A nation of Spiritual Schizophrenics

Fenian Army

Although not a religious person I've been thinking recently about the agenda for a "secular society" that is becoming increasingly prevalent, especially among people my age. (twenties).

I've been thinking about what exactly this means - most secularists will say that they have no problem with religion, but that it should not influence/dictate actions of govt and scoff at those who say that their stance is an attack on religion, because they don't believe it is - that has been my stance for a long time.

However it seems to me that religion and a "secular society" are incompatible. What we have is politicians (not just them but average Joes too) claiming they believe one thing but acting in defiance of those beliefs, like Kennedy, the original spiritual schizophrenic, ie not allowing "personal beliefs" to interfere with decisions. This has become an accepted norm and constitutes undermining of religion. It's like telling someone that they allowed to live, but they cannot breath. One cannot be a Christian, Muslim etc and not act like one in public. Religion isn't something you do once a week, its a lifestyle which you need to live every hour of every day, not just when you are at home or in church.

Thus if you are a secularist and demand this doublethink you need to accept that this is an attack on religion and religious freedom, to stigmatize acting in accordance with ones "personal beliefs" and to purge public life of peoples religious beliefs, sidelining them, cannot be anything other than an attack. This secularist agenda will, in time, kill off religious beliefs.


No whether or not this is a good or bad thing I'm not saying (good arguments can be made either way I'm sure!) - but secularists need to be honest with themselves and accept the reality that their ideology, secularism, and religion cannot coexist in a meaningful way.

There's my rambling 2 cents on this topic - any thoughts?

Wiggles88

Fenian Army wrote: »

Although not a religious person I've been thinking recently about the agenda for a "secular society" that is becoming increasingly prevalent, especially among people my age. (twenties).

I've been thinking about what exactly this means - most secularists will say that they have no problem with religion, but that it should not influence/dictate actions of govt and scoff at those who say that their stance is an attack on religion, because they don't believe it is - that has been my stance for a long time.

However it seems to me that religion and a "secular society" are incompatible. What we have is politicians (not just them but average Joes too) claiming they believe one thing but acting in defiance of those beliefs, like Kennedy, the original spiritual schizophrenic, ie not allowing "personal beliefs" to interfere with decisions. This has become an accepted norm and constitutes undermining of religion. It's like telling someone that they allowed to live, but they cannot breath. One cannot be a Christian, Muslim etc and not act like one in public. Religion isn't something you do once a week, its a lifestyle which you need to live every hour of every day, not just when you are at home or in church.

Thus if you are a secularist and demand this doublethink you need to accept that this is an attack on religion and religious freedom, to stigmatize acting in accordance with ones "personal beliefs" and to purge public life of peoples religious beliefs, sidelining them, cannot be anything other than an attack. This secularist agenda will, in time, kill off religious beliefs.


No whether or not this is a good or bad thing I'm not saying (good arguments can be made either way I'm sure!) - but secularists need to be honest with themselves and accept the reality that their ideology, secularism, and religion cannot coexist in a meaningful way.

There's my rambling 2 cents on this topic - any thoughts?

I disagree.As it stands, a specific religion, Catholicism, is endorsed by the government and my and everyone else's taxes go to fund various catholic endeavours (e.g. Catholicism in schools). This does two things, first it impinges on my and everyone else who is not catholic, freedom of religion as a religion not our own is forced on us and secondly since my tax pays for this you can be sure I will make a fuss about it, which ends up annoying catholics and in a way impinging on their religious organisation.

With separation of church and state the religious are actually (imo) granted greater freedom.By separating religion from government the religious can follow their particular religion to their hearts desire without interference from people of other religions and of no religion at all as it is entirely a private affair (i.e. no one group forcing on another).

By the way secularism does not mean a religious person cannot bring their religious ideals etc into the state through laws it just means that they must put forward a logical rational argument for said law that people of all faiths and no faith can all agree upon again so that the majority group cannot simply force their ideals onto smaller religious groups.

doctoremma

I completely accept that religious people holding public office will be largely unable to leave their religious side at home in order to perform their job as a non-religious person.

What I ask, nay demand, is that that when they come to make the laws I have to live under, they make secular arguments for said laws. Whether that secular argument matches their religious outlook on life is by the by (although I suspect that those religious people willing to make such secular arguments are doing so when it does match their religious philosophy).

Allowed as an argument: I believe gay people should not be allowed to get married because that will promote the existence of a sub-optimal family unit (not saying I think this argument a valid one, but it is a secular one).

Not allowed as an argument: I believe gay people should not be allowed to get married because my god says it's bad.

I would never vote in a person who openly declared their intent to use their "religious conscience" to decide their stance on issues.

