Tolerating the intolerant

Memnoch

Tolerance, the most fundamental precept of the liberal, and I consider myself to be one. Let everyone have their say, let opposing views be heard. Consider all arguements equally and fairly. That's what's ultimately led to my belief in Agnosticism (as opposed to Aethism).

But is tolerance also our greatest weakness? How do we stop tolerating the intolerant without turning into that which we despise?

Thursday night on BBC question time, there was a debate on the issue of sex education in faith based schools. The issue being that schools run by the Church should not have to discuss homosexuality or related issues while teaching sex education to children. Or that they could paint it in a negative light in line with their beliefs and that of the parents whose children attend. The Shadow conservative home secratary (with a good chance of being in power in the UK in a few months) said(and I'm paraphrasing here), that not only does he effectively support faith based schools spewing whatever nonsense they want to about sexuality (including advising against condom use...) but that if they wanted to teach creationism in science class as a theory they should be allowed to do so, under the guise of the tolerance of other people's views.

He said, "We can say that there are other people who have these views, and they are against the majority of scientific opinion, but these are their views and we should respect their difference of opinion." Am I the only one scared by this kind of talk? Discussing creationism in science class as some kind of scientific theory.

I'd like to present the following quotes.

Creationism is pure fact... Our kids are being brainwashed by people who have no grip of reality. Reality is a world where athiests and those who support evolution surely dont live. It is ashamed at how kids are lied to being told that they evolved from a monkey... Evolution is one of the biggest frauds of our time. It truly is so sad how people are so far from reality. If you want to live in lala land then go ahead but there are some of us who choose to be in tune with reality. The reality is found in Genesis... It will do you some good if you just trust what it says as pure fact. Evolution comes from pure ignorance to the facts of how we got here.

JEREMY O'ROURKE, Christian Forums 11 Comments [10/1/2003 12:00:00 AM]

You people do realize that according to the law of God homosexuals should be put to death, so I think we are being very tolerant by allowing them to live. This said according to the word of God homsexuals are equal to murder and therefor have no civil right.

Seperation of Church and state is meant to keep the state out of church buisness and to ensure the Churches free reign, not the state free reign. I beleive many have it backwards.

RobinD69, City-Data 63 Comments [2/23/2010 12:59:41 PM]

No. I have no reason to believe gravity as we know it existed. The forces and balance of forces may have been quite different. Ever wonder how they built the early pyramids?

No evidence exists for gravity as we know it, to have existed, why would I need to disprove it???

dad, Christian Forums 70 Comments [2/25/2010 6:12:41 PM]

All of the above were taken from www.fstdt.com. I spent a long time laughing at these people, but when I stopped laughing, the scary reality emerged that these people get to VOTE for WHO has their finger on the friggin nuclear football.

IMO This is the result of letting religion and religious agenda interfere with education. SECULAR STATE education should be MANDATED. Religious teaching apart from an exploration of religion as a philosophy and practise (and that of all religions) should be forbidden. Home schooling should be illegal. I would go so far as to say that ALL CHILDREN should be taught about the dangers of religious fundamentalism and the actions of religious fanatics throughout history.

I'm really beginning to wonder, if we should go one step further and ban people from the practise of religion until they are at least 18 years of age and can make up their own minds. It's more cancerious to society than smoking.

It's time to stop tolerating the intolerant.

Sam Vimes

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm really beginning to wonder, if we should go one step further and ban people from the practise of religion until they are at least 18 years of age and can make up their own minds.

No we shouldn't

Karl Hungus

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm really beginning to wonder, if we should go one step further and ban people from the practise of religion until they are at least 18 years of age and can make up their own minds.

Who exactly is the 'we' here, and how would 'we' be in a position to stop people from practicing religion until they are 18? I'm assuming you mean we as in Atheists and Agnostics, so it would be pretty unlikely for lets say any atheists or agnostics who are in power in government not only to be in a position to enact such change, but also that all of them would have such an agenda? That sounds pretty far fetched.

People making choices for themselves in terms of religion once they reach adulthood is a lovely thought, but to be blunt, it's nothing but pure fantasy and something we will never see on a large scale in this lifetime. Belief is an extremely powerful thing, people lead their entire lives, make every moral judgment and decision based on their faith. I can't imagine that a religious couple would ever allow a child of theirs to be raised without religion, can you? So how could children possibly be raised without religion, successfully, without conflicts of interest between the parents and the law? I can't even begin to imagine how that would be enforced, or made possible. Do we have bouncers asking for ID outside church entrances?

How do we stop tolerating the intolerant without turning into that which we despise?

We don't. Ever. If 'we' ever try forcing our opinions on people, start raising their children to our standards, then 'we' do become as bad as the catholic church in this country. Atheism and agnosticism should never ape the practices of a religious organization, ever.

What would be next, instead of Jesus Camp, we have Atheist Camp?

Dades

I would be concerned if the same things were mooted for the Irish system.

(Somebody tell me none of that crap happens here...)

Memnoch

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Who exactly is the 'we' here, and how would 'we' be in a position to stop people from practicing religion until they are 18? I'm assuming you mean we as in Atheists and Agnostics, so it would be pretty unlikely for lets say any atheists or agnostics who are in power in government not only to be in a position to enact such change, but also that all of them would have such an agenda? That sounds pretty far fetched.

