Atheist Ireland attends OSCE human rights conference in Warsaw

Michael Nugent

Jane Donnelly and I are in Poland today for the OSCE Human Rights Conference on Human Rights. This is the first time an Irish atheist advocacy group has taken part in an OSCE event. We will highlight the need for a secular Irish Constitution, education system and laws where the state is neutral about religion and protects the equal right of each citizen to freedom of and from religion.

The OSCE is the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. It includes 56 States from Europe, North America and Asia. Next year Ireland will chair the OSCE for the first time. This week’s conference in Warsaw is about how the OSCE States address human rights issues, and Atheist Ireland will take part in the session this morning on freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.

Earlier this year, the World Atheist Convention in Dublin launched a new umbrella advocacy group called Atheist Alliance International, which we hope will be liaising with the OSCE on a regular basis in future years. Delegates at that Convention also debated and adopted the Dublin Declaration on Secularism and the Place of Religion in Public Life. Today we urge all OSCE States and NGOs to discuss, adopt and promote the principles in the Dublin Declaration on Secularism.

In particular, we urge the Irish State to hold referenda to remove the religious clauses of our Constitution, to establish a secular State education system that respects the human rights of all citizens, to replace religious oaths for officeholders and in courts with neutral declarations, and to repeal the Irish blasphemy law and the clauses that exempt religious organisations from complying with Irish equality laws.

Religious States promote religion. Atheist States promote atheism. We want a secular State, which promotes neither. We want a secular State for a pluralist people, where citizens behave ethically and the State does not take sides on religious issues.

Galvasean

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Religious States promote religion. Atheist States promote atheism. We want a secular State, which promotes neither. We want a secular State for a pluralist people, where citizens behave ethically and the State does not take sides on religious issues.

Amen to that.

alex73

Secular agenda, promotes a society free of religion. Poland already tried it,, it failed.

MagicMarker

alex73 wrote: »

Secular agenda, promotes a society free of religion. Poland already tried it,, it failed.

Explain how secularism promotes a society free of religion?

alex73

MagicMarker wrote: »

Explain how secularism promotes a society free of religion?

The fundamental principle of Secularism is that, in his whole conduct, man should be guided exclusively by considerations derived from the present life itself. Anything that is above or beyond the present life should be entirely overlooked. Whether God exists or not, whether the soul is immortal or not, are questions which at best cannot be answered, and on which consequently no motives of action can be based. Believers are as intent as Secularism on the improvement of this life. A relgious society like in Poland is not a bad society.

MagicMarker

alex73 wrote: »

The fundamental principle of Secularism is that, in his whole conduct, man should be guided exclusively by considerations derived from the present life itself. Anything that is above or beyond the present life should be entirely overlooked. Whether God exists or not, whether the soul is immortal or not, are questions which at best cannot be answered, and on which consequently no motives of action can be based. Believers are as intent as Secularism on the improvement of this life. A relgious society like in Poland is not a bad society.

Did you read that in a pamphlet handed out at church?

Go away and read this.

The Quadratic Equation

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Religious States promote religion. Atheist States promote atheism. We want a secular State, which promotes neither. We want a secular State for a pluralist people, where citizens behave ethically and the State does not take sides on religious issues.

I would have some respect for AI if they were honest enough to campaign for a proper Atheist State, but in fairness I suppose it has to be done in stages.

Newaglish

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Religious States promote religion. Atheist States promote atheism. We want a secular State, which promotes neither. We want a secular State for a pluralist people, where citizens behave ethically and the State does not take sides on religious issues.

I would have some respect for AI if they were honest enough to campaign for a proper Atheist State, but in fairness I suppose it has to be done in stages.

What is an atheist state? One which puts the rights of non-religious people over religious people?

As an atheist, I say no thanks.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I would have some respect for AI if they were honest enough to campaign for a proper Atheist State, but in fairness I suppose it has to be done in stages.

How is it dishonest to follow your mission statement, or how do you feel they are not following their mission statement?

The mission statement is on the header of every page on their website. It reads as follows:

"Building a Rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and super-naturalism".

I am not clear how you feel anything they have done... or have failed to do... is in contradiction to that mission statement?

sensibleken

Galvasean wrote: »

Amen to that.

BURN HIM!

Daftendirekt

alex73 wrote: »

The fundamental principle of Secularism is that, in his whole conduct, man should be guided exclusively by considerations derived from the present life itself. Anything that is above or beyond the present life should be entirely overlooked. Whether God exists or not, whether the soul is immortal or not, are questions which at best cannot be answered, and on which consequently no motives of action can be based. Believers are as intent as Secularism on the improvement of this life. A relgious society like in Poland is not a bad society.

Um, no. The principle of secularism is that the state should not be subservient to or hostile toward any particular religion or religions.

It says nothing about how 'man should be guided' and makes no comment on the supernatural. The reason churches like to peddle this kind of nonsense, is that secularism is beneficial to the citizens (religious and non-religious alike) while undermining the influence of the religious organisation on those who don't want to be influenced.

[-0-]

Every time a religious person misunderstands secularism baby jesus cries. Remember that.

alex73

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Um, no. The principle of secularism is that the state should not be subservient to or hostile toward any particular religion or religions.

It says nothing about how 'man should be guided' and makes no comment on the supernatural. The reason churches like to peddle this kind of nonsense, is that secularism is beneficial to the citizens (religious and non-religious alike) while undermining the influence of the religious organisation on those who don't want to be influenced.

The problem in Ireland is that secularism has turned Atheist. One thing is to omit religion/Remove Religion from society. But what is happening is another set of values in the name of Secularism are being introduced, and we are ending up with a pot of moral relativism.

Irish society while wanting to be a secular one is very hostile towards religion.

There is nothing per se wrong with a society built on Christian values. The failings of some who don't live the values does not mean the who value system is wrong.