Benny_Cake

Wiggles88 wrote: »

I disagree.As it stands, a specific religion, Catholicism, is endorsed by the government and my and everyone else's taxes go to fund various catholic endeavours (e.g. Catholicism in schools). This does two things, first it impinges on my and everyone else who is not catholic, freedom of religion as a religion not our own is forced on us and secondly since my tax pays for this you can be sure I will make a fuss about it, which ends up annoying catholics and in a way impinging on their religious organisation.

With separation of church and state the religious are actually (imo) granted greater freedom.By separating religion from government the religious can follow their particular religion to their hearts desire without interference from people of other religions and of no religion at all as it is entirely a private affair (i.e. no one group forcing on another).

By the way secularism does not mean a religious person cannot bring their religious ideals etc into the state through laws it just means that they must put forward a logical rational argument for said law that people of all faiths and no faith can all agree upon again so that the majority group cannot simply force their ideals onto smaller religious groups.

I'd agree with most of this, but the government doesn't "endorse" Catholicism - at least, no more than it endorses other churches or faiths which also have their own schools. I personally think it's time to start moving religious formation out of the schools and into the parishes / mosques etc but that's a whole other issue.

Wiggles88

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd agree with most of this, but the government doesn't "endorse" Catholicism - at least, no more than it endorses other churches or faiths which also have their own schools. I personally think it's time to start moving religious formation out of the schools and into the parishes / mosques etc but that's a whole other issue.

It does far more so than any other domination, perhaps "endorse" is not quite the word I'm looking for but Catholicism still has a larger place in the irish state than any other.

skooterblue2

I am for the American Ideal, where the state treats all religions equal on Monday to Friday. On the weekend the private citizen can attend any religious service they wish as long as it is within the law of the land.
Any time Religion gets get into bed with the state. The state (Taxpayer/Citizen) gets screwed whether they approve of the Religion or not.

Eg Ireland and The church of Ireland, thides had to be paid by Catholics
Ireland and the Roman Catholic Church, Reparation to Child abuse victims, ownership of state facilities eg hospitals schools etc .
France and the Catholic Church. See Huguenots
Japan and the Jesuits....
Russia and the orthodox church.

The list goes on and on

skooterblue2

doctoremma wrote: »

I would never vote in a person who openly declared their intent to use their "religious conscience" to decide their stance on issues.

Do you remember Tony Blair promoting Ruth Kelly a member of Opus Dei to the Cabinet or George W. Bush promoting a friend of his who wanted to the USA to walk away from the UN to the post of American Ambassador to the UN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte.

It is hard to see how these can serve the State with their interests vested else where

doctoremma

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Do you remember Tony Blair promoting Ruth Kelly a member of Opus Dei to the Cabinet....It is hard to see how these can serve the State with their interests vested else where

A little bit of sick just came into my mouth.

Tony Blair at least had the decorum to keep a lid on his religion until he was done as PM. And bizarrely, he's now a Catholic who supports gay marriage. If not a secular society.

lazygal

Wiggles88 wrote: »

It does far more so than any other domination, perhaps "endorse" is not quite the word I'm looking for but Catholicism still has a larger place in the irish state than any other.

The Irish Constitution refers to the Holy Trinity in its preamble, and every session of the Dail and Seanad starts with a Catholic prayer. Despite a clause that the state shall not endow any religion, the constitution and our parliament does so explicitly.

Wiggles88

lazygal wrote: »

The Irish Constitution refers to the Holy Trinity in its preamble, and every session of the Dail and Seanad starts with a Catholic prayer. Despite a clause that the state shall not endow any religion, the constitution and our parliament does so explicitly.

Thats exactly what I was trying (and failing :P) to get at. The whole unofficial official connection between the two. "Its unconstitutional to fully come out and endorse it but we'll do it anyway and hope no one questions it" kind of relationship the state has with the church.

skooterblue2

Was n't Gay Mitchell a member of Opus Dei?

Lets clear up the doubt is there a difference between being a senior Public representative linked with Private members groups (sailing, golf, rugby, Gaa, clubs) and Organisations who have their interests vested above that of the state they are supposed to be serving?

philologos

Wiggles88 wrote: »

I disagree.As it stands, a specific religion, Catholicism, is endorsed by the government and my and everyone else's taxes go to fund various catholic endeavours (e.g. Catholicism in schools). This does two things, first it impinges on my and everyone else who is not catholic, freedom of religion as a religion not our own is forced on us and secondly since my tax pays for this you can be sure I will make a fuss about it, which ends up annoying catholics and in a way impinging on their religious organisation.

Really? - In terms of schooling in Ireland - other denominations, religions and none receive funding for schools.

Taxes pay for education. Surprise, surprise.

Wiggles88 wrote: »

With separation of church and state the religious are actually (imo) granted greater freedom.By separating religion from government the religious can follow their particular religion to their hearts desire without interference from people of other religions and of no religion at all as it is entirely a private affair (i.e. no one group forcing on another).