People making choices for themselves in terms of religion once they reach adulthood is a lovely thought, but to be blunt, it's nothing but pure fantasy and something we will never see on a large scale in this lifetime. Belief is an extremely powerful thing, people lead their entire lives, make every moral judgment and decision based on their faith. I can't imagine that a religious couple would ever allow a child of theirs to be raised without religion, can you? So how could children possibly be raised without religion, successfully, without conflicts of interest between the parents and the law? I can't even begin to imagine how that would be enforced, or made possible. Do we have bouncers asking for ID outside church entrances?

We don't. Ever. If 'we' ever try forcing our opinions on people, start raising their children to our standards, then 'we' do become as bad as the catholic church in this country. Atheism and agnosticism should never ape the practices of a religious organization, ever.

I suppose by we, I mean we as a society. And I mean this in a purely philosophical sense. I understand the practical difficulties associated with the idea and the even greater difficulty of ever enforcing such a law/attitude.

It's quite probable that most people are indoctrinated into religion at an age where they aren't able to make informed decisions. So it stands to reason that the best way to combat the spread of ignorance and doctrine is to prevent the brainwashing of impressionable children.

How do we stop parents from instilling their beliefs in their children, I don't know. What can we practically do?

Well, I think we can practically prevent anyone under 18 from attending a religious institution.

Shops are required to check IDs before they sell tobacco or alcohol. Similarly churches could be required to ensure that no one under 18 attends. Either that, or face a heavy fine. Those in power in religious institutions do everything to ensure that they indoctrinate people before they can really make a choice, which makes the entire concept of freedom of religion a flagrant hypocrisy. There is NO real freedom here, since most never get a chance to chose.

It is illegal to advertise alcohol and tobacco to children. We prevent them from accessing inappropriate sexual or violent content. We don't want fast food companies advertising to them. Yet we tolerate wholesale the brainwashing and indoctrination of religious dogma.

Secondly, I think as part of the school curiculum, relgion and religious myth should be systematically and logically debunked and children encouraged to question dogma and doctrine.

"Aethist camp," would be going too far. All I want is a chance for people to make up their own minds.

Where does the line get crossed between forcing your opinion on people, and PREVENTING relgious institutions from forcing their opinion upon others. The danger is that should we allow relgious organisations to grow unchecked, we're going to end up with the kind of situation they have in the states, with creationism getting taught in schools as a valid alternate theory to evolution and where carbon dating is considered to be a questionable and vague science.

Zillah

There's nothing wrong with intolerance.

Hear me out: There's no reasonable member of society that is not intolerant of things such as rape, theft and murder. So in principle we agree that intolerance is not necessarily bad. Where we need to have a discussion is on what is appropriate to be intolerant of.

I for one am quite happy to admit that I am entirely intolerant for allowing the insane ramblings of the faithful to enter schools, especially places where they insist upon absurd and irrational views, such as sex education and science class.

You people had thousands of years to try guiding the ship of humanity and you constantly screwed it up. It took the enlightenment to get to where we are now and I think we should keep that captain at the helm rather than letting crazy Joe the sooth sayer take over again.

Fuck Chris Grayling and the retarded horse he rode in on.

Zillah

Banning the practice of religion for anyone at any age is a very dumb idea however. I'll oppose any tyrant, whether he's a fascist or a prophet.

Memnoch

But the problem is that religion does not work that way. You say you want to ban/prevent the teaching of religious doctrine in schools.

Yet if enough people are brainwashed and there's a switch in demographics to where the relgious become the majority population then that is exactly the kind of thing you will see being brought back.

One leads to the other. The only way to protect science, logic or truth is the stop/prevent the spread of dogma and doctrine. Because once the religious are in power(as they have been before), they have no compunctions about enforcing THEIR opinions upon you. At the point of hot steel if need be.

Memnoch

Zillah wrote: »

Banning the practice of religion for anyone at any age is a very dumb idea however. I'll oppose any tyrant, whether he's a fascist or a prophet.

So it's not tyranical to brainwash/force children into following religion? Where do you think suicide bombers come from?

Goduznt Xzst

OP, I used to have similar musings to you, but I've since re-evaluated them and come to the conclusion that they are wrong.

The problem with your proposed policy is that it doesn't take into account your own mortality. If you institute a system whereby the religious are castigated and controlled and their freedom to raise their children as they see fit is removed, it may very well work for your generation, it may work during your childs generation also. But, somewhere along the line, after a couple of generations have died off, it will be abused by people long after your dead, and you will have instituted.

I'm sure Jesus was a decent bloke (if he did exist) and thought his whole scheme of worshiping a God and giving people hope was a great idea back then. But look at it now.

The only system that works for humanity is chaos, held in place by temporary rules and policies that can disintegrate and be abolished should the living generation see fit.

Often people confuse the certainty of a mathematical constant with the impermanence of human existence. What works for one generation can not be assumed to work, or even be relevant for a future generation.

Karl Hungus

Memnoch wrote: »

How do we stop parents from instilling their beliefs in their children, I don't know. What can we practically do?

Nothing, and neither should 'we' as a society try do anything in that regard either either. We can't really interfere with parents raising their children unless the parents are abusing those children, and if you're going to try argue that introducing a child to religion is abuse then you're taking things too far in my opinion. I was raised catholic (as I'm sure were many other people posting here) and came to my own mind about it being a load of old wives tales, so I'd hardly call that abusive at all. Quite a lot of people I know who were raised catholic grew up and would share my atheistic outlook today, so to be honest, I don't really see a huge danger in parents instilling their beliefs in their children, as I don't think it's even guaranteed to stick.