Japan is very much built on a Religious/Spiritual society of values. Is that wrong? Theft is a lot less than here in Ireland. Lost my wallet once with Money in it.. and it was returned.. What is more even before the wallet was returned to me people were saying that it would be. Religious Values are good. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. is good, its a Christian value.

Tordelback

alex73 wrote: »

Theft is a lot less than here in Ireland. Lost my wallet once with Money in it.. and it was returned..

Not only have I had my own wallet returned with money in it in Ireland, I've done it myself three separate times. My wife has handed in an envelope found with several thousand in it. And we are both atheists. Leaving aside the ludicrous irrelevance of your anecdote, are you seriously implying that atheists are more light fingered than religious types? And more to a point, why would a secular state value honesty less than one based on institutional dishonesty?

Tordelback

NM

alex73

Tordelback wrote: »

Not only have I had my own wallet returned with money in it in Ireland, I've done it myself three separate times. My wife has handed in an envelope found with several thousand in it. And we are both atheists. Leaving aside the ludicrous irrelevance of your anecdote, are you seriously implying that atheists are more light fingered than religious types? And more to a point, why would a secular state value honesty less than one based on institutional dishonesty?

Sad reality of a totally secular state is that there is no real social cohesion. Its Subjective to me and my end, Society might want to build a common bond, but on what? subjective feelings of right and wrong? what is right?.. The UK has long tried to build a secular society of respect, but looking at the riots last month its obvious the inequalities that exist and the thought among some idiots that its ok to loot.

I gave one anecdote about my wallet being returned in Japan, but friends of mine who live there told me how after the tsumami many people would hand in money they found who they did not even know who was the owner, there was an amazing sense of Nation and solidarity of help. I wonder if Ireland were faced with the same situation how as a nation would we react?

Robberies in Japan are 1.3 robberies per 100,000 population compared to 56 in Ireland. And a lot of the Robberies in Japan are solved.

So while you as an Atheists are an honest person, The question that needs to be asked is are the values of a Godless/Relgion-less Society better than the values of a Religous/Spiritual society like Japan?

MagicMarker

alex73 wrote: »

Sad reality of a totally secular state is that there is no real social cohesion. Its Subjective to me and my end, Society might want to build a common bond, but on what? subjective feelings of right and wrong? what is right?.. The UK has long tried to build a secular society of respect, but looking at the riots last month its obvious the inequalities that exist and the thought among some idiots that its ok to loot.

I gave one anecdote about my wallet being returned in Japan, but friends of mine who live there told me how after the tsumami many people would hand in money they found who they did not even know who was the owner, there was an amazing sense of Nation and solidarity of help. I wonder if Ireland were faced with the same situation how as a nation would we react?

Robberies in Japan are 1.3 robberies per 100,000 population compared to 56 in Ireland. And a lot of the Robberies in Japan are solved.

So while you as an Atheists are an honest person, The question that needs to be asked is are the values of a Godless/Relgion-less Society better than the values of a Religous/Spiritual society like Japan?

I see you're using Japan as some kind of example of what a non-secular state (according to you) can achieve. Quoting their impressive crime stats and social cohesion, and comparing this to Ireland. However, what you fail to see, is that Ireland in not a secular society. According to our constitution we are, but not in practice.

So not only are you comparing the failings of a NON-secular society (Ireland) against the triumphs of another NON-secular society (Japan) in an argument AGAINST secularism, which makes no sense at all. You're also comparing the failings of a majority CATHOLIC society against the triumphs of a majority ATHEIST (or irreligious at least) society (Japan), which is deliciously ironic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Japan

About 70 percent of Japanese profess no religious membership,[7][8] according to Johnstone (1993:323), 84% of the Japanese claim no personal religion. In census questionnaires, less than 15 percent reported any formal religious affiliation by 2000.[9] And according to Demerath (2001:138), 64% do not believe in God, and 55% do not believe in Buddha.[10] According to Elisabeth Bumiller, Edwin Reischauer, and Marius Jansen, some 70 to 80 percent of the Japanese regularly tell pollsters they do not consider themselves believers in any religion.[11][12] According to James Killian, between 64% and 80% of Japanese describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-believers.[13]

Dave!

alex73 wrote: »

Sad reality of a totally secular state is that there is no real social cohesion. Its Subjective to me and my end, Society might want to build a common bond, but on what? subjective feelings of right and wrong? what is right?.. The UK has long tried to build a secular society of respect, but looking at the riots last month its obvious the inequalities that exist and the thought among some idiots that its ok to loot.

I gave one anecdote about my wallet being returned in Japan, but friends of mine who live there told me how after the tsumami many people would hand in money they found who they did not even know who was the owner, there was an amazing sense of Nation and solidarity of help. I wonder if Ireland were faced with the same situation how as a nation would we react?

Robberies in Japan are 1.3 robberies per 100,000 population compared to 56 in Ireland. And a lot of the Robberies in Japan are solved.

So while you as an Atheists are an honest person, The question that needs to be asked is are the values of a Godless/Relgion-less Society better than the values of a Religous/Spiritual society like Japan?

How about a religious society like the United States? Or Brazil? Or Mexico? Or most African countries?

Some of the highest rates of murder in the world

Strange that you'd pick Japan as an example given all of the other examples available to you

alex73

MagicMarker wrote: »

I see you're using Japan as some kind of example of what a non-secular state (according to you) can achieve. Quoting their impressive crime stats and social cohesion, and comparing this to Ireland. However, what you fail to see, is that Ireland in not a secular society. According to our constitution we are, but not in practice.

So not only are you comparing the failings of a NON-secular society (Ireland) against the triumphs of another NON-secular society (Japan) in an argument AGAINST secularism, which makes no sense at all. You're also comparing the failings of a majority CATHOLIC society against the triumphs of a majority ATHEIST (or irreligious at least) society (Japan), which is deliciously ironic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Japan

Japanes may be 70% non religous, But there society is built on Relgious values.

alex73

Dave! wrote: »

How about a religious society like the United States? Or Brazil? Or Mexico? Or most African countries?