Where do other religions interfere in the running of church? I've certainly never seen it.

Wiggles88 wrote: »

By the way secularism does not mean a religious person cannot bring their religious ideals etc into the state through laws it just means that they must put forward a logical rational argument for said law that people of all faiths and no faith can all agree upon again so that the majority group cannot simply force their ideals onto smaller religious groups.

Largely I agree. Some atheists insist it means that faith shouldn't have any voice in society. The word has been twisted. A healthy scepticism of how some people insist on using the word is useful.

Benny_Cake

Wiggles88 wrote: »

lazygal wrote: »

The Irish Constitution refers to the Holy Trinity in its preamble, and every session of the Dail and Seanad starts with a Catholic prayer. Despite a clause that the state shall not endow any religion, the constitution and our parliament does so explicitly.

Thats exactly what I was trying (and failing :P) to get at. The whole unofficial official connection between the two. "Its unconstitutional to fully come out and endorse it but we'll do it anyway and hope no one questions it" kind of relationship the state has with the church.

The preamble in the constitution is a relic of the past and is largely aspirational (the Trinity is an article of faith for all mainstream Christians) , and the prayer could be read as being broadly Christian, not specifically Catholic. That said, personally I would have no problem with altering or removing them. The Catholic church is by far the largest religious body in the country, so it may seem to have the most influence, but in my opinion it has dwindled to almost nothing in terms of public policy. That certainly wasn't the case 20 or 30 years ago.

lazygal

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The preamble in the constitution is a relic of the past and is largely aspirational (the Trinity is an article of faith for all mainstream Christians) , and the prayer could be read as being broadly Christian, not specifically Catholic. That said, personally I would have no problem with altering or removing them. The Catholic church is by far the largest religious body in the country, so it may seem to have the most influence, but in my opinion it has dwindled to almost nothing in terms of public policy. That certainly wasn't the case 20 or 30 years ago.

I work in politics and the influence of the Catholic Church is still strong. The debate on the civil partnership legislation is a case in point. People like Jim Walsh made contributions that were nothing more than Catholic dogma dressed up as 'concern' for the family. There's also a huge display of ashes on Ash Wednesday. One year Donie Cassidy forgot to get his and used the ashes on another Senator's forehead to daub his own, for fear of not being seen as a good Catholic. Dubious lobby groups like David Quinn of the Iona Institute have access to committees and legislators on a very regular basis. There's always pleas on any social legislation about the right of Catholics to some sort of opt out clause, like not having to perform civil partnerships and Brian Cowen defended the Vatican's behaviour after the Ryan and Murphy reports were issued.

They haven't gone away you know.

Fenian Army

Considering so many people are catholics its to be expected that there is influence.

nozzferrahhtoo

Fenian Army wrote: »

There's my rambling 2 cents on this topic - any thoughts?

I do not want to make this a thread about Obama and what people think of him. But that aside I think in his Key Note speech of 2006 he put my position on secularism better than I could write it myself.

So perhaps adding his words to your thread might add little perspective to the issue. To answer your post I do not see secularism as an attack on religion or the religious per se and in fact I am personally acquainted with a number of Theistic Secularists so I would not even be quick to equate secularism with atheism.

Obama wrote:

Given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to X for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why X violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. In a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.

Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible.

Jellicoe

Your beliefs / non beliefs affect your politics and views.
To claim anything else is claptrap.

Wiggles88

philologos wrote: »

Really? - In terms of schooling in Ireland - other denominations, religions and none receive funding for schools.

Taxes pay for education. Surprise, surprise.

Yes they pay for education, what they currently also pay for (but shouldnt) is religious indoctrination, prayer, communions, confirmations etc. These things can be learned in the home and in the chruch/mosque etc. Theres no reason to force it on kids in schools too.

Where do other religions interfere in the running of church? I've certainly never seen it.

Apologies if I wasn't clear, I mean in the running of state funded operations with a clear denominational bias, not necessarily the church itself although the more entwined the church with the state the more scrutiny it will receive from those outside its faith.

philologos

Wiggles88 wrote: »

Yes they pay for education, what they currently also pay for (but shouldnt) is religious indoctrination, prayer, communions, confirmations etc. These things can be learned in the home and in the chruch/mosque etc. Theres no reason to force it on kids in schools too.

Faith schools in general are funded. As they are here in Britain. I agree the percentage of secular schools should be higher in Ireland by the by. But I disagree that atheist ideology should be allowed to deny choice to parents in respect to faith schools.

Wiggles88 wrote: »

Apologies if I wasn't clear, I mean in the running of state funded operations with a clear denominational bias, not necessarily the church itself although the more entwined the church with the state the more scrutiny it will receive from those outside its faith.