And come on, nobody under 18 can enter a church? I said 'bouncers looking for ID outside churches' as a parody of how ridiculous an idea it would be, not as a serious suggestion. Whatever about children attending mass regularly, what about weddings and funerals? Sorry Julie, you can't see your big sister getting married, you're not old enough to enter the church. Sorry Timmy, can't come in and say your final goodbye to granddad, you're not old enough. I can see that working out well.

Memnoch wrote: »

So it's not tyranical to brainwash/force children into following religion? Where do you think suicide bombers come from?

Nonsense strawman argument that's nothing more than an extreme example. I was raised catholic, I'm not a suicide bomber.

Or am I?

Zillah

Memnoch wrote: »

One leads to the other. The only way to protect science, logic or truth is the stop/prevent the spread of dogma and doctrine. Because once the religious are in power(as they have been before), they have no compunctions about enforcing THEIR opinions upon you. At the point of hot steel if need be.

You could say the same about any ideology you oppose. The awful men running China and North Korea think like you. Stalin and the Inquisition thought like you. The men behind Big Brother in 1984 think like you. You hold poor company my friend. Just because you think an ideology is bad does not give you carte blanche to strip people's rights, dictate how they raise their children and to literally tell them what they are allowed to think.

I too would like to see religion go away, but not at the price you propose. We can engage them publicly, spread criticisms of their beliefs with TV, the internet and by published works. We can foster education and sceptical thinking. I suspect that with these things we're going to win in the end. Religion may be becoming more extreme in recent years, but it's also never been so unpopular. We may be seeing the reactionary death throes of a corrupt way of thinking.

But if they do win, so be it. There is no fundamental limitation on how many generations of humanity shall exist, the enlightenment will come again.

I'm not willing to become a tyrant to stop them. I'm also not willing to let you, or anyone, become a tyrant to stop them either.

old_aussie

Yes tolerance and PC is our greatest weakness.

Just using hitler as an example.

People tolerated hitler for a while and when they cound no longer tolerate him any more they had to use the same force and tactics(as hitler used) to wipe him out.

You can only tolerate something for so long before you have to revert to their tactics and say "hey we've had enough".

Fight force with greater force. It's the only way in the end.

Turning the other cheek or ignoring it will get you no where but deeper into misery.

Zillah

Even while making a list of tyrants I managed to not Godwin the thread, and then you wander in.

Anyway, no one used Hitler's own tactics against him. He was defeated by a dozen democracies and one communist state. I don't recall the British having the Gestapo raiding people's homes for saying something against the government. Pretty sure there were no death camps for people of German or Austrian descent in the US. Granted, the USSR was pretty horrible but they didn't need to be to defeat the Third Reich.

In fact, what you just said made no sense whatsoever.

krudler

I'm really beginning to wonder, if we should go one step further and ban people from the practise of religion until they are at least 18 years of age and can make up their own minds. It's more cancerious to society than smoking.

No, however I do think baptism should not be initiated at birth, but as an adult, I hate the idea I'm part of an organisation that I cant get out of , even if you do the countmeout.ie thing, the church still considers you one of theirs as baptism cant be reversed afaik. Baptism these days is rarely ever for the religious side of it anyway its more to do with a celebration of a new baby,and cake, lots of cake

Antbert

Well, I do agree that all schools should be secular (I see no reason why education and religion need to go together, regardless of the religious orientation of the parents) but regards the rest... It's quite scary. Aside from the fact that you want to impose some sort of tyrannical oppressive rule on society, it's completely impractical. If you did by some bizarre series of events find yourself in a position of power to do this, you'd only make religion stronger. It thrives under oppression.

People complain about militant atheists and it annoys me. Then YOU come along and prove them right.

Memnoch

Okay,
Firstly, I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic, though I am very strongly anti-religion, while still accepting the possibility of a supernatural force/being. Just not accepting any explanation or description provided by man i.e. bible/Quran etc of this possible phenomenon.

Going to take a step back here. I'm not a militant and I'm not interested in being militant. I was just trying to think of a way of preventing the indoctrination of children and this is something that practically is probably very difficult to do and so the idea I suggested in that regard might not work and seem on the extreme side.

But let's get back to basics, to the core of what I'm trying to say. We, as a society deem all sorts of things and exposures as being inappropriate for children. Alcohol, cigarettes, driving, voting. It's generally recognised that they have not fully developed a strong enough decision making capacity and there are certain things they need to be protected from.

What I don't understand is why is it considered perfectly acceptable to systematically brainwash generation after generation into believing something that suits the agenda of what are really political organisations out only to look after themselves (i.e. organised religion). People keep talking about tyranny and militancy. I'll re-iterate. If a human being is never given a CHOICE about whether to follow religion or not, because they can get so completely brainwashed at an early age, then is that NOT tyranny?

I appreciate that many people who are given a strong religious education still manage to escape from it and discover their own belief system, and perhpas this is not AS big a problem in Ireland as it is in say... Saudi Arabia. But look at the U.S. the richest most powerful country in the world, and it is VERY MUCH a problem there, and there is nothing to say that such issues will not rise up in the UK and here again.

And the scenario of the quotes I posted in my OP in this thread transferring to Ireland is really quite unpaletable to me.

Ickle Magoo

People teach their children all manner of things, not to kill, study hard, be nice to other people, etc, etc. What gives you the right to say that one specific form of teaching is WRONG while the other "moral" guidance we all give to our kids is perfectly acceptable?

I have a much stronger wish for free will and equality than I do for anti-theism. I accepts that the lines are blurred in some instances when certain religions or religious politics stand in the way of free will and equality but that doesn't mean that theism as a whole should be banned, or you are no better than those you seek to destroy.