Some of the highest rates of murder in the world

Strange that you'd pick Japan as an example given all of the other examples available to you

Lived in Mexico long time... Saw no crime and only knew lots of decent people... Sadly its the 5% of gob ****s that give the place a bad name, but i loved Mexico.

oldrnwisr

alex73 wrote: »

Japan is very much built on a Religious/Spiritual society of values. Is that wrong? Theft is a lot less than here in Ireland. Lost my wallet once with Money in it.. and it was returned.. What is more even before the wallet was returned to me people were saying that it would be. Religious Values are good. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. is good, its a Christian value.

I love this. This is one of the most misguided posts I have seen on boards in a long time. This doesn't even come close. You are arguing against secularism by pointing to the low crime rates in a country which is one of the best examples of modern secularism.

First of all, alex, Japan is a country built on secular values not religious ones. Article 20 of the Japanese constitution states:

"Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all. No religious organisation shall receive any priveleges from the State, nor exercise any political authority. No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious acts, celebration, rite or practice. The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious acitvity."

Constitution of Japan

Secondly, any societal health factor that we have cared to measure has shown a strong negative correlation with religiosity. Divorce, teen pregnancy and abortion are all higher among the deeply religious. Japan is a shining example of what happens when the State does not bend the knee before religions.

Divorce rate by religion USA

Teen pregnancy

Abortion

MagicMarker

alex73 wrote: »

Japanes may be 70% non religous, But there society is built on Relgious values.

You mean religious values like ''Do unto others as you would have them do unto you''? Sorry to break it to you but that's just your normal run of the mill human value.

But none the less, as Dave! pointed out, South/Centra Amercan and the U.S, Africa, the Middle East etc are some of the most religious countries in the world, far more so than Japan. Why not compare Ireland with one of those religious countries?

Delirium

alex73 wrote: »

Japanes may be 70% non religous, But there society is built on Relgious values.

So are you saying we should ditch Catholism for Shinto or Buddhism?

I do like that you use a country that identifies itself as a secular state as an argument against a secular Ireland.

From the Japanese constitution.

Article 20, Freedom of Religion, Secularity of the State

• Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all.
• No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority.
• No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious act, celebration, rite or practice.
• The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity.

oldrnwisr

alex73 wrote: »

Japanes may be 70% non religous, But there society is built on Relgious values.

Not to repeat myself or anything, but no it isn't.

From the preface to the Constitution of Japan:

"We, the Japanese people, acting through our duly elected representatives in the National Diet, determined that we shall secure for ourselves and our posterity the fruits of peaceful cooperation with all nations and the blessings of liberty throughout this land, and resolved that never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government, do proclaim that sovereign power resides with the people and do firmly establish this Constitution."

The thing is though, in any event, even if the statistics went your way, which they don't, you're making an appeal to consequences of a belief. It doesn't matter what benefits christian beliefs bring to a society because ultimately they are based on theistic claims which are false and no society should be based on falsehoods.

Dave!

alex73 wrote: »

Lived in Mexico long time... Saw no crime and only knew lots of decent people... Sadly its the 5% of gob ****s that give the place a bad name, but i loved Mexico.

Cool story bro... but what of your silly point about religious societies being more cohesive and philanthropic? Surely you see now that it's silly given that the countries I mentioned are the most religious in the world but have some of the highest crime rates.

Is it the atheists in those countries that are committing all the crime?

robindch

alex73 wrote: »

The question that needs to be asked is are the values of a Godless/Relgion-less Society better than the values of a Religous/Spiritual society like Japan?

The question's been asked and it's been answered:

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

Religious societies are uniformly more dangerous and nasty than non-religious ones. From that, you can learn all you need to know about the worth of "religious values".

strobe

Q.What separates a religious fundamentalist from an atheist fundamentalist?
A. A sense of humour.

Tomk1

alex73 wrote: »

There is nothing per se wrong with a society built on Christian values. The failings of some who don't live the values does not mean the who value system is wrong.

There's a big difference between christian or other religious values and the roman church's claim of ownership of those values. A christian would not class women as lower than men, most christians agree with divorce and even are divorced, all of which are seen as ill-values by the roman church.

Freedom of religion is a basic right of any secular state, currently there is freedom off one state religion, embeded within state affairs.

Even many bishops agree with a clear seperation of state and church, as it has tied their hands with the state.

What do you mean by 'failings of some' all christian's believe they have only one entity to answer to, and that is not the state nor is it the leaders of the Roman church.

Zombrex

alex73 wrote: »

Japanes may be 70% non religous, But there society is built on Relgious values.

Non-Christian religious values. So clearly Christian values are where the problem is, agreed?

philologos

I'm all for Governmental secularism. I'm pretty much against societal secularism and personal secularism.

Definitions in this post.

Dades

^^ Only the first of those actually exists.

The second two are just some notion you've come up with.
There's either "governmental secularism" or there isn't. Society or the individual either support actual this or they don't.

Michael Nugent

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I would have some respect for AI if they were honest enough to campaign for a proper Atheist State, but in fairness I suppose it has to be done in stages.

Just to clarify, the reason that Atheist Ireland is not campaigning for an atheist State is that we do not want an atheist State. The State should not be promoting either religion or atheism. The State should be governing the actual world based on the realities of the actual world.

Individual citizens are of course free to believe in and debate ideas about the supernatural, but the State should simply stay out of these debates as long as everyone involved is maintaining the laws of the State.

Michael Nugent

Here is the spoken contribution that I made to the conference. Because there are so many States and NGOs taking part, you only get a couple of minutes to speak, and you have to support this with personal lobbying, networking, attending side events and making a written submission. Anyway, here is my spoken contribution to the formal session...

