Is Secularism the best path for Christianity?

Antbert

Twin-go wrote: »

Do you think nothing would happened at all re educational and medical institutions were it not for the RC church? You could also say that without Hitlier Germany would have bad roads and the trains wouldn't run on time:(.

Ah Godwin's Law.

Still, good point.

philologos

Antbert wrote: »

Were abortion made legal (absolutely unbelievable that it isn't so far) no one would be forcing you to have one.

This isn't the point and it's a common fallacy of the debate.

This isn't the reason why pro-life people oppose abortion. The reason being that people support the right to life. That to me applies to any mother. I don't agree that the mothers rights automatically trump the rights of the child.

Antbert wrote: »

Anyway, 3 people have mentioned it now so far and no one has said anything from the pro-choice side, so I felt it was only fair.

Do you see where your point is lacking though?

Denerick

The problem with the debate is that pro lifers don't see it is a matter of choice; we see it as murder. You cannot sit back and say 'if you don't agree to theft, then don't rob your local supermarket'. This is a basic human right. I've never seen any real scientific evidence come from pro choicers anyway, it always seems to come back to the one tear infested story about some poor girl who got raped and ended up killing herself...

I support an abortion when the mothers life is in extreme, acute risk, such as if a choice has to be made between the life of the child and the life of the mother. The problem with our generation is that they almost see abortion as just another, yet costly, form of contraception.

Antbert

Clearly if I'm pro choice then yes, I pretty much think it's just up to the mother in question. I don't see it like 'opposing theft'. So saying 'surely you can see what you're saying is pointless' is well... pointless. If you're implying it's not particularly relevant to the debate at hand, then yes I agree.

I don't want to sidetrack the issue. If anyone cares enough about this, they can start a new post.

PDN

Twin-go wrote: »

I think Sweden is a good example but NO society has ever been 100% successful. Can you name a successful society influenced by religion?

A successful society influenced by religion? I think Sweden is a good example.

Over 1000 years of Christian influence on Swedish society.

72% of Swedes are members of the Lutheran Church of Sweden.

53% of Swedes believe in some form of deity or higher power.

Major denominations are supported by the tax-payer in Sweden.

Religious education is compulsory in Swedish state schools.

The Swedish Government financially subsidises denominational schools.

Twin-go

PDN wrote: »

A successful society influenced by religion? I think Sweden is a good example.

Over 1000 years of Christian influence on Swedish society..

More a fact of european mideval history than anything else.

PDN wrote: »

72% of Swedes are members of the Lutheran Church of Sweden.

It was 92% in 1996 because until 1996 all Swedes on birth were automaticly made members of the curch of Sweden. Church attendance is concidered very low in Sweden and is decreasing all the time.

PDN wrote: »

53% of Swedes believe in some form of deity or higher power.

It is estimated that between 45% and 70% of Swedes class themselves as Athiest.

PDN wrote: »

Major denominations are supported by the tax-payer in Sweden.

This is an optional TAX and people can request not to pay it.

PDN wrote: »

Religious education is compulsory in Swedish state schools.

Religion is thought as part of Social Science when all religions are given an equal footing within the class

PDN wrote: »

The Swedish Government financially subsidises denominational schools.

The Swedish Government financially subsidises all schools

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

A successful society influenced by religion? I think Sweden is a good example.

Over 1000 years of Christian influence on Swedish society.

72% of Swedes are members of the Lutheran Church of Sweden.

53% of Swedes believe in some form of deity or higher power.

Major denominations are supported by the tax-payer in Sweden.

Religious education is compulsory in Swedish state schools.

The Swedish Government financially subsidises denominational schools.

Sweden is regarded as one of the most atheist countries in the world.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Sweden is regarded as one of the most atheist countries in the world.

Atheists like to cite Sweden as a poster child - but I believe it is little more than piggybacking on a society that has been predominantly shaped by Christian culture and values.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Atheists like to cite Sweden as a poster child - but I believe it is little more than piggybacking on a society that has been predominantly shaped by Christian culture and values.

It is majority atheist though:pac:

philologos

A lot of people don't like to admit it. However, Christianity is always going to be with us in Europe to some degree. As are other faiths. Wouldn't it be more productive to find a way in which we can all live together?