Memnoch

Zillah wrote: »

Even while making a list of tyrants I managed to not Godwin the thread, and then you wander in.

Anyway, no one used Hitler's own tactics against him. He was defeated by a dozen democracies and one communist state. I don't recall the British having the Gestapo raiding people's homes for saying something against the government. Pretty sure there were no death camps for people of German or Austrian descent in the US. Granted, the USSR was pretty horrible but they didn't need to be to defeat the Third Reich.

In fact, what you just said made no sense whatsoever.

The allies did indiscrimnately bomb the german civillian population in order to sow unrest and to demoralize the enemy. In that, they were quite ruthless.

Democratic nations have supported and participated in tyrany. The West's support of Saddam for example. Or supporting Pakistani dictators. The tolerance and protection of Israeli tactics in palestine. The wars in Iraq and Afghanasthan, the blatant circumventing of human rights. Torture, Guantanmo bay, and this is just in the past couple of decades. The list goes on.

The tyranny of democracy can be and is just as bad as the tyranny of the dictators you mentioned, except that kind of tyranny is intelligent enough to focus outward rather than inward.

Also, please feel free to debate my posts, but I don't appreciate being called names, ala Tyrant etc.

Memnoch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

People teach their children all manner of things, not to kill, study hard, be nice to other people, etc, etc. What gives you the right to say that one specific form of teaching is WRONG while the other "moral" guidance we all give to our kids is perfectly acceptable?

I have a much stronger wish for free will and equality than I do for anti-theism. I accepts that the lines are blurred in some instances when certain religions or religious politics stand in the way of free will and equality but that doesn't mean that theism as a whole should be banned, or you are no better than those you seek to destroy.

Free will, that's exactly what I'm also gunning for.

There is no free will for a person who is brainwashed and indoctrinated from a very early age. This is why we prohibit advertising of tobacco and alcohol to kids and even fast food.

Religion is no different. It's something that people should be able to understand and make a FREE CHOICE about. Most children that are indoctrinated into it are not given that choice. It is taken away from them before they have even developed the capacity to think critically about the subject.

The result is that you get people who question the science of carbon dating, who argue that evolution is a theory that has no lesser or greater merit than creationism. Who then go and vote for someone based on these twisted beliefs and give that person power over ALL of us.

Sarah Palin with the nuclear trigger. Wohoo, can't wait.

And when was the last time you had an agnostic suicide bomber.

Ickle Magoo

People have been murdering each other for as long as homo sapiens first evolved, it would be completely naive to think without religion there would be no violence.

If there is no such thing as free-will for people who have been religiously indoctrinated, how do you explain all the people who were raised with religion and consider themselves atheist or agnostic?

Karl Hungus

Memnoch wrote: »

Sarah Palin with the nuclear trigger. Wohoo, can't wait.

And when was the last time you had an agnostic suicide bomber.

Well done, you're spouting more hyperbole than the more extreme theists who post here do, so if you plan to beat them at their own game, pat yourself on the back.

Memnoch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

People have been murdering each other for as long as homo sapiens first evolved, it would be completely naive to think without religion there would be no violence.

When did I say there would be no violence without religion? My goal isn't the elimination of religion, it's that EVERYONE should have the FREEDOM to chose whether they end up as part of a religious faith or not. An option many children who are indoctrinated, do not have and will never have as adults.

If there is no such thing as free-will for people who have been religiously indoctrinated, how do you explain all the people who were raised with religion and consider themselves atheist or agnostic?

I already answered this in a post above so will simply re-quote myself.

"I appreciate that many people who are given a strong religious education still manage to escape from it and discover their own belief system, and perhpas this is not AS big a problem in Ireland as it is in say... Saudi Arabia. But look at the U.S. the richest most powerful country in the world, and it is VERY MUCH a problem there, and there is nothing to say that such issues will not rise up in the UK and here again."

I'll also add... we've had a backlash in this country because of the church's behaviour during the famine and continuing on from that, eg the recent scandal involving clerical abuse. This has helped to break the hold that the religious institutions had over the populace. However, there is nothing to say that given enough time this hold will not be reestablished unless there is constant education about what religious organisations really stand for.

Memnoch

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Well done, you're spouting more hyperbole than the more extreme theists who post here do, so if you plan to beat them at their own game, pat yourself on the back.

Fine, perhaps they are hypoerbolic examples, at the extreme end of the scale in some respects. My main points still stand, and tbh, so do these examples.

Someone like Sarah Palin could NEVER get elected without the support of the fundamentalist Christian right in the U.S. You know the kind of people who advocate active discrimination against homosexuals, teaching of creationism as science. There is nothing hyperbolic about this, this is very much the reality.

When George Bush was re-elected in 2004 over John Kerry, I remember watching the coverage on CNN, FOX (shudder) etc. and they did exit polls. Out of the people who voted for Bush they found that for a large number, opposition to "gay marriage," was a major and central issue. Much more so than say, the wars in Iraq or Afghanasthan.

Religious institutions interfere in world affairs in ways that affect ALL of us, whether or not we chose to believe, and they are able to do so based on the seeds of ignorance they sow and through the support base they build up through systematic brainwashing and indoctrination, generation after generation.

Ickle Magoo

Memnoch wrote: »

When did I say there would be no violence without religion? My goal isn't the elimination of religion, it's that EVERYONE should have the FREEDOM to chose whether they end up as part of a religious faith or not. An option many children who are indoctrinated, do not have and will never have as adults.