There is an interesting phrase on the OSCE website, in which the OSCE pledges to combat “all forms of racism, xenophobia, and discrimination, including anti-Semitism and discrimination against Christians and Muslims.” But why are these three religions given this special emphasis? Surely it is members of smaller religions and atheists who are most subject to religious discrimination and intolerance?

The Holy See delegate said yesterday, and I agree with him, that we should respect the dignity of the human person. This comes from an organisation whose Cardinal Murphy OʼConnor has told the BBC that atheists are not fully human. Can you imagine the outcry if an atheist was to say that about members of any religious organization?

In Ireland, we have a new government that has inherited a system which discriminates seriously against atheists. We are starting a presidential election campaign in which atheists cannot run, because you have to swear a religious oath to take office. The same applies to becoming a judge in Ireland. Ireland became the first country in the 21st century to pass a blasphemy law a couple of years ago. Our education system is controlled 90% at primary level by the Roman Catholic Church, which uses a system of permeating a Roman Catholic ethos throughout the entire curriculum. I am hopeful, or certainly more optimistic, that under our new government these issues can be tackled, but they are urgent and they need to be resolved as soon as possible.

At an international level, a conference in Dublin earlier this year launched a newly restructured group called atheist Alliance International, which will be advocating for atheism and secularism on an international level. We have passed a declaration called the Dublin Declaration on Secularism, which is available on the OSCE website, under Atheist Ireland’s submission, and I urge all delegates to read that and to support it.

I will end by saying that religious States promote religion. Atheist States promote atheism. We want a secular State, that promotes neither, that respects everybody’s rights and that is neutral on the issue of religion. A secular state is the only way to protect equally the rights of religious and nonreligious people.

You can read our longer written submission here on the OSCE website.

The Quadratic Equation

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Just to clarify, the reason that Atheist Ireland is not campaigning for an atheist State is that we do not want an atheist State. The State should not be promoting either religion or atheism. The State should be governing the actual world based on the realities of the actual world.

Individual citizens are of course free to believe in and debate ideas about the supernatural, but the State should simply stay out of these debates as long as everyone involved is maintaining the laws of the State.

Michael Nugent

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

philologos

Dades wrote: »

^^ Only the first of those actually exists.

The second two are just some notion you've come up with.
There's either "governmental secularism" or there isn't. Society or the individual either support actual this or they don't.

How come people keep referring to a "secular society" on this forum? This usually has nothing to do with governance but rather as to how "secular" people are as a whole. I am living in a secular society in so far as the majority of people wouldn't be incredibly concerned with a God or gods.

It might help to present the root definition again.

Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

A secular society in light of this definition is a society which has no religious or spiritual basis.

Personal secularism would be that a person has no religious or spiritual basis.

It's entirely reasonable to split this up into three. I accept governmental secularism, but I am clearly opposed to the other two as a Christian.

raah!

"Building a Rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and super-naturalism"

Surely this is stepping beyond the bounds of "governmental secularism". Here it is openly stated that they would like to make a society which is free from religion. This "we don't want an atheist state" seems rather unconvincing in the light of these other statements made in the same breath.

It's disappointing that that kind of political circumlocution normally has the intended effect of making people say "oh, how open minded and inclusive" rather than "what a repulsive piece of political indirection".

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

How come people keep referring to a "secular society" on this forum? This usually has nothing to do with governance but rather as to how "secular" people are as a whole. I am living in a secular society in so far as the majority of people wouldn't be incredibly concerned with a God or gods.

Personally, if I use the term secular society I mean a society where the government has separation from the church.

It might help to present the root definition again.

A secular society in light of this definition is a society which has no religious or spiritual basis.

But secularism is about government and church being separate, it's nothing to do with a community or individual.

Personal secularism would be that a person has no religious or spiritual basis.

No it isn't, it's a term you made up. You could possibly take it to mean that a person is a supporter of secularism.

It's entirely reasonable to split this up into three. I accept governmental secularism, but I am clearly opposed to the other two as a Christian.

Can you give examples of the two that you oppose, some real life scenarios to try and explain what exactly you mean by the two terms?

MagicMarker

koth wrote: »

Personally, if I use the term secular society I mean a society where the government has separation from the church.

I don't think there is anyone on this forum who means any different tbh.

Dades

philologos wrote: »

How come people keep referring to a "secular society" on this forum? This usually has nothing to do with governance but rather as to how "secular" people are as a whole. I am living in a secular society in so far as the majority of people wouldn't be incredibly concerned with a God or gods.

A secular society is one that lives in a country whose government successfully maintains a separation between church and state. The only possible meaning for "personal secularism" is whether or not an individual agrees with secularism or not.

So when you say you are against societal secularism and personal secularism I'm guessing what you are really saying is you are against society or individuals losing religious 'values'. The problem is this has nothing to do with secularism so you really shouldn't conflate the two.

Michael Nugent

raah! wrote: »

"Building a Rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and super-naturalism"

Surely this is stepping beyond the bounds of "governmental secularism". Here it is openly stated that they would like to make a society which is free from religion. This "we don't want an atheist state" seems rather unconvincing in the light of these other statements made in the same breath.

Not at all. It is perfectly consistent.

I agree that the phrase "secular society" can be ambiguous, in that some people could read it to mean something like "a society in which the State does not focus on religious ideas (i.e. where there is separation of church and State)" and other people could read it to mean something like "a society which the people do not focus on religious ideas (i.e. where there is little or no religious activity)"

However, whichever of those meanings you attach to the phrase "secular society", either is perfectly consistent with the idea that the State should not promote either religion or atheism.

You can be religious, and see religion as good thing, and want to see a lot of religion with society, and work towards making this happen, but not want the State to promote your personal position on this because that is not the role of the State.

You can be atheist, and see religion as a harmful thing, and want to see little or no religion within society, and work towards making this happen, but not want the State to promote your personal position on this because that is not the role of the State.