You say "the church" as if the State doesn't support faith schools of all kinds. A secular position on this is that the State regards all faiths and none equally in this respect. It needn't mean banning faith schools whatsoever.

Wiggles88

I never mentioned banning faith schools but rather removing any bias from state funded schools. Why does religion and sate funded schooling have to be intertwined anyway? A removal of religion is not putting an "atheist ideology" into the schools its just using schools for their intended purpose, the pursuit of knowledge. And to be clear by removal of religion I mean the removal of indoctrination etc. of a specific religion not the academic study of the various religions around the world and their impacts.

philologos

Wiggles88 wrote: »

I never mentioned banning faith schools but rather removing any bias from state funded schools. Why does religion and sate funded schooling have to be intertwined anyway? A removal of religion is not putting an "atheist ideology" into the schools its just using schools for their intended purpose, the pursuit of knowledge. And to be clear by removal of religion I mean the removal of indoctrination etc. of a specific religion not the academic study of the various religions around the world and their impacts.

Faith schools make excellent contributions to the societies around them, and they educate to a high standard. I would vote against any politician who was campaigning for that because I believe that parents should have a choice in respect to this matter. They would lose my vote immediately. It is possible to have a diversity of faith schools and secular schools in a secular society. I don't see any valid reason to change that other than antipathy towards faith in society.

Wiggles88

philologos wrote: »

I think the State should continue to fund faith schools because they make excellent contributions to society, and educate well for the most part. Of course there should be standards as to the curriculum, but honestly in any election if a candidate was attempting to stop funding faith schools I would vote for another candidate who wouldn't.

Fair enough, but a) do these schools make excellent contributions to society because of their religious views or because of their academic standings? and b) with the state funding faith schools the only way to be completely unbiased would be to be non discriminating to faith schools of all religions including Satanism, Scientology, Pastafarian and any other of the thousands of religious denomination which exist out there. Which I think most will agree is both an impossible task and in no way a desirable objective.

philologos

Wiggles88: Both actually. Even though I fundamentally disagree with the teachings of other faiths, I think they can promote what is good. For example, I would praise the fact that because my area is largely Islamic there's less drunken related nonsense at night.

b) On the basis of demand. Other criteria such as whether or not these faiths seek fees and so on would have to come into it also.

It isn't an impossible task, and it works in many countries. I think opposition to the State funding faith schools as any other is largely on the basis of antipathy towards faith in society. By the by, my taxes fund a heck of a lot of stuff that I strongly disagree with. Yet there would be an uproar if I suggested the State should stop funding those things. The State is ultimately responsible for the welfare of everyone in respect to education, and that's why I feel it's acceptable to offer parents a choice in respect to faith schools and none.

You don't like funding them - perhaps not, but then again I don't like funding many things with my taxes yet I still do.

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

I would vote against any politician who was campaigning for that [removal of faith schools]...They would lose my vote immediately.

And I would vote FOR any politician campaigning for it...:)

philologos wrote: »

because I believe that parents should have a choice in respect to this matter.

They do. They can educate their children in whichever faith they choose outside of school. Then tax-payers aren't funding a discriminatory and segregatory school system.

Northclare

A nation of Spiritual Schizophrenics,ffs are you delusional,what kind of doctor are you.

That statement alone belongs to a farside postcard.

And you're a doctor, do you prescribe meds to any spiritual religious or people who believe in ghosts the paranormal etc ?

doctoremma

Northclare wrote: »

And you're a doctor, do you prescribe meds to any spiritual religious or people who believe in ghosts the paranormal etc ?

Is this directed at me?? (Haven't gone through the profiles of others to see who else it applies to, suspect it might...)

Northclare

Your no doctor Emma not with your lack of empathy,or your idea that there's a nation full of Schizophrenics.

Thats a very strong statement or subject.

doctoremma

Northclare wrote: »

Your no doctor Emma not with your lack of empathy,or your idea that there's a nation full of Schizophrenics.

Thats a very strong statement or subject.

1. I'm not the OP, and have not mentioned the idea that there is any nation full of schizophrenics. I think I have made two posts on this thread, one to support a secular government and one to protest about the existence of taxpayer-funded faith schools.
2. Where does empathy come into this?
3. Are you high? Or trollied?

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

1. I'm not the OP, and have not mentioned the idea that there is any nation full of schizophrenics. I think I have made two posts on this thread, one to support a secular government and one to protest about the existence of taxpayer-funded faith schools.
2. Where does empathy come into this?
3. Are you high? Or trollied?

My point was that a secular government needn't jettison the idea of faith schools provided that they are provided on an equitable basis. Taxpayers aren't all atheists either. As I said already, my tax money goes to fund all kinds of things that I disagree with or find immoral. It's reality that in order to for the State to consider all demographics in society inevitably you'll be paying tax for something you strongly disagree with.