You can't claim the free-choice card and then say it only applies to secularists...it works both ways. Free-choice gives parents the right to share their faith with their children as it gives their children the choice to declare themselves atheists.

Memnoch wrote: »

I already answered this in a post above so will simply re-quote myself.

"I appreciate that many people who are given a strong religious education still manage to escape from it and discover their own belief system, and perhpas this is not AS big a problem in Ireland as it is in say... Saudi Arabia. But look at the U.S. the richest most powerful country in the world, and it is VERY MUCH a problem there, and there is nothing to say that such issues will not rise up in the UK and here again."

Most stats suggest religion is very much on the decline, I don't think religion is ever going to have the degree of control it once had. Many aspects of what we would consider outward proclamations of faith, both in Ireland & Saudi, are as much cultural as religious, at this stage.

Memnoch wrote: »

I'll also add... we've had a backlash in this country because of the church's behaviour during the famine and continuing on from that, eg the recent scandal involving clerical abuse. This has helped to break the hold that the religious institutions had over the populace. However, there is nothing to say that given enough time this hold will not be reestablished unless there is constant education about what religious organisations really stand for.

If you really feel so strongly about human rights and the right-to choose, you'd be serving your cause much better concentrating on Sierra Leone, Algeria, Libya, Burundi &/or DR of Congo than arguing for the emancipation of children from their well meaning parents.

Zillah

Memnoch wrote: »

The allies did indiscrimnately bomb the german civillian population in order to sow unrest and to demoralize the enemy. In that, they were quite ruthless.

Democratic nations have supported and participated in tyrany. The West's support of Saddam for example. Or supporting Pakistani dictators. The tolerance and protection of Israeli tactics in palestine. The wars in Iraq and Afghanasthan, the blatant circumventing of human rights. Torture, Guantanmo bay, and this is just in the past couple of decades. The list goes on.

The tyranny of democracy can be and is just as bad as the tyranny of the dictators you mentioned, except that kind of tyranny is intelligent enough to focus outward rather than inward.

Yes, there have been people who have taken what should be democracies with respect for human rights and turned them into violent aggressors. I criticize them as severely as I do you.

It's a bit like saying that because some doctors have raped their patients in the past you think it should be ok for you as well.

Also, please feel free to debate my posts, but I don't appreciate being called names, ala Tyrant etc.

Would you prefer fascist?

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

Would you prefer fascist?

Zillah -- cool it, please.

Zillah

Jawohl mein fuhrer!

Dades

Zillah wrote: »

Jawohl mein fuhrer!

A&A mods = Nazis?
Methinks you don't post in enough other forums.

Zillah

No no, I was just saying "sure thing boss!" but with a slight ironic twist.

eoin5

Memnoch wrote: »

Okay,
Firstly, I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic, though I am very strongly anti-religion, while still accepting the possibility of a supernatural force/being.

Sorry I'm going OT here but please realize that agnosticism is not option C after theism and atheism. You either believe in god or you dont, the "could he exist" question is different.

old_aussie

Zillah wrote: »

Even while making a list of tyrants I managed to not Godwin the thread, and then you wander in.

Anyway, no one used Hitler's own tactics against him. He was defeated by a dozen democracies and one communist state. I don't recall the British having the Gestapo raiding people's homes for saying something against the government. Pretty sure there were no death camps for people of German or Austrian descent in the US. Granted, the USSR was pretty horrible but they didn't need to be to defeat the Third Reich.

In fact, what you just said made no sense whatsoever.

I just meant that hitler was using brute force(the war machine) to take over other countries, the other countries got jack of it and used greater brute force to defeat hitler.

Hitler brutally slaughtered many Russian women and children, he considered them sub-human. Russians could not tollerate this and decided to try and wipe out german soldiers to the last man.

Memnoch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You can't claim the free-choice card and then say it only applies to secularists...it works both ways. Free-choice gives parents the right to share their faith with their children as it gives their children the choice to declare themselves atheists.

That's paradoxical. If parents brain-wash children, then they effectively don't really have a choice in the matter. It's like girls being brought up in Muslim countries. Sure they have a "choice" not to wear a burqa when they more to Europe after being brainwashed the first xxx years of their life. I believe that the freedom of an individual to chose is greater than the freedom of another to impose their opinion upon them.

Also you conveniently skipped over my arguements regarding the likes of Sarah Palin and Bush and the fact that it is the religious right who keeps them in power. These people then enact policies that interfere with the rights of people all over the world to be free.

Most stats suggest religion is very much on the decline, I don't think religion is ever going to have the degree of control it once had. Many aspects of what we would consider outward proclamations of faith, both in Ireland & Saudi, are as much cultural as religious, at this stage.

Perhaps in Europe, but it's quite flagrant in many parts of the world still. And it seems to be on the rise in the U.S. again if you consider the backlash against evolution etc. that seems to be (albeit observationally) more frequent. There is nothing to say it won't dominate the landscape again, at least if religious institutions have anything to do about it, and they fight for this very goal daily.

If you really feel so strongly about human rights and the right-to choose, you'd be serving your cause much better concentrating on Sierra Leone, Algeria, Libya, Burundi &/or DR of Congo than arguing for the emancipation of children from their well meaning parents.

So Guantanamo bay, torture, the wars in iraq and afghanasthan are beacons of human rights. If we want to spread human rights across the world we need to clean up our back yards first.

Also the whole arguement of, these other terrible things are happening there so lets not bother with this other wrong stuff here doesn't wash with me.

Well meaning people burnt heretics at the stake and believed in slavery. Well meaning people eleceted Bush.

