Evil, militant anti-Christian secularism is simply a myth - Irish Times

Galvasean

Worth a read for anyone who has ever waded into a debate about secularism.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0507/1224315686865.html

Daftendirekt

Good article, though I kind of wish he hadn't thrown in the 'vindictive, jealous Sky God' line. Not the best way to get your point across when you're trying to educate people that secularism is essentially religion-neutral rather than anti-religion.

JimiTime

Ironically enough, I find the article goes more in the way of showing that its not a myth.

Corkfeen

I was wondering how long it would take someone to arrive who can't grasp the concept of secularism.

JimiTime

Corkfeen wrote: »

I was wondering how long it would take someone to arrive who can't grasp the concept of secularism.

Yeah, and then he gets an article published in the Irish Times. Go figure ey.

Zillah

JimiTime wrote: »

Yeah, and then he gets an article published in the Irish Times. Go figure ey.

Do you have a point of some sort or just more ambiguous contrariness? The article is quite succinct, it clarifies the difference between right and privilege - other than a single vaguely condescending line about a Sky God I can't imagine what the objection is.

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

Ironically enough, I find the article goes more in the way of showing that its not a myth.

Care to highlight what evil, militant anti-Christian secularism is contained in the article?

MagicMarker

JimiTime wrote: »

Ironically enough, I find the article goes more in the way of showing that its not a myth.

I'm shocked.

Ellis Dee

I enjoyed the article, which is just common sense. Interesting to see the reader comments and how soon the "they're just anti-Catholic" paranoia bounces to the surface. :rolleyes:

Anyway, there's no need for anyone to attack the RCC in Ireland any longer. Cardinal Brady and the other facilitators of kiddy-fiddling are doing a fine job of wrecking it all on their own.:)

If I wasn't an atheist, I'd suspect that "the Lord works in mysterious ways".:D:D

joseph brand

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I enjoyed the article, which is just common sense. Interesting to see the reader comments and how soon the "they're just anti-Catholic" paranoia bounces to the surface. :rolleyes:

Anyway, there's no need for anyone to attack the RCC in Ireland any longer. Cardinal Brady and the other facilitators of kiddy-fiddling are doing a fine job of wrecking it all on their own.:)

If I wasn't an atheist, I'd suspect that "the Lord works in mysterious ways".:D:D

Brady is doing exactly what Atheists want by hanging on and showing his arrogance towards the victims, their families and all Catholics nationwide.

Some of the excuses spewed by catholics are absolutely ridiculous, ie; "There was no phone available to him, so he couldn't ring the Gardaí". That really is insulting a person's intelligence.

The bishops, cardinals, archbishops, and the Vatican have shown nothing but contempt and arrogance towards the Irish people. Hopefully they will do more damage to their corporation.

MrPudding

joseph brand wrote: »

Brady is doing exactly what Atheists want by hanging on and showing his arrogance towards the victims, their families and all Catholics nationwide.

Some of the excuses spewed by catholics are absolutely ridiculous, ie; "There was no phone available to him, so he couldn't ring the Gardaí". That really is insulting a person's intelligence.

The bishops, cardinals, archbishops, and the Vatican have shown nothing but contempt and arrogance towards the Irish people. Hopefully they will do more damage to their corporation.

The phone one was good. I also like the "the IRA did not like informants" excuse.

MrP

MrPudding

Zillah wrote: »

Do you have a point of some sort or just more ambiguous contrariness? The article is quite succinct, it clarifies the difference between right and privilege - other than a single vaguely condescending line about a Sky God I can't imagine what the objection is.

It doesn't say "OMG god is awesome, so is Jesus and so is religion. Religion is the best thing ever, I don't understand how you people can't see that" therefore it is evil, militant anti christian secularism. Simples.

MrP

Gbear

Looking at the comments for the article, I can only assume the people missing the point (just the same as our friend number 3 did) didn't actually read the article. Either that or it reflects very poorly on their grasp of the english language.

joseph brand

Gbear wrote: »

Looking at the comments for the article, I can only assume the people missing the point (just the same as our friend number 3 did) didn't actually read the article. Either that or it reflects very poorly on their grasp of the english language.

Poe's Law.

Paparazzo

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Good article, though I kind of wish he hadn't thrown in the 'vindictive, jealous Sky God' line. Not the best way to get your point across when you're trying to educate people that secularism is essentially religion-neutral rather than anti-religion.