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

My point was that a secular government needn't jettison the idea of faith schools provided that they are provided on an equitable basis. Taxpayers aren't all atheists either. As I said already, my tax money goes to fund all kinds of things that I disagree with or find immoral. It's reality that in order to for the State to consider all demographics in society inevitably you'll be paying tax for something you strongly disagree with.

I'll hop in here quickly and possibly sod off again.

When I went to school in Sydney, the school itself was a simple State run High School with no religious connection itself.

It did however provide teachers of various faiths that would attend the school once a week for a Religion class. The onus was on the parents of each faith to arrange for a Priest/Rabbi etc to attend the school and teach the children of whichever faith.

The class itself was optional, and children of all faiths could attend any of the religion classes if they wanted to learn something about it.

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

My point was that a secular government needn't jettison the idea of faith schools provided that they are provided on an equitable basis. Taxpayers aren't all atheists either. As I said already, my tax money goes to fund all kinds of things that I disagree with or find immoral. It's reality that in order to for the State to consider all demographics in society inevitably you'll be paying tax for something you strongly disagree with.

I just don't see what faith has to do with maths or French or biology or geography or IT or art or even history (religion maybe has a place here but not faith). I attended a faith school - essentially, we had extra-curricular mass and confession, and that was it. What about that did I not get at home?

Northclare

Doctoremma I was just trying to point out to you what schizophrenia is and if we had a nation behaving like that,there would be absolute chaos.

Schizophrenia is very serious and if someone tries to portray a nation of being a nation of schizophrenia,then that's pretty silly really isn't it...

Bannasidhe

Northclare wrote: »

Doctoremma I was just trying to point out to you what schizophrenia is and if we had a nation behaving like that,there would be absolute chaos.

Schizophrenia is very serious and if someone tries to portray a nation of being a nation of schizophrenia,then that's pretty silly really isn't it...

I don't understand why you are having a go at doctoremma - she never even used the word schizophrenia or alluded to it until you launched an attack at her. Even then it was to point out that she hadn't said anything about schizophrenia

raah!

It's one thing to say that the state should take a neutral stance on religion, it's quite another to say that religious people are not entitled to cite religious motivation when they vote or espouse laws or policies which give a legal aspect to what they consider to be right or wrong.

To think that there is some "objective, logical and reasonable" way to argue for a certain value system is to demonstrate a great ignorance about the nature of morality, logic, and reason, and to effectively put forward a position which bans people from expressing or voting on what they consider to be good or bad. They are just saying "you can't be religious". If a religious person thinks that killing is bad, because the bible says it's bad, then they are perfectly entitled to campaign for killing to be outlawed on the basis of what it says in the bible. There is nothing objective about "killing is bad bcoz evolution richard dawkins".

There is nothing pluralistic or neutral about telling people that they can't publicly espouse elements of their value system, where as others can theirs (it's just the again the ignorance of these people with respect to reason and morality allows them to see these other value systems as universally true, more "objectively justified".) Saying you have a more objectively justified moral proposition is beyond ridiculous, and people shouldn't be allowed to go about saying this and then treated like they have a clue what they are saying. To call something like that "pluralistic" is simply duplicitous.

Wiggles88

raah! wrote: »

It's one thing to say that the state should take a neutral stance on religion, it's quite another to say that religious people are not entitled to cite religious motivation when they vote or espouse laws or policies which give a legal aspect to what they consider to be right or wrong.

No one is saying religious people cannot use their religion as motivation when they espouse laws. What a secular state does say though is when asked why you want to put X into law the answer "my bible/torah/quran etc. said so" is not acceptable. If people within a particular religion wish to follow the rules of that religion thats fine but a law is for everyone in society and it is unreasonable for people to expect that those outside their faith follow their rules. For example what if a Jewish politician wished to bring in a law which would ban pork for everyone in society because his religion said its bad? Would you support such a law and why?

To think that there is some "objective, logical and reasonable" way to argue for a certain value system is to demonstrate a great ignorance about the nature of morality, logic, and reason, and to effectively put forward a position which bans people from expressing or voting on what they consider to be good or bad. They are just saying "you can't be religious". If a religious person thinks that killing is bad, because the bible says it's bad, then they are perfectly entitled to campaign for killing to be outlawed on the basis of what it says in the bible. There is nothing objective about "killing is bad bcoz evolution richard dawkins".

Is this another one of these "if we had no religion we would all be off killing each other because we dont know any better" arguments? Come on.

If a religious person wished to outlaw killing on the basis of his/her own religious reasons then s/he is entitled to purpose such a motion but again saying "my bible/torah/quran etc. said so" is not good enough, s/he would have to also show the quite obvious reasons why this would be detrimental to society for it to be fair to peoples of all and no religions.