Christianity is always going to have some degree of a role in public life, that is until one destroys all the churches, and causes all the followers to lose their religion.

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

It is majority atheist though:pac:

Humm... not if the 53% figure is correct. Anyway, the current level of belief isn't the issue, rather it's the origin of the values within the society.

PDN

Twin-go wrote: »

More a fact of european mideval history than anything else.

Yes, because any culture being influenced by anything is a fact of history. In Sweden's case the influence is from over 1000 years of Christian history - so it is most emphatically a society influenced by religion.

It was 92% in 1996 because until 1996 all Swedes on birth were automaticly made members of the curch of Sweden. Church attendance is concidered very low in Sweden and is decreasing all the time.

That is not true.

Children automatically became members of the church in Sweden if at least one of their parents was a member. Therefore, growing up in a home with a parent who was a church member, they have been influenced by religion whether they themselves actually choose to attend church or not.

It is estimated that between 45% and 70% of Swedes class themselves as Athiest.

So, it is reasonable to say that a society is influenced by religion if between 30% and 55% of the population class themselves as believers in some form of God.

This is an optional TAX and people can request not to pay it.

Yes, and the fact that the government collects the tax on behalf of the churches (something I disagree with btw) makes a mockery of any attempt to claim that the society is not influenced by religion.

Religion is thought as part of Social Science when all religions are given an equal footing within the class

Yes, and the fact that it is taught at all is a recognition that it is an influence.

The Swedish Government financially subsidises all schools

Which means that the Swedish government financially supports a higher percentage of the nation's religious schools than does the Irish government.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

It is majority atheist though:pac:

Depending on which set of figures is accurate.

My point, however, is that atheism tends to increase in societies that, due to a long exposure to Christian culture and values, have become tolerant, diverse and prosperous. So, an increase in atheists is generally evidence for Christian influence on society.

The main exceptions to this rule, of course, tend to be societies that attempt enforce atheism by brute force.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Yes, because any culture being influenced by anything is a fact of history. In Sweden's case the influence is from over 1000 years of Christian history - so it is most emphatically a society influenced by religion.

Which proves what ? Afghanistan is most emphatically a society influenced by religion. Nigeria is most emphatically a society influenced by religion. Nazi Germanu was most emphatically a society influenced by religion. etc

Children automatically became members of the church in Sweden if at least one of their parents was a member. Therefore, growing up in a home with a parent who was a church member, they have been influenced by religion whether they themselves actually choose to attend church or not.

I think he mixed up Sweden and Norway.

So, it is reasonable to say that a society is influenced by religion if between 30% and 55% of the population class themselves as believers in some form of God.

Your very clever with word play PDN. I do believe this is the most blatant though.

23% of Swedish citizens said "they believe there is a God".

This doesn't mean that your god is the only one considered.

53% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".

I'd love to hear your explanation of how, giving a sheet with three choices, 1 for a deity, 2 for a spirit/life force and 3 for neither you seem to think that people checking box number 2 believe in a god.

23% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force".

Yes, and the fact that the government collects the tax on behalf of the churches (something I disagree with btw) makes a mockery of any attempt to claim that the society is not influenced by religion.

The government also collects tax on alcohol, tobacco etc etc.

Which means that the Swedish government financially supports a higher percentage of the nation's religious schools than does the Irish government.

Your point ?

The Swedish government don't support the schools because they are religious, they support them because they are schools.

Twin-go

PDN wrote: »

Atheists like to cite Sweden as a poster child - but I believe it is little more than piggybacking on a society that has been predominantly shaped by Christian culture and values.

Sweden more evolved from Christian culture than influenced by it.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Which proves what ? Afghanistan is most emphatically a society influenced by religion. Nigeria is most emphatically a society influenced by religion. Nazi Germanu was most emphatically a society influenced by religion. etc

Who said it proves anything? The question was asked: name a successful society that has been influenced by religion. I answered the question.

Maybe you should try reading the thread before butting in with ignorant retorts?

I think he mixed up Sweden and Norway.

I don't think he did. He got the date right (1996) - so I'm pretty sure he was talking about Sweden.