You can have any set of nuanced beliefs about religion and atheism, and want to promote those views within society, and work towards making this happen, but not want the State to promote your personal position on this because that is not the role of the State.

raah! wrote: »

It's disappointing that that kind of political circumlocution normally has the intended effect of making people say "oh, how open minded and inclusive" rather than "what a repulsive piece of political indirection".

It's disappointing that a group of people who are perfectly open about what we are seeking are accused of "a repulsive piece of political indirection" but that is part of the price of being involved in social and political advocacy.

Our mission statement, which was adopted at our founding meeting, reads: "Atheist Ireland aims to build a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism."

Our aims, which were also adopted at our founding meeting, are: "2.1. To promote atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism. 2.2. To promote an ethical and secular Ireland where the state does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion."

These are published on our website and we refer to them frequently in the media and in public presentations, as we are a relatively young advocacy group and we usually assume at the start of a discussion that people do not know what we stand for.

As I said earlier, I agree that the word secular can give rise to some ambiguity. A phrase that we have been using recently to address part of this ambiguity is "a secular State for a pluralist people".

raah!

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Not at all. It is perfectly consistent.

I never said it was inconsistent, but that it was "stepping beyond the bounds". This quote was made in the context of comments specifically about whether there is such a thing as societal secularism, as opposed to governmental secularism.

There is such a thing, and Atheist Ireland are be proponents of it. They would like to see religion removed from society. This is in their mission statement.

It is then somewhat dishonest to use things like "pluralism" as one of your main selling points. You do not want a pluralist people, you want an atheist society. You will not lobby for these through the government because it would be politically inexpedient, not because it conflicts with your "society without religion" mission statement.

Do you think that there is a tension between your frequent use of terms like "pluralism" and arguments which hint at that kind of thing, and your mission statement that you would like there to be no people who hold certain ideologies?

Michael Nugent

raah! wrote: »

I never said it was inconsistent, but that it was "stepping beyond the bounds". This quote was made in the context of comments specifically about whether there is such a thing as societal secularism, as opposed to governmental secularism.

Suggesting that we are "stepping beyond the bounds" of something suggests that we have accepted those "bounds" in the first place. Our "bounds" are those outlined in our constitution, and we are perfectly open about that.

raah! wrote: »

There is such a thing, and Atheist Ireland are be proponents of it. They would like to see religion removed from society. This is in their mission statement.

That is not what our mission statement says. You have rephrased our mission statement to imply a level of coercion which we are not suggesting. If you are criticizing our mission statement, please criticize what it actually says.

raah! wrote: »

It is then somewhat dishonest to use things like "pluralism" as one of your main selling points. You do not want a pluralist people, you want an atheist society. You will not lobby for these through the government because it would be politically inexpedient, not because it conflicts with your "society without religion" mission statement.

It is actually closer to the opposite of this. We do not, when lobbying government, talk about our beliefs about the merits of atheism and religion within society precisely because mixing the two would violate our position on separation of church and State. When we are dealing with the Government, we focus on the role of Government within society. When we are dealing with our fellow citizens, we focus on our role as citizens within society. It is usually religious groups that mix the two, and use their lobbying with government to promote their personal religious views.

raah! wrote: »

Do you think that there is a tension between your frequent use of terms like "pluralism" and arguments which hint at that kind of thing, and your mission statement that you would like there to be no people who hold certain ideologies?

Again, that is not what our mission statement says. You have rephrased our mission statement to imply a level of coercion which we are not suggesting. If you are criticizing our mission statement, please criticize what it actually says.

With regard to the use of the word "pluralism", there is no tension in the idea of a pluralist people within which religious and nonreligious people freely debate and promote their beliefs about what is best for society. Just as there is no tension in the idea of religious people promoting their beliefs about their particular religion while also supporting the principle of freedom of religion within society generally.

raah!

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Suggesting that we are "stepping beyond the bounds" of something suggests that we have accepted those "bounds" in the first place. Our "bounds" are those outlined in our constitution, and we are perfectly open about that.

You are stepping beyond the bounds of mere secularism. You yourself have drawn this distinction between secularism and your other aims. You have then even drawn attention to these lesser claims of secularism and pluaralism. I'll point it out again to you later. But drawing special emphasis on things like secularism is misleading.

Saying that you want a pluralistic society is completely false. And also inconsistent.

That is not what our mission statement says. You have rephrased our mission statement to imply a level of coercion which we are not suggesting. If you are criticizing our mission statement, please criticize what it actually says.

You would like religion to go away on it's own then. The criticism, is that you want religion to go away, but you realise that it would be politically inexpedient to lobby direclty for this. This is what is "repulsive political indirection".

It is actually closer to the opposite of this. We do not, when lobbying government, talk about our beliefs about the merits of atheism and religion within society precisely because mixing the two would violate our position on separation of church and State. When we are dealing with the Government, we focus on the role of Government within society. When we are dealing with our fellow citizens, we focus on our role as citizens within society. It is usually religious groups that mix the two, and use their lobbying with government to promote their personal religious views.


Again, that is not what our mission statement says. You have rephrased our mission statement to imply a level of coercion which we are not suggesting. If you are criticizing our mission statement, please criticize what it actually says.

With regard to the use of the word "pluralism", there is no tension in the idea of a pluralist people within which religious and nonreligious people freely debate and promote their beliefs about what is best for society. Just as there is no tension in the idea of religious people promoting their beliefs about their particular religion while also supporting the principle of freedom of religion within society generally.

I am criticising the the inconsistency of saying that you are all for a pluralistic society, but that you want there to be no religious people. This is completely inconsistent, whether or not you want the government to force religious people into non-existence, or that you'd rather they just didn't exist.

