stupid things like the above.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

It's true though. Atheists are no better than people of faith in this respect, and it's false and deceptive to suggest so as both yourself and robindch said.

Atheism and ideologies that incorporate atheism are two different things. Similar to the way theism and religions that incorporate theism are two different things. I would not like any special treatment for any ideology or religion. We're against the display of Stalin or Kim Jong Il symbolism just as much as religious symbolism.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

As Zillah says, do you really think that the religious leaders of this world have demonstrated any ability to tolerate each other peacefully, calmly and with good grace?

Yes, they have made a lot of effort. A minority haven't. All one has to do is look to how Islamic, Jewish and Christian dialogue has been going in the UK and in other places.

I don't thank atheists above any other group for this.

I'm quite capable of agreeing to disagree with a Muslim and still enjoy the conversation we have. That includes any religious belief.

robindch wrote: »

I think you're right to believe that this is less of an issue now. But that seems largely to be the case simply because most religions have already been exterminated (frequently with their client populations) by one or other of the three large monotheistics. And none of these seem all that interested in taking each other on, suicide bombers in Israel and Ahmadinejad's hot-headed nuclear threats notwithstanding.

Indeed, I recognise that this is a problem, and that it is up to us as faithful people to call people out on distortionism.

When people base their arguments against religion purely on distortionism, it makes it a lot more difficult for Christians or anyone of any religion to actually deal with it. Simply, because we all get tarred with the same brush.

I unapologetically support the evangelisation effort made by Christians, but it must remain entirely peaceful, and it must engage people to think rather than to use emotive argument.

robindch wrote: »

History shows quite clearly that the religious cannot be trusted not to want to do violence against each other and against the irreligious.

Again, there isn't enough to go on with this. I could use history to justify why I shouldn't trust atheists or agnostics. Distrust leads to more issues than it solves. Distrust has caused some of the worst issues in all time.

robindch wrote: »

Hence the wisdom of ensuring that no religion is preferred, and that combustible sentiments and situations can be minimized.

I agree to an extent, but I also think that atheists and agnostics have abused this position in many European countries, that's outwardly wrong and Christians have a right to speak out on it.

Galvasean

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, they have made a lot of effort. A minority haven't. All one has to do is look to how Islamic, Jewish and Christian dialogue has been going in the UK and in other places.

Ever think they're just sizing each other up and waiting for their moment to strike?

philologos

Galvasean wrote: »

Ever think they're just sizing each other up and waiting for their moment to strike?

No, I don't. We all argue, debate and proselytise, it is up for the individual to decide what is most convincing.

As I say, I unapologetically support evangelistic efforts amongst people of other faiths.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I unapologetically support evangelistic efforts amongst people of other faiths.

And do you support the implied destruction of unique cultures, mythologies and worldviews that this implies? Do any of these have any value to you?

And do you support the insertion of your religious beliefs into the minds of people, say, in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi? And is doing so likely to increase the amount of peace and understanding in the world?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, they have made a lot of effort. A minority haven't. All one has to do is look to how Islamic, Jewish and Christian dialogue has been going in the UK and in other places.

Yes, they have joined forces -- partially -- because the positions, jobs and statuses of these same religious leaders are under threat from the increasing numbers of people abandoning organized religion.

It's involuntary, and tends only to happen in those countries where the three religions aren't busily ignoring each other, or fighting each other.

Osgoodisgood

Jakkass wrote: »

As I say, I unapologetically support evangelistic efforts amongst people of other faiths.

You keep saying that as if it's a given that non-christians should just get on board with it. Surely if there was merit in the concept it wouldn't need the snakeoil morkeshing and foot in the door approach?

philologos

I don't think it's a given, or that it is universally accepted. I'm merely saying I would have no moral qualms with discussing with a Jewish person, a Muslim person, Sikh etc about my faith.

robindch wrote:

It's involuntary, and tends only to happen in those countries where the three religions aren't busily ignoring each other, or fighting each other.

The countries where people are attempting to discuss with eachother are far more numerable than not. Likewise, the fighting element only involves a very small minority.

robindch wrote:

And do you support the implied destruction of unique cultures, mythologies and worldviews that this implies? Do any of these have any value to you?

It's quite possible to keep ones culture, and become Christian.

robindch wrote:

And do you support the insertion of your religious beliefs into the minds of people, say, in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi? And is doing so likely to increase the amount of peace and understanding in the world?

Not specifically mine, but rather I hope that they have access to Christianity and make their own personal decision to follow Jesus rather than accepting mine.

Doing so shouldn't be an issue, it is those who oppose people thinking for themselves who cause conflict. I don't believe in not encouraging free speech just because people won't like it. I'm sure the same is true for you.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

It's quite possible to keep ones culture, and become Christian.

Care to give an example of where such a successful transition has occurred??

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Care to give an example of where such a successful transition has occurred??

Christians all over the world are themselves the example. People who can keep in their own cultural setting and apply their Christianity to that cultural setting.

I'm talking more about people, than places.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Christians all over the world are themselves the example. People who can keep in their own cultural setting and apply their Christianity to that cultural setting.

I'm talking more about people, than places.

So what happened to nudity?

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

So what happened to nudity?

Part of the application might render some practices to be unchristian to them, but it's quite clear that becoming a Christian doesn't mean becoming Westernised. That's my point.

lostexpectation

i put [...a user...] on the ignore list and then ever other post is replying to him
finally i find a thread on this forum i want to rean and its ruined by the stalker
ever think of pacing yourself, replying only once a day or something.

robindch

lostexpectation wrote: »

i put [...a user...] on the ignore list

That's a private matter between yourself and the user concerned and it's of no interest to the rest of us.

Stick to the topic please.

Xluna

Yet another reason to emigrate....