Your very clever with word play PDN. I do believe this is the most blatant

This doesn't mean that your god is the only one considered. though.

I never claimed it was. I was discussing the influence 'religion' has had on Sweden. Again, maybe you should read the thread before you make false accusations about wordplay?

I'd love to hear your explanation of how, giving a sheet with three choices, 1 for a deity, 2 for a spirit/life force and 3 for neither you seem to think that people checking box number 2 believe in a god.

Because we are discussing the influence of religion, which includes all kinds of vague beliefs about gods, spirits and life-forces. So, for example, Buddhists would tick box 2 - but are a religion.

The government also collects tax on alcohol, tobacco etc etc.

Do you understand the distinction between collecting taxes on a product and collecting taxes for an organisation? I'm sure you'll get it if you concentrate.

Your point ?

The Swedish government don't support the schools because they are religious, they support them because they are schools.

My point is that the State, by financially supporting religious schools, recognises the link between the culture and religion. That, btw, is one of the reasons why I support a more secular society in Ireland where religious schools would be self-financing.

You can't have your cake and eat it. You cannot simultaneously argue the following.
a) Sweden is a secular society uninfluenced by religion, even though it supports religious schools from public funds.
b) Ireland, if it is to become a secular society, should stop funding religious schools.

So which is it? Are you OK with Ireland funding religious schools, or is Sweden influenced by religion and therefore not 100% secular?

Twin-go

We are influenced by history. It stops us from making the same mistake twice. Because Religion has existed it cannot help but influence society.

But we should draw a line in the sand. As I said in other posts on other threads, God himself has not come up with any new ideas in over 2000 years. Any changes to the church have been man made. Man who uses a God to influence his own power over other people.

Religion should be pushed to the background. It should be no more influencial on Irish society than the GAA, Irish Music, The Scouts. Yes people should be free to follow whatever religion they wish but, also people should be free from religion if they wish. In this country there is no freedom from Religion.

philologos

Most of us don't believe that religion is or was a mistake.

Religion shouldn't be pushed anywhere in a secular society. People have the right to express and practice their beliefs. Pushing it out of society is more akin to North Korea rather than Sweden.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Most of us don't believe that religion is or was a mistake.

Religion shouldn't be pushed anywhere in a secular society. People have the right to express and practice their beliefs. Pushing it out of society is more akin to North Korea rather than Sweden.

And who would be pushing it out of society, now?

PDN

Twin-go wrote: »

But we should draw a line in the sand. As I said in other posts on other threads, God himself has not come up with any new ideas in over 2000 years. Any changes to the church have been man made. Man who uses a God to influence his own power over other people.

That's interesting, and leads me to ask an obvious question. How do you know that any developments over the last 2000 years have come from man and not from God.

(Obviously you must believe in God yourself, otherwise your argument is blatant sophistry)

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

That's interesting, and leads me to ask an obvious question. How do you know that any developments over the last 2000 years have come from man and not from God.

(Obviously you must believe in God yourself, otherwise your argument is blatant sophistry)

I think you guys should meet halfway, PDN how do you know the developments haven't come from man?:p

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

I think you guys should meet halfway, PDN how do you know the developments haven't come from man?:p

I'm meeting him more than half way. I believe that most of the religious innovations in the last 2000 years have come from man.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Who said it proves anything? The question was asked: name a successful society that has been influenced by religion. I answered the question.

But you cannot prove that success has anything to do with religion, in fact I'd say it has had no bearing whatsoever. For good or bad. (In Sweden anyways)

I don't think he did. He got the date right (1996) - so I'm pretty sure he was talking about Sweden.

Ok.

Because we are discussing the influence of religion, which includes all kinds of vague beliefs about gods, spirits and life-forces. So, for example, Buddhists would tick box 2 - but are a religion.

2 points.

1 - Believing in 'gods, spirits or life-forces' does not necessarily mean a religion. 5 years ago and even maybe today I could answer yes to that question but I most certainly didn't/don't believe in any religion.