I used the word remove once in error there. It makes little difference to my post however, and you can just read the rest as "spontaneously become non-existent". Note also that it is completely inappropriate to caste the rest of my arguments as suggestions of coercion because I used the word remove once. I wouldn't mind arguing that further, but at the present it's not necessary. I would like to speak now about the consistency you brought up, about you desiring a religion free society and at the same time a pluralistic one.

Again, to point out the kind of indirection which runs in your posts here and campaigns in general. You are now saying that you want "religious people to debate freely in a pluralist society". This is different from "a society free from religious belief". This is not what your organisation wants. This is a lie and an indirection.

Just as it's immediately explicit here that you are hiding your true stated beliefs (that you want a society in which there is no religion) behind easier to digest euphemisms (that you want freedom of religion), so to is your stated motivation for secularism somewhat compromised.

raah!

Originally Posted by raah!
Do you think that there is a tension between your frequent use of terms like "pluralism" and arguments which hint at that kind of thing, and your mission statement that you would like there to be no people who hold certain ideologies?

Again, that is not what our mission statement says. You have rephrased our mission statement to imply a level of coercion which we are not suggesting. If you are criticizing our mission statement, please criticize what it actually says.

With regard to the use of the word "pluralism", there is no tension in the idea of a pluralist people within which religious and nonreligious people freely debate and promote their beliefs about what is best for society. Just as there is no tension in the idea of religious people promoting their beliefs about their particular religion while also supporting the principle of freedom of religion within society generally.

I'd just like to quote these two paragraphs here as I think they are a good example, indicative of how my points have not quite been addressed. Would you care to justify how you can interpret my argument here as hinting at any kind of coercion?

You would like to build a society with no religious people, that is a society without people of certain ideologies. That's what my post said you did. Can you show how this is not contained in your mission statement where you say "free from superstition etc"? Can you justify how this is "not what it actually says".

The stuff about the pluralist society I addressed in the post above.


Also, to the word police: Secular just means without religion, or religion free, or not religious. There is no law on how it could be used. To say you want a secular society, pretty much definitively means you want a non-religious society. And even if the people who used it mean "a society with a secular government" the rest of the mission statement "society free from superstitions (religion)" could be easily described as a statment of "social secularism". People can put words together in any sense they want. Secularism has become the name for a political stance, but it's still a word and you can combine it however you'd like. Secular tractor's would be non-religious tractors.

This kind of sensitivity over the use of a certain word always happens when a word becomes a name for some interest group. See the constant thread about the word atheist. People are so insistent that it be used in one specific way because it is a word that describes them.

Michael Nugent

I think some of our disagreement may be about the meanings of words, but I'll try to address what I think are the underlying points. I may be mistaken in how I interpret these.

raah! wrote: »

You are stepping beyond the bounds of mere secularism. You yourself have drawn this distinction between secularism and your other aims. You have then even drawn attention to these lesser claims of secularism and pluaralism. I'll point it out again to you later.

You say that we are "stepping beyond the bounds of mere secularism" as if this is something that you have uncovered us doing secretively. We are perfectly open about the fact that our aims are not limited to "mere secularism". I'm not sure why you think that we should limit ourselves to "mere secularism" when we were established to promote a wider agenda.

raah! wrote: »

But drawing special emphasis on things like secularism is misleading.

We're not drawing special emphasis on secularism. Generally speaking, we highlight secularism when we are discussing politics, and we highlight atheism and reason when we are discussing religion. That's an oversimplification, but you should get the broad distinction.

raah! wrote: »

The criticism, is that you want religion to go away, but you realise that it would be politically inexpedient to lobby direclty for this. This is what is "repulsive political indirection".

We don't lobby the government about our desire for a society free from superstition and supernaturalism, because we believe that it is not the role of the government to help make this happen.

We do lobby (to use the same term for consistency) people about our desire for a society free from superstition and supernaturalism, because this will only happen through people changing their beliefs. We do this through articles, debates, meetings, conversations etc.

I'm happy to continue teasing this out, but please stop accusing me of "repulsive political indirection". It's not true, and it's not helping the conversation.

raah! wrote: »

I am criticising the the inconsistency of saying that you are all for a pluralistic society, but that you want there to be no religious people. This is completely inconsistent, whether or not you want the government to force religious people into non-existence, or that you'd rather they just didn't exist.

We don't want to force any people into non-existence. You are conflating people with their beliefs. We want religious people to reconsider their beliefs, just as religious people want atheists to reconsider our beliefs, because each of us thinks that this would be better for society. We want this to happen through reasoned debate, not through coercion of any sort. The lack of coercion about beliefs leads to a pluralist society, which could be anywhere on a spectrum from mostly religious to mostly atheist. The ideals of completely religious or completely atheist societies are impractical, and can only be worked towards rather than completely achieved.

raah! wrote: »

Again, to point out the kind of indirection which runs in your posts here and campaigns in general. You are now saying that you want "religious people to debate freely in a pluralist society". This is different from "a society free from religious belief". This is not what your organisation wants. This is a lie and an indirection.

Okay, so you are now accusing me of lying. If you don't understand the distinctions that I am making, fair enough. Or if you want to tease them out further, fair enough. But if you continue with this level of personal abuse I won't be continuing the discussion with you for much longer.

raah! wrote: »

Just as it's immediately explicit here that you are hiding your true stated beliefs (that you want a society in which there is no religion) behind easier to digest euphemisms (that you want freedom of religion), so to is your stated motivation for secularism somewhat compromised.

I'll make broadly same response as I made to the last comment. I am perfectly open about my beliefs, and Atheist Ireland is perfectly open about our mission statement, aims and policies. There is no contradiction between wanting a society free from religion and wanting freedom of religion within that society. I'm really not sure what point you are making here. Is it that we should only ever repeat the exact wording of our mission statement as our sole contribution to every debate we enter? That's not how nuanced discourse happens. If you disagree with our policies, that's fine, but please stop inventing imaginary false motivations and attributing them to us.

raah!