+1, and I really hate the phrase "sky god".

Dades

I thought the article started well and then turned into a bit of a handbags against John Waters and the RCC.

So frankly, while it wasn't an example of "evil, militant anti-Christian secularism", it wasn't a great example of unbiased secularism either.

Gbear

Dades wrote: »

I thought the article started well and then turned into a bit of a handbags against John Waters and the RCC.

So frankly, while it wasn't an example of "evil, militant anti-Christian secularism", it wasn't a great example of unbiased secularism either.

Still, I think you can call John Waters a gob****e and the RCC despicable without forgoing any secularism.

Everyone has biases - secularism doesn't act on them. That's kinda the whole point.

That I dislike most, if not all, organised religion isn't really related to my views on secularism. If my hatred was pushing an anti-religious agenda I'd be calling for churches to be banned and so forth.

Nodin

Gbear wrote: »

Still, I think you can call John Waters a gob****e and the RCC despicable without forgoing any secularism.

.........

An accurate description and valid personal opinion, respectively.

It has to be said that much time is wasted trying to point out that secularism =/= atheism when the subject of a 'secular society' comes up.

ShooterSF

I can't believe the following line popped up in the comments "Taking another swipe at the child abuse without seeing it in perspective"

Gobsmacked.

(Also it wouldn't take much detective work to guess my real name at that point)

Galvasean

ShooterSF wrote: »

(Also it wouldn't take much detective work to guess my real name at that point)

IRA gunman #6?

JimiTime

koth wrote: »

Care to highlight what evil, militant anti-Christian secularism is contained in the article?

Thats just hyperbole. The jist of the article was to talk about the percieved threat to religious liberty. The author just Daily Mailed it up a bit. The Irony, as Dades alluded to, is that it certainly didn't disband this alleged myth, but rather seemed to reveal it had merit.

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats just hyperbole. The jist of the article was to talk about the percieved threat to religious liberty. The author just Daily Mailed it up a bit. The Irony, as Dades alluded to, is that it certainly didn't disband this alleged myth, but rather seemed to reveal it had merit.

OK, so what religious liberty were being threatened in the article? What religious rights were proposed to be removed from religious people?

JimiTime

koth wrote: »

OK, so what religious liberty were being threatened in the article? What religious rights were proposed to be removed from religious people?

The right to hold office and be informed by ones religious views.

ShooterSF

JimiTime wrote: »

The right to hold office and be informed by ones religious views.

So you're saying that the separation of state and church infringes on your right to not have state and church separated?

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

The right to hold office and be informed by ones religious views.

Why is it that a religious person can't hold office and not impose their religious belief on the public, be they Christian or otherwise.

Why should one religion be given a place of privilege purely because one of the followers of the religion happens to be in office? It would mean that the public who don't follow that religion don't have their (non-)beliefs respected.

JimiTime

koth wrote: »

Why is it that a religious person can't hold office and not impose their religious belief on the public, be they Christian or otherwise.

Why should one religion be given a place of privilege purely because one of the followers of the religion happens to be in office? It would mean that the public who don't follow that religion don't have their (non-)beliefs respected.

As far as I'm aware, separation of Church and State means that no religious institution is given a special place in the states affairs. However, this does not mean that peoples religious views can no longer be part of what informs them.

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, separation of Church and State means that no religious institution is given a special place in the states affairs. However, this does not mean that peoples religious views can no longer be part of what informs them.

Or law, or social policy etc. If a TD starts implementing Christian teachings as law, that religion now has a special place in the state.

Of course their beliefs can inform them, but they can't solely rely on that belief when it comes to government duties that affect people of all religious groupings. It's not how a modern democracy should work.

Gbear

koth wrote: »

Or law, or social policy etc. If a TD starts implementing Christian teachings as law, that religion now has a special place in the state.

Of course their beliefs can inform them, but they can't solely rely on that belief when it comes to government duties that affect people of all religious groupings. It's not how a modern democracy should work.

You'd argue that any conflict of interest should lead a TD to resign. People seem to make a special case for religion to be exempt from that and I don't see why.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

[...] this does not mean that peoples religious views can no longer be part of what informs them.

By the same token, if people bring their religious views into parliamentary debate, they should expect a lot of people to point and laugh, especially if it's a comment as deliciously nutty as "fornication is the most likely cause of unwanted pregnancies".