Memnoch

eoin5 wrote: »

You either believe in god or you dont, the "could he exist" question is different.

Says who?

I don't know if god exists or not. How can I believe or disbelieve something I'm unsure of?

I don't believe in the god as described by humanity. But I accept the possibilty of a super natural being/ entity.

Ickle Magoo

If children are free to walk away from religion then they have free-choice, their parents have the free-choice to pass on their faith, any faith, or no faith - you may not agree with them doing so but you cannot rescind their right to do so without also removing free-will, in the name of free-will? Doesn't make sense.

You don't seem to understand what free-will is despite claiming that's what you are fighting for. Free will is being able to have any religion you want and free will is voting for whom you want. Laying down a blanket ban or demanding some kind of mandatory atheistic politicians & policies - not sure how you intend on policing that - has to be the worst way to deal with religion or quash religious power, I'm not sure why you can't see that. The only way to get a truly secular society is to have people voluntarily want a secular society.

You seem to see the world in two shades, black and white & are wilfully ignoring the myriad of greys. You are simplifying to the ridiculous nth degree hugely complex issues that different countries and cultures have both in themselves and with others (which would be the case with or without religion) to give you some kind of basis for an anti-theist stance, unfortunately it's every bit as irrational (Bush=Christian=war for instance) as the views you seem to find so distasteful.

Dades

Memnoch wrote: »

I don't believe in the god as described by humanity. But I accept the possibilty of a super natural being/ entity.

That makes you as atheist as most of the people here.

Atheism isn't about absolutes, or knowing either way. It and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One has to accept the possibility of something we don't know about - which means we're all agnostic to a degree.

antiskeptic

Memnoch wrote: »

Tolerance, the most fundamental precept of the liberal, and I consider myself to be one. Let everyone have their say, let opposing views be heard. Consider all arguements equally and fairly. That's what's ultimately led to my belief in Agnosticism (as opposed to Aethism).

But is tolerance also our greatest weakness? How do we stop tolerating the intolerant without turning into that which we despise?

You ask yourself a good question here...

SECULAR STATE education should be MANDATED. Religious teaching apart from an exploration of religion as a philosophy and practise (and that of all religions) should be forbidden. Home schooling should be illegal. I would go so far as to say that ALL CHILDREN should be taught about the dangers of religious fundamentalism and the actions of religious fanatics throughout history.

I'm really beginning to wonder, if we should go one step further and ban people from the practise of religion until they are at least 18 years of age and can make up their own minds. It's more cancerious to society than smoking.

It's time to stop tolerating the intolerant.

..and fail to answer it in spectacular fashion here. You simply leapfrog from that which is to be despised by you (a supposed liberal) to doing the very thing you must, as a liberal, despise.

Methinks you've an identity crisis brewing here: you'd like to be liberal - but only with involving that which suits your own book. Which makes you (and you certainly sound this way) as fanatical as any other you seek to suppress.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

One has to accept the possibility of something we don't know about - which means we're all agnostic to a degree.

Unless you're a Dawkinsian 7 of course (of whom there are surprisingly many. Perhaps they suppose free thinking to permit just about anything at all)

Memnoch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If children are free to walk away from religion then they have free-choice, their parents have the free-choice to pass on their faith, any faith, or no faith - you may not agree with them doing so but you cannot rescind their right to do so without also removing free-will, in the name of free-will? Doesn't make sense.

Okay, I'm just repeating myself now, and usually when you reach that point in the discussion there's no use carrying on.. but here goes. Children who are brainwashed don't have a free-choice. The free choice to later walk away from religion is only there in THEORY. Not in reality. The reason IRISH children can walk away easier is because right now, there isn't a lot of brainwashing that actually goes on, because of the current state of dissillusionment with religion in this country. Examples of brainwashing of children would be countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, parts of the U.S. (red states) etc... Notice how religion has a much stronger hold in these places? It's not a coincidence.

You don't seem to understand what free-will is despite claiming that's what you are fighting for. Free will is being able to have any religion you want and free will is voting for whom you want.

I'd submit that it is you who don't understand the real meaning of free will. People who are brainwashed and indoctrinated into a given ideology don't really have free will and have been deprived of it. That's why things like freedom of the press are important. Take a look at battered/abused spouses or children. In theory they are free to walk out and escape any time. They just have to seek help. The reality for many is that they don't even fathom that the have this freedom, because of fear and the psychological programming they are subjected to by their abusers.

Laying down a blanket ban or demanding some kind of mandatory atheistic politicians & policies - not sure how you intend on policing that - has to be the worst way to deal with religion or quash religious power, I'm not sure why you can't see that. The only way to get a truly secular society is to have people voluntarily want a secular society.

So the idea of separation of relgion from state is now redundant? This seems to be an idea enshrined in many constitutions and a declarations of many democracies. Yet the reality sees religion interfere at every step. So why is it wrong to ask that we take steps to ensure it does not.

You seem to see the world in two shades, black and white & are wilfully ignoring the myriad of greys. You are simplifying to the ridiculous nth degree hugely complex issues that different countries and cultures have both in themselves and with others (which would be the case with or without religion) to give you some kind of basis for an anti-theist stance, unfortunately it's every bit as irrational (Bush=Christian=war for instance) as the views you seem to find so distasteful.