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I think some of our disagreement may be about the meanings of words, but I'll try to address what I think are the underlying points. I may be mistaken in how I interpret these.


You say that we are "stepping beyond the bounds of mere secularism" as if this is something that you have uncovered us doing secretively. We are perfectly open about the fact that our aims are not limited to "mere secularism". I'm not sure why you think that we should limit ourselves to "mere secularism" when we were established to promote a wider agenda.

Well firstly I brought up the "stepping beyond the bounds of mere secularism" to point out the aspects of "social secularism" that Atheist Ireland stood for (you would like religion to be there). I did not mean that ye were secretive, only that the rhetoric ye use is somewhat duplicitous, despite the aforementioned dedication to "building a society free from superstition". I'll give some examples of this from the thread and perhaps else where when it comes up in this post.

We're not drawing special emphasis on secularism. Generally speaking, we highlight secularism when we are discussing politics, and we highlight atheism and reason when we are discussing religion. That's an oversimplification, but you should get the broad distinction.

I completely understand that 'secularism' is int his context to do with the government. What I am saying is that the rhetoric used, such as "secular government for a pluralistic society" and saying things like you want freedom of religion rather than religion simply going away (I'll go into why these are incompatible as they arise later) is duplicitous.

You present yourselves as merely wanting a pluralistic society with the slogans and things you put forward to the government, and in a political capacity. You say then that this is fine to do, and that you interact with individuals differently to how you interact with the government.

This is however dishonest, you campaign from a liberal/pluralistic point of view when really what you want is to "build a society without religion" not "a society with freedom of religion". Those are two very different things. They are not compatible, regardless of whether or not you only say one of them to one group of people and another thing to another. This will be easier to show with some of the quotes below.

We don't lobby the government about our desire for a society free from superstition and supernaturalism, because we believe that it is not the role of the government to help make this happen.

What I have been saying is that presenting yourself as this pluralistic organisation to attain certain ends which are not pluralistic.

You can say that you want to attain such ends from the government, but it goes back to the incompatibility of a desire for pluralism and the desire for a society without religion.

You are going "hey guys, pluralism is great, don't discriminate one person from another", but pluralism is not what you want. You are presenting a false front. Regardless of whether you think that rather than the police should force people out of being religious you should do so with debates.

We do lobby (to use the same term for consistency) people about our desire for a society free from superstition and supernaturalism, because this will only happen through people changing their beliefs. We do this through articles, debates, meetings, conversations etc.

I'm happy to continue teasing this out, but please stop accusing me of "repulsive political indirection". It's not true, and it's not helping the conversation.

And yes, this lobbying of people that they should be rid of super naturalism is different from lobbying the government. But it is not in anyway consistent with lobbying the government with principles of pluralism and freedom of religion.

Of course, you might think that this is consistent, because you believe that you have access to the one true world view, but this is unfortunately still not a pluralistic world view. Your view is that people should be free to choose their religion, but if they are free and know how to think they will be atheists. This is not pluralistic.

We don't want to force any people into non-existence. You are conflating people with their beliefs. We want religious people to reconsider their beliefs, just as religious people want atheists to reconsider our beliefs, because each of us thinks that this would be better for society. We want this to happen through reasoned debate, not through coercion of any sort. The lack of coercion about beliefs leads to a pluralist society, which could be anywhere on a spectrum from mostly religious to mostly atheist. The ideals of completely religious or completely atheist societies are impractical, and can only be worked towards rather than completely achieved.

You want the ideology opposite to yours not to exist. This is not pluralistic. Again, thinking that you have access to the objective truth and that people need only open their eyes to it is still not pluralistic. Campaigning that schools teach richard dawkins is not pluralistic, campaigning that people be banned from wearing certain religious garments is not pluralistic, having an explicit policy of derision towards certain classes of people is not pluralistic.

Whatever else you might say, saying you want a society where certain ideologies exist is not consistent with saying you want a pluralistic society. Not under any interpretation of the word pluralistic is that possible.

Okay, so you are now accusing me of lying. If you don't understand the distinctions that I am making, fair enough. Or if you want to tease them out further, fair enough. But if you continue with this level of personal abuse I won't be continuing the discussion with you for much longer.


I'll make broadly same response as I made to the last comment. I am perfectly open about my beliefs, and Atheist Ireland is perfectly open about our mission statement, aims and policies. There is no contradiction between wanting a society free from religion and wanting freedom of religion within that society. I'm really not sure what point you are making here. Is it that we should only ever repeat the exact wording of our mission statement as our sole contribution to every debate we enter? That's not how nuanced discourse happens. If you disagree with our policies, that's fine, but please stop inventing imaginary false motivations and attributing them to us.

I've pointed this out earlier, it's not contradictory that you want people to freely choose not to be religious. But it is contradictory to say that you are campaigning for such and such policies because you desire a pluralistic society. You do not want a pluralistic society if you want an ideology opposite yours to not exist. You do not want a pluralistic society if the very purpose of your organisation is to build a society around excluding certain ideas. And , if you have a normal understanding of people, this is the exact same as excluding certain people, because not everyone accepts your "agree with us or your deluded" pluralistic world view.

Furthermore, public debates, lectures, distribution of pamphlets, is not an impassve thing. Saying you want to build a society without religion is not impassive. You have gone to great pains to present the impassive nature of your proseletising, and it's an extremely naive view of rhetoric that castes it as no more than a disposition of objective truth.

philologos

koth wrote: »

Personally, if I use the term secular society I mean a society where the government has separation from the church.

The term secular is used in many other contexts apart from in governance. I find that there is a difference between how the term "secular State" is used to "secular society" in most understandings. Even reading this brief set of definitions shows different usage.

To avoid confusion I separate them into different contexts giving due credit to the complexity of the word.

koth wrote: »

No it isn't, it's a term you made up. You could possibly take it to mean that a person is a supporter of secularism.