There is nothing pluralistic or neutral about telling people that they can't publicly espouse elements of their value system, where as others can theirs (it's just the again the ignorance of these people with respect to reason and morality allows them to see these other value systems as universally true, more "objectively justified".) Saying you have a more objectively justified moral proposition is beyond ridiculous, and people shouldn't be allowed to go about saying this and then treated like they have a clue what they are saying. To call something like that "pluralistic" is simply duplicitous.

Its not that people cant espouse elements of their religion its that those in publicly funded positions shouldnt favour any religion over another.

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

I just don't see what faith has to do with maths or French or biology or geography or IT or art or even history (religion maybe has a place here but not faith). I attended a faith school - essentially, we had extra-curricular mass and confession, and that was it. What about that did I not get at home?

Off topic the State curriculum in Ireland was never much good for IT unfortunately

However, I think it's good that parents have the choice to bring their children to a school with a clear ethos, and chaplains if they are interested in developing faith while they are at school. Admittedly, I didn't give much a toss for it until I was 17 and doing my own reading of Scripture as well.

Naturally as an atheist you wouldn't agree.

laoch na mona

im a seclurist and a catholic
religion should not be thought in school nor should there be any laws on religion other than ones protection freedom to practice
the church should have no say in the affairs of the state

doctoremma

raah! wrote: »

If a religious person thinks that killing is bad, because the bible says it's bad, then they are perfectly entitled to campaign for killing to be outlawed on the basis of what it says in the bible. There is nothing objective about "killing is bad bcoz evolution richard dawkins".

Are you saying that there are religious people who wouldn't be able to construct a secular argument against murder? That the desire not to kill your fellow man is not inherent in the vast majority of people?

I certainly would never vote for anyone who needed to quote a Holy Book as his/her justification for having laws against murder.

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

Off topic the State curriculum in Ireland was never much good for IT unfortunately

However, I think it's good that parents have the choice to bring their children to a school with a clear ethos, and chaplains if they are interested in developing faith while they are at school. Admittedly, I didn't give much a toss for it until I was 17 and doing my own reading of Scripture as well.

Naturally as an atheist you wouldn't agree.

The major problems I have with faith schools are:
1. the segregation effects, which I can't see as healthy in a modern society. We're seeing important issues arising from segregation, both criminal and social, and it strikes me that encouraging people of all faiths and none to grow through school together is a positive move.
2. more importantly to me, the potential to allow our children to be taught nothing short of lies. There are Catholic schools in the UK teaching creationism (which I'm pretty sure is against the law) and I suspect at least one other major faith school system does the same. This distresses me immensely, where faith precludes children learning academic truth and it baffles me that we should enable this. I'm utterly disgusted by Blair claiming, when he learned of creationism being taught, that diversity in the school system was a good thing. To that, I say 'bobbins'.

I have less of an issue with the stricter behavioural codes (many schools need to tighten their belts in this regard) or even the availability of religious reps for children to meet with, should they wish to do do.

Bannasidhe

doctoremma wrote: »

The major problems I have with faith schools are:
1. the segregation effects, which I can't see as healthy in a modern society. We're seeing important issues arising from segregation, both criminal and social, and it strikes me that encouraging people of all faiths and none to grow through school together is a positive move.
2. more importantly to me, the potential to allow our children to be taught nothing short of lies. There are Catholic schools in the UK teaching creationism (which I'm pretty sure is against the law) and I suspect at least one other major faith school system does the same. This distresses me immensely, where faith precludes children learning truth.

I have less of an issue with the stricter behavioural codes (many schools need to tighten their belts in this regard) or even the availability of religious reps for children to meet with, should they wish to do do.

My issue is with the fact that the majority of Irish schools impose one religious ethos and one only. Yet, as these are also technically the State schools many parent's have no option but to send their children there.

I think this is deeply unfair - Catholic children do not get to learn about other faiths, children of other faiths are either segregated into 'their' schools (haven't we enough problems with religious segregation on this small island with perpetuating it through our school system?) or do not receive the same level of religious instruction as their Catholic counterparts in the same school, children of no faith are left in a sort of limbo.

While my personal opinion is that religious instruction should take place outside of the State school system, a possible alternative would be that a period of time would be set aside and parents/pupils given a choice - instruction in the religion of their choice by a Pastor/Priest/Iman/Rabbi/whomever or extra class in maths/science/IT/basic literacy - those areas where we are falling down educationally.

Should it be deemed necessary for single faith schools to exist well and good, but they should be the minority of schools - not the majority as is currently the case. Nor do I think they should receive most of their funding from the State. Some subsidy perhaps, but I think the onus should be on the parents and particular religious organisations to provide the bulk of the funding.

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

The major problems I have with faith schools are:
1. the segregation effects, which I can't see as healthy in a modern society.