When did I ever say Bush = Christian = war? You're drawing that conclusion all on your on. What I DID say was that someone like BUSH was only able to get elected because of the support of the extreme religious right. That he did so by pandering (or maybe he really believes in it) to their extremist ideology and effectively promising to continue discrimination against homosexuals; and to continue to blur or sabotage the American constitution's promise to separate church from state. Is it a co-incidence that someone like Bush who is ignorant about issues like discrimination and the validity of evolutionary theory also happens to be ignorant about issues like human rights, torture and wars of aggression? I don't know. I don't think that religion caused Bush to go around and start idiotic wars. But I do think that a certain willfull ignorance is required in order to accept the faith of religion, and I'm sure that same kind of willfull ignorance comes in real handy when you are trying to redefine pretending to drown another human being as a "harsh interrogation technique" and not torture.

Black and white is saying that because people are theoretically free to walk away from religion when they grow up they have "Free will." The grey truth is that people who are brainwashed don't really have a choice. I understand the complexities, that I don't agree with your point of view isn't a litmus test of whether I do or do not. But I'm sure condescending to me about it is conventient and helpful in avoiding really thinking with an open mind about what I'm trying to say.

Ickle Magoo

Memnoch wrote: »

But I'm sure condescending to me about it is conventient and helpful in avoiding really thinking with an open mind about what I'm trying to say.

No, what's stopping me is how ludicrous your point is. You think you can implement a ban on the under 18's being introduced or indoctrinated into religion - grand. I await with baited breath how you intend on doing that and what net result you expect...

Memnoch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, what's stopping me is how ludicrous your point is. You think you can implement a ban on the under 18's being introduced or indoctrinated into religion - grand. I await with baited breath how you intend on doing that and what net result you expect...

You're right, it is ludicrous. I threw it out there as an idea. It's completely impractical and unenforcable, not without doing crazy stuff that would defeat the purpose of the exercise to begin with. I get that, and admitted as much in a previous post.

TBH I regret even suggesting it at all and it was more an exhalation of my frustration on the issue than a realisitic proposotion of how we should move forward. The POINT of starting this thread was to seek solutions of what we can do, and sadly that(admittiedly idiotic) suggestion has completely derailed what I was trying to accomplish and lead people to even misread what I've been trying to say in most of the posts because they seem to be focussing on this one aspect...

So back to the point... what CAN we do?

I think there are a few things we can do that are practically enforcable.

1. Any form of religion or religious theory should only be taught in religious class. And this should include a discussion on ALL religions and what they mean.

2. We should also teach children about the influence of religion throughout history, god or bad and debunk the various myths associated with religion. We should actively encourage children to not simply accept what they are told but to seek out the truth through research and exploration. (i.e. just cause your parents tell you to believe in god, that doesn't mean you should). If religious parents don't like it... tough, they have their chance to sell their version. Of course no home schooling should be allowed, to prevent one-sided brainwashing.

3. Religion should strictly be barred from science. This is basically the same as point 1 above. You wanna talk about creationism? Do it in religion class, not in biology.

We also need to think about how we can further enforce the seperation of chruch and state in government. I'm not sure where to begin on this. A Tax on religious institutions as on any other business and a dissolution of their current status as charities (as suggested in another thread) is probably a good starting point.

strobe

Memnoch wrote: »

You're right, it is ludicrous. I threw it out there as an idea. It's completely impractical and unenforcable, not without doing crazy stuff that would defeat the purpose of the exercise to begin with. I get that, and admitted as much in a previous post.

TBH I regret even suggesting it at all and it was more an exhalation of my frustration on the issue than a realisitic proposotion of how we should move forward. The POINT of starting this thread was to seek solutions of what we can do, and sadly that(admittiedly idiotic) suggestion has completely derailed what I was trying to accomplish and lead people to even misread what I've been trying to say in most of the posts because they seem to be focussing on this one aspect...

So back to the point... what CAN we do?

I think there are a few things we can do that are practically enforcable.

1. Any form of religion or religious theory should only be taught in religious class. And this should include a discussion on ALL religions and what they mean.

2. We should also teach children about the influence of religion throughout history, god or bad and debunk the various myths associated with religion. We should actively encourage children to not simply accept what they are told but to seek out the truth through research and exploration. (i.e. just cause your parents tell you to believe in god, that doesn't mean you should). If religious parents don't like it... tough, they have their chance to sell their version. Of course no home schooling should be allowed, to prevent one-sided brainwashing.

3. Religion should strictly be barred from science. This is basically the same as point 1 above. You wanna talk about creationism? Do it in religion class, not in biology.

We also need to think about how we can further enforce the seperation of chruch and state in government. I'm not sure where to begin on this. A Tax on religious institutions as on any other business and a dissolution of their current status as charities (as suggested in another thread) is probably a good starting point.

Well that's a lot less extreme sounding than your earlier posts. Teach religion in religion class? Fine. Make sure science and religion are seperated? Perfect. Outlaw homeschooling? Not in my home buddy. If I choose to educate my kids at home, as long as I can show they are getting as good an education as kids in the public school system then the state should stay out of my business. As long as I am not harming anyone, as far as I am concerned, the state have no authority in my home or over my person. That's the essence of libertarianism. You're not a liberal dude...

Erren Music

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, what's stopping me is how ludicrous your point is. You think you can implement a ban on the under 18's being introduced or indoctrinated into religion - grand. I await with baited breath how you intend on doing that and what net result you expect...

Whats get me is how ludicrous your point is.

You think you can implement brainwashing of under 18's by an organisation guilty of murdering and raping children, and being introduced or indoctrinated into a religion based solely on your location.

Thats a mad idea, nobody would be that stoopid.

I would like more education for the religious, show them the facts everyday. The front page of the national papers, the TV shows they watch.