2 - I'm surprised you keep trying to push your above opinion of Buddhism especially considering your supposedly long stays in Asia. I can't understand why you wouldn't know that what Asian people classify as 'religion' and what western people do are very very different. And you also should know that many branches of Buddhism and Buddhists on a personal basis against their particular 'branch' do not believe in 'gods, spirits or life-forces' or anything like that whatsoever.

Do you understand the distinction between collecting taxes on a product and collecting taxes for an organisation? I'm sure you'll get it if you concentrate.

Explain it more clearly then.

My point is that the State, by financially supporting religious schools, recognises the link between the culture and religion. That, btw, is one of the reasons why I support a more secular society in Ireland where religious schools would be self-financing.

And my point is that the state is financing schools, the religious aspect is non-important to them.

You can't have your cake and eat it. You cannot simultaneously argue the following.
a) Sweden is a secular society uninfluenced by religion, even though it supports religious schools from public funds.
b) Ireland, if it is to become a secular society, should stop funding religious schools.

I have no issue with Ireland funding religious schools as long as the schools don't discriminate based on religion or try and force their religion on students who want no part of it.

Maybe I was lucky but during my education in Ireland religion was not forced on me, although I did partake in religion class and the olde praying, other students were exempt because their parents requested it and there was no problem with that.

So which is it? Are you OK with Ireland funding religious schools, or is Sweden influenced by religion and therefore not 100% secular?

No problem at all with funding religious schools as long as the schools don't discriminate against other religions, force their religion on anyone or teach rubbish such as as creationism/intelligent design.

I think you have completely misunderstand my position in the past, I don't want an end to religious education or religious institutions or even an end to religion. I just want freedom from it for anyone who wants it.

As per my previous posting about the religious nonsense in the Korean Universities, the Buddhist Universities (most of them*) do not force it on anyone and do not discriminate based on religion. The Christian ones do.

*I know of at least one Buddhist University where it is a requirement to take a class which is about the history of Buddhism. There is no bowing/praying/ceremoney stuff required.

I don't care where the funding comes from, public or private makes no difference because they are supposed to be first and foremost institutions of education.

Let me re-ask you a question.

As I previously explained, going to a top University in Korea is a requirement for a decent life. Many of the top Universities are Christian. To go to these schools you have to attend church. Until 2-3 years ago in the top Christian one you HAD to be a christian and you had to prove you were a christian.

People of other religions if they got an offer for these schools had/have no other choice but to accept it and be damn glad of it because its a gold star on your CV in the extremely competitive fight to get a decent job.

Do you really think this is right ? Do you really agree with it ?

For all the disagreements we have and the vastly differing opinions we have I still think your a decent person and I cannot believe you could agree with this type of nonsense.

Turtwig

monosharp wrote: »

Until 2-3 years ago in the top Christian one you HAD to be a christian and you had to prove you were a christian.

Just curious, how does one prove that they are a Christian?

monosharp

Malty_T wrote: »

Just curious, how does one prove that they are a Christian?

If you are actually Christian then a letter from your pastor telling them how long you've been attending his church, baptism record etc. Even then of course you must be the 'right' kind of Christian. There are thousands of independent churches here with their own particular brand of Christianity and some of them are quite strange and looked at as not really Christian by the mainstream.

*Another question for PDN, I had this discussion today with a friend who is a member of one of these churches. Not one of the really dodgy ones but not exactly mainstream either. Do you think its right that many churches here require their members to sign up to a direct debit to their church wherein a minimum of 5% (and in some cases 10%) of their salary goes to the church ?

If you aren't Chirstian then you go to the nearest Church, slip the pastor a little brown envelope and get your 'Christianity' that way. I have a friend who had to do this to attend and later to work in a University. Did I mention you still have to be Christian in some Universities to teach there ?

philologos

monosharp wrote: »

As I previously explained, going to a top University in Korea is a requirement for a decent life. Many of the top Universities are Christian. To go to these schools you have to attend church. Until 2-3 years ago in the top Christian one you HAD to be a christian and you had to prove you were a christian.

I believe we discussed this before. Many of South Koreas top universities on research are secular ones. Universities are also welcome to have whatever ethos they wish.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

But you cannot prove that success has anything to do with religion, in fact I'd say it has had no bearing whatsoever. For good or bad. (In Sweden anyways)

And you're entitled to bellieve whatever you want. That's the beauty of faith.