Even if I personally do separate the usages of secularism as a term, the fact of the matter is that the term "secular" is used beyond mere governance in common English usage.

koth wrote: »

Can you give examples of the two that you oppose, some real life scenarios to try and explain what exactly you mean by the two terms?

I think it is self-evident.

I find the idea of people turning their backs on their Creator to be tragic, whether that is as individual people or as an entire society. It is a fundamentally damaging understanding in so far as it separates us from God as far as I see it.

I've explained above and in my previous posts what exactly I mean by them. Secular as a term goes beyond governance. At it's most rudimentary it refers to "of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations" according to one of the google definitions. This can be true of individuals, or of society the collective of individuals.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

The term secular is used in many other contexts apart from in governance. I find that there is a difference between how the term "secular State" is used to "secular society" in most understandings. Even reading this brief set of definitions shows different usage.

The majority still point to it referring to state and church separation. Some of the definitions are highly unlikely to be used by the average person.

To avoid confusion I separate them into different contexts giving due credit to the complexity of the word.

But you clearly create confusion by using terms that no-one understands or using secularism in a way that doesn't make sense with their understanding of the word.

Even if I personally do separate the usages of secularism as a term, the fact of the matter is that the term "secular" is used beyond mere governance in common English usage.

you're the first person I've ever seen use it in that manner.

I think it is self-evident.

I find the idea of people turning their backs on their Creator to be tragic, whether that is as individual people or as an entire society. It is a fundamentally damaging understanding in so far as it separates us from God as far as I see it.

You're describing a non-religious society, not a secular society from where I'm sitting.

I've explained above and in my previous posts what exactly I mean by them. Secular as a term goes beyond governance. At it's most rudimentary it refers to "of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations" according to one of the google definitions. This can be true of individuals, or of society the collective of individuals.

It may have mutated into that for some people but it was originally coined in reference to the separation of church and state, and is still used in all instances(with the exception of yourself) in that way from my experience. Which was covered in the link that you for some reason cut out of the quote.

Here it is again anyways

philologos

koth wrote: »

The majority still point to it referring to state and church separation. Some of the definitions are highly unlikely to be used by the average person.

I'm aware of that koth. I'm saying that the term "secular" in and of itself has a meaning that can be applied to things other than governance. It's an adjective.

Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis

That's a fair comment.

If I were to say that someone was raised in a secular home, that would be to say that the character of that home was one without a religious or spiritual basis. That's a valid use of the word 'secular' as an adjective.

It can also rather safely be used in terms of society and in terms of individuals who don't have any form of religious or secular basis.

By distinguishing them very clearly, what I do is I manage to distinguish between a government which rightfully doesn't favour any religion over another from societies without a religious or spiritual basis, and individuals without a religious or spiritual basis. This allows me to effectively state my position without ambiguity.

koth wrote: »

But you clearly create confusion by using terms that no-one understands or using secularism in a way that doesn't make sense with their understanding of the word.

People do understand the word 'secular' very clearly in other contexts. In the English language the term could be argued to have a similar meaning to 'profane'.

Relating or devoted to that which is not sacred or biblical; secular.

koth wrote: »

you're the first person I've ever seen use it in that manner.

You're describing a non-religious society, not a secular society from where I'm sitting.

You should look to how the term 'secular' can be used other than in respect to governance.

koth wrote: »

It may have mutated into that for some people but it was originally coined in reference to the separation of church and state, and is still used in all instances(with the exception of yourself) in that way from my experience. Which was covered in the link that you for some reason cut out of the quote.

Here it is again anyways

Not at all. It also wasn't coined in respect to governments, although I presume that we shouldn't bring this thread into a etymology lesson. Secular as a term has had many applications. This is evident in the common use of English and in the mere fact that it is an adjective which can describe many things other than governments.

How about you read this Wikipedia article on the uses for secular? In particular the modern usage section.

Edit: If I apply secular as an adjective to society, it follows that secular is describing the society the people who make it up. The same application applies to other nouns also.

It appears that you are criticising me for pointing out that the word is much broader in English than you are making it out to be.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I'm aware of that koth. I'm saying that the term "secular" in and of itself has a meaning that can be applied to things other than governance. It's an adjective.

I get that, but my problem is you seem to be using secular to mean non-religious

That's a fair comment.

If I were to say that someone was raised in a secular home, that would be to say that the character of that home was one without a religious or spiritual basis. That's a valid use of the word 'secular' as an adjective.

Not really. I take it to mean that the person was raised with exposure to many religions/world beliefs.

It can also rather safely be used in terms of society and in terms of individuals who don't have any form of religious or secular basis.

By distinguishing them very clearly, what I do is I manage to distinguish between a government which rightfully doesn't favour any religion over another from societies without a religious or spiritual basis, and individuals without a religious or spiritual basis. This allows me to effectively state my position without ambiguity.

but it is ambiguous. If you refer to government, you seem to mean showing no preference to a religion. But if you talk about society, it means non-religious.

People do understand the word 'secular' very clearly in other contexts. In the English language the term could be argued to have a similar meaning to 'profane'.

You should look to how the term 'secular' can be used other than in respect to governance.

I have, and generally it fits with my understanding of the word.

Not at all. It also wasn't coined in respect to governments, although I presume that we shouldn't bring this thread into a etymology lesson. Secular as a term has had many applications. This is evident in the common use of English and in the mere fact that it is an adjective which can describe many things other than governments.

How about you read this Wikipedia article on the uses for secular? In particular the modern usage section.

I don't see any of the terms meaning that secular means non-religious.

It appears that you are criticising me for pointing out that the word is much broader in English than you are making it out to be.

Nope. I was linking to the page because it also has a rough outline of secular society and it doesn't gel with your use of the term.

I accept that secular doesn't necessarily mean with relation to government, i.e. it means being free from religion. That means to me that a secular society enables every citizen to choose freely whether they join a religion or not.