In CofE schools they have to have a portion of the school population allocated for non-Christians. In my primary and secondary school I was taught with people of a variety of faiths despite it being a faith school.

doctoremma wrote: »

We're seeing important issues arising from segregation, both criminal and social, and it strikes me that encouraging people of all faiths and none to grow through school together is a positive move.

Like what? I'm doubting these are attributed solely to faith schooling.

doctoremma wrote: »

2. more importantly to me, the potential to allow our children to be taught nothing short of lies. There are Catholic schools in the UK teaching creationism (which I'm pretty sure is against the law) and I suspect at least one other major faith school system does the same. This distresses me immensely, where faith precludes children learning academic truth and it baffles me that we should enable this. I'm utterly disgusted by Blair claiming, when he learned of creationism being taught, that diversity in the school system was a good thing. To that, I say 'bobbins'.

I saw the recent ruckus over 3 new free Christian schools being set up here. The media went crazy saying that these schools were creationists. All three of these schools made it clear that they wouldn't be teaching Young Earth Creation in science class.

One of these schools that got the go ahead was Sevenoaks Christian School. They know that Michael Gove has expressly forbid them to do this, and I don't think they had any interest in doing this to begin with. They say the following about science class:

Q. Will you teach ‘creationism’?
Christians believe that God made the world and loves what he has made. In RE we plan to teach about this and our responsibility as stewards of this precious earth. We will not teach ‘creationism’ or ‘intelligent design’ as an alternative to the theory of evolution; indeed Free Schools are prohibited by law from teaching this.

Yet, the British Humanist Association had a field day with this. They seem to ignore that the shortened term "creationism" is commonly used to refer to Young Earth Creationism. Not the view that God created the world.

Why people like the British Humanist Association feel the need to lie about Sevenoaks Christian School amongst others is just disappointing to say the least.

If there are cases where classes are teaching young earth creationism in science class then I will agree strongly that they should remove funding. I am a little bit uneasy when I see cabinet ministers making ignorant claims about Christianity (particularly evangelical Christianity) as a result:

The trouble is, as always, when it’s taken to extremes, whether it’s evangelical Christians, totalitarian Muslims or segregationist Jews. Such applications need careful vetting, not because there shouldn’t be far-out religious and ideological beliefs, but because the taxpayer shouldn’t pay to propagate them – and because children should be able to participate in a wider society without having their horizons narrowed by fundamentalism

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/9411990/Free-schools-have-to-pass-our-most-rigorous-exams.html

raah!

Wiggles88 wrote: »

No one is saying religious people cannot use their religion as motivation when they espouse laws. What a secular state does say though is when asked why you want to put X into law the answer "my bible/torah/quran etc. said so" is not acceptable.

So they should have it motivated by their bibles, they must then pretend that there are other reasons that they want a certain moral value to be legalised? That is saying exactly that they can't use their religion as motivation, or that they have to dissimulate that fact. Edit: Also on rereading my post, I also said "cite as motivation". I don't know if you are being serious with this kind of post, constructing an entire argument around a ridiculous interpretation, which can still be shown to be contradictory.

If people within a particular religion wish to follow the rules of that religion thats fine but a law is for everyone in society and it is unreasonable for people to expect that those outside their faith follow their rules. For example what if a Jewish politician wished to bring in a law which would ban pork for everyone in society because his religion said its bad? Would you support such a law and why?

If I was Jewish I would. We live in a democracy, and if people want to bring in laws suited to a certain set of people with a certain value set, then they are perfectly entitled to campaign for them. Again, to think there is some sort of universal value set that people can appeal to outside of religion is just absurd.

Is this another one of these "if we had no religion we would all be off killing each other because we dont know any better" arguments? Come on.

Merely pointing out the fact that when it comes to peoples morals, there is no objective way to communicate between moral systems. Yes you can appeal to shared values, but different shared values will have different motivations. It might take a while to explain that to you if you don't already have an understanding of these differences between value systems, and if you really do think that there is some universal human set of values to which people can appeal, and which coincide perfectly with those of a secular state, then you shouldn't really be taking any part in making any laws relating to this issue.

If a religious person wished to outlaw killing on the basis of his/her own religious reasons then s/he is entitled to purpose such a motion but again saying "my bible/torah/quran etc. said so" is not good enough, s/he would have to also show the quite obvious reasons why this would be detrimental to society for it to be fair to peoples of all and no religions.

It is not good enough to convince people who don't share this value system. But it is certainly enough for them to justify their wanting such and such to be a law.

Likewise, if you wanted to make a moral argument from evolution and talk about aborting downs syndrome people, that might not be very good in convincing people who don't derive their moral values from evolution, as some people claim.

Its not that people cant espouse elements of their religion its that those in publicly funded positions shouldnt favour any religion over another.