The Irish Times and the Independent should both spend a week exploring religious origins and practises in detail, highlighting all the bits that don't make any sense.

strobe

Erren Music wrote: »

Whats get me is how ludicrous your point is.

You think you can implement brainwashing of under 18's by an organisation guilty of murdering and raping children, and being introduced or indoctrinated into a religion based solely on your location.

Thats a mad idea, nobody would be that stoopid.

I would like more education for the religious, show them the facts everyday. The front page of the national papers, the TV shows they watch.

The Irish Times and the Independent should both spend a week exploring religious origins and practises in detail, highlighting all the bits that don't make any sense.

I think you missed her point entirely. Passing into law a ban on anyone under 18 being thought a religious belief is unworkable and wouldn't mean children of religious people wouldn't grow up religious.

Ickle Magoo

Memnoch wrote: »

You're right, it is ludicrous. I threw it out there as an idea. It's completely impractical and unenforcable, not without doing crazy stuff that would defeat the purpose of the exercise to begin with. I get that, and admitted as much in a previous post.

TBH I regret even suggesting it at all and it was more an exhalation of my frustration on the issue than a realisitic proposotion of how we should move forward. The POINT of starting this thread was to seek solutions of what we can do, and sadly that(admittiedly idiotic) suggestion has completely derailed what I was trying to accomplish and lead people to even misread what I've been trying to say in most of the posts because they seem to be focussing on this one aspect...

So back to the point... what CAN we do?

I think there are a few things we can do that are practically enforcable.

1. Any form of religion or religious theory should only be taught in religious class. And this should include a discussion on ALL religions and what they mean.

2. We should also teach children about the influence of religion throughout history, god or bad and debunk the various myths associated with religion. We should actively encourage children to not simply accept what they are told but to seek out the truth through research and exploration. (i.e. just cause your parents tell you to believe in god, that doesn't mean you should). If religious parents don't like it... tough, they have their chance to sell their version. Of course no home schooling should be allowed, to prevent one-sided brainwashing.

3. Religion should strictly be barred from science. This is basically the same as point 1 above. You wanna talk about creationism? Do it in religion class, not in biology.

We also need to think about how we can further enforce the seperation of chruch and state in government. I'm not sure where to begin on this. A Tax on religious institutions as on any other business and a dissolution of their current status as charities (as suggested in another thread) is probably a good starting point.

See, now, bar the home schooling ban - I agree whole-heartedly with that post. The main issue, here at least, is getting a separation from church and state because it's impossible to implement most of your suggestions when 95% of the schools are faith schools. :mad:

Erren Music wrote: »

Whats get me is how ludicrous your point is.

You think you can implement brainwashing of under 18's by an organisation guilty of murdering and raping children, and being introduced or indoctrinated into a religion based solely on your location.

Thats a mad idea, nobody would be that stoopid.

Huh? I think I can wha?!

Erren Music wrote: »

I would like more education for the religious, show them the facts everyday. The front page of the national papers, the TV shows they watch.

The Irish Times and the Independent should both spend a week exploring religious origins and practises in detail, highlighting all the bits that don't make any sense.

And that was my point, just in case you missed it. The best way to fight religion is with facts, education, information - if you look at religion and the irreligious today Vs 100yrs ago, much progress has been made, it's slowing going I'll grant you but the balance has definitely shifted. What was once deemed the norm has become "extreme" or "conservative" and the centre has slowly shifted to the left.

Banning anything that is considered part of a cultural or national identity is just going to make people hold on all the tighter & is essentially self-defeating.

Erren Music

strobe wrote: »

I think you missed her point entirely. Passing into law a ban on anyone under 18 being thought a religious belief is unworkable and wouldn't mean children of religious people wouldn't grow up religious.

My point was meant to be tongue in cheek.
I just quoted what she said and inserted the words in bold.


Picture if we were all atheist and the government tried to implement religion on us

"brainwashing of under 18's by an organisation guilty of murdering and raping children, and being introduced or indoctrinated into a religion based solely on your location.

Thats a mad idea, nobody would be that stoopid.

Erren Music

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Banning anything that is considered part of a cultural or national identity is just going to make people hold on all the tighter & is essentially self-defeating.

I agree with you, banning is not necessary. All it takes is for the vocalisation of the half million + atheists that live here.

I have a problem with traditions and cultural or national identity issues. Just because some say its so does not make it true. We have no cultural identity left in this country.

Our national identity is that we let delusional religious practices control this country, then we let them rape and kill children. Then we paid for their mess and left them in control of our schools. What does that say about us?

We tolerated 3rd class service and corruption from our politicians, health service, etc. We are a joke.

Ickle Magoo

That's a bit harsh tbh...

Genghiz Cohen

Erren Music wrote: »

We are a joke.

Jokes are funny.

antiskeptic

Erren Music wrote: »

I agree with you, banning is not necessary. All it takes is for the vocalisation of the half million + atheists that live here.

According to 2006 CSO figures, those stating themselves as of "No Religion" total but 175,000. Atheists can be assumed to form but some fraction of that amount.

Voice insufficient to insist on radical change

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/popnclassbyreligionandnationality2006.htm

We tolerated 3rd class service and corruption from our politicians, health service, etc. We are a joke.

We're coming from a long way back: a relatively young, post-colonial country, without much by way of visible means of self-support shouldn't have too much expected from it. I wouldn't let a blip called "The Celtic Tiger" divert you from those facts.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Voice insufficient to insist on radical change

I would argue that taking EU grant and subsidies with one hand while willfully enshrining an education system in direct contravention of EU human rights legislation with the other, should be though...