But the question was: name a successful society that has been influenced by religion.

The question has been answered.

Explain it more clearly then.

Are you taking the mickey? It's clear enough for anyone that can read. You genuinely don't understand the difference between collecting taxes on a product, and collecting taxes for an organisation?

So you would see the Irish government taxing beer as being the same as if the government used the tax system to collect money via income tax to give to Guinness?

As I previously explained, going to a top University in Korea is a requirement for a decent life. Many of the top Universities are Christian. To go to these schools you have to attend church. Until 2-3 years ago in the top Christian one you HAD to be a christian and you had to prove you were a christian.

People of other religions if they got an offer for these schools had/have no other choice but to accept it and be damn glad of it because its a gold star on your CV in the extremely competitive fight to get a decent job.

Do you really think this is right ? Do you really agree with it ?

We've been here before, and last time you seemed to get all upset because no-one else saw it from your point of view.

In a secular society I think any organisation can use private funds to set up a university. If that university has high enough academic standards then its degrees will be coveted. However, as a privately funded institute it has every right to fulfil its original purpose of operating by a Christian ethos, and that will be maintained by ensuring their intake is largely composed of Christians, and by making Christian worship part of life on campus.

I have no problem with non-Christians piggy-backing on the university's reputation for excellence to improve their CVs - but I think its crazy for them to then start complaining about the Christian ethos. They should be jolly grateful to the Christians for letting them benefit.

This is how secularism works. The State should not favour, support or endow religion. But religious groups have the same right to operate as anyone else. And if in some areas (like running privately-funded Universities) they turn out to be more successful than anyone else, then that should not be reason for sour grapes.

Twin-go

PDN wrote: »

That's interesting, and leads me to ask an obvious question. How do you know that any developments over the last 2000 years have come from man and not from God.

(Obviously you must believe in God yourself, otherwise your argument is blatant sophistry)

I am not using sophisms. I don't believe there is a God. The reason I say "God" (Christian) has not done anything in the last 2000 years is because that is when the Bible ends. No new Gospels, No more Burning Bushes, no parting of the seas, no virgin births and no second coming (although there have be claims this is normally atributed to Jerusalem syndrome:)) since 33AD. I am laying my cards on the table and not trying to deceive anyone.

In fact Sophistry is the perfect word to discribe religion. The Bible is fulll of contradictions and is generaly confusing. Mass was until recently only in Latin.

Religions only commodity is/was moral authority, if it loses this (and I think it already has) it loses its credability and does an organisation that has lost it's credability have any place influencing society?

philologos

You do realise Jerusalem Syndrome only refers to extreme events that are prompted by being present in the city of Jerusalem? It doesn't involve anything outside. It's mentioned in Christopher Hitchen's God is not Great when he is discussing religious experience.

PDN

Twin-go wrote: »

I am not using sophisms. I don't believe there is a God. The reason I say "God" (Christian) has not done anything in the last 2000 years is because that is when the Bible ends. No new Gospels, No more Burning Bushes, no parting of the seas, no virgin births and no second coming (although there have be claims this is normally atributed to Jerusalem syndrome:)) since 33AD. I am laying my cards on the table and not trying to deceive anyone.

So you are saying that God hasn't done anything in the last 2000 years, that it has been all man, even though you believe that everything before 2000 years ago was also man as well.

Like I said, sophistry.

The Bible is fulll of contradictions and is generaly confusing.

Anything is confusing to those who don't understand it. We've had plenty of threads in here about Bible contradictions before. They generally end up with atheists claiming that their own interpretation of a Scripture is the correct one (even though they have zero knowledge of the subject) when a perfectly reasonable interpretation exists where there is no contradiction implied.

Mass was until recently only in Latin.

I suggest you sit down, think a bit more clearly, and decide what it is you want to discuss.

If you want to discuss secularism, and whether it is good for Christianity or not, then this is the thread.

If you want to ask questions about the Bible then feel free to start a new thread.

If you want to go on a rant about the Roman Catholic Church (the branch that held mass in Latin until recently - even though other churches have worshipped in the vernacular since the days of the apostles) then After Hours will probably accommodate you.