As in your first two contradictory sentences, it's exactly that they can't espouse their value systems in law making. Their "killing is bad" is not just a conclusion. But is based on everything else in their value system. In fact it would rather insulting if you said someone had to justify their idea that "killing is bad" with talk of "detrimental to society" or other economic or utilitarian style arguments. You are saying everyone must make utilitarian or economic justifications of their arguments. They can be religious, but that can't affect how they justify anything they say. That's absurd.

And again any legal system with a certain value or set of values enshrined in law will be favouring some value system over another. There is no universally held value system, no universally accepted justification for something.

doctoremma wrote: »

Are you saying that there are religious people who wouldn't be able to construct a secular argument against murder? That the desire not to kill your fellow man is not inherent in the vast majority of people?

I certainly would never vote for anyone who needed to quote a Holy Book as his/her justification for having laws against murder.

I am saying that they don't have to. They could do so to have you or some other secular people vote for it, but they shouldn't have to pretend that their form of justification is in any way less legitimate than a "secular justification" such as "killing people is bad for the economy".

And the desire not to kill your fellow man depends on who that "fellow man" is. Many people have desired at many times to kill many other people.

Wiggles88

raah! wrote: »

So they should have it motivated by their bibles, they must then pretend that there are other reasons that they want a certain moral value to be legalised?

If you cannot think of any possible reasons why something should be brought into law other than a book tells you so then you cant expect me to take you seriously.

That is saying exactly that they can't use their religion as motivation, or that they have to dissimulate that fact.

Im saying if they want to bring something from their holy text into public law then there must be good reason why that should be applied to all in society, remember not everyone shares your religious ideals.

Edit: Also on rereading my post, I also said "cite as motivation". I don't know if you are being serious with this kind of post, constructing an entire argument around a ridiculous interpretation, which can still be shown to be contradictory.

Apologies if I misinterpreted, everyone is entitled to use their religion as their motivation but again if you cant think of anything beyond what your holy text said to back up why such a law should be implemented I cant see how it can be taken seriously.

If I was Jewish I would. We live in a democracy, and if people want to bring in laws suited to a certain set of people with a certain value set, then they are perfectly entitled to campaign for them.

I never said they couldnt, I asked if such a law is justifiable for no other reason than his/her holy text commands it.

Again, to think there is some sort of universal value set that people can appeal to outside of religion is just absurd.
Merely pointing out the fact that when it comes to peoples morals, there is no objective way to communicate between moral systems. Yes you can appeal to shared values, but different shared values will have different motivations. It might take a while to explain that to you if you don't already have an understanding of these differences between value systems, and if you really do think that there is some universal human set of values to which people can appeal, and which coincide perfectly with those of a secular state, then you shouldn't really be taking any part in making any laws relating to this issue.

I dont really appreciate your condescending tone here but anyway, there are many shared values throughout humanity, condemnation of murder is a perfect example, that are used as the basis of our legal system. I never said everyones ideas would coincide perfectly but if any law is purposed it should be routed in logical rational arguments which benefit society that can at least be agreed upon by peoples of all/no religious faiths.

And again any legal system with a certain value or set of values enshrined in law will be favouring some value system over another. There is no universally held value system, no universally accepted justification for something.

True but we can stride to make the legal system as fair as possible, and making sure no religion is favoured (which simultaneously makes all other religions ill-favoured) is the fairest way to achieve religious freedom.

raah!

Wiggles88 wrote: »

If you cannot think of any possible reasons why something should be brought into law other than a book tells you so then you cant expect me to take you seriously.

Im saying if they want to bring something from their holy text into public law then there must be good reason why that should be applied to all in society, remember not everyone shares your religious ideals.

Apologies if I misinterpreted, everyone is entitled to use their religion as their motivation but again if you cant think of anything beyond what your holy text said to back up why such a law should be implemented I cant see how it can be taken seriously.

Well there were parts of my post where I consent that this is not convincing to others who share this value system. But is it justification for their wanting the law to be brought in? Yes!

I've already stated this in my post. Please read the whole post before responding. Your three points say the same thing, and they all pretty much ignore where this point was addressed in my post. Specifically when I was responding to doctoremma. So this is like half your post addressing nothing and just repeating what you originally said. I don't think I'll continue this discussion after this response.

I dont really appreciate your condescending tone here but anyway, there are many shared values throughout humanity, condemnation of murder is a perfect example, that are used as the basis of our legal system. I never said everyones ideas would coincide perfectly but if any law is purposed it should be routed in logical rational arguments which benefit society that can at least be agreed upon by peoples of all/no religious faiths.

What you are saying demonstrates massive ignorance of what logic is, and the nature of morality, and the developement of peoples ideas about murder and things like that throughout history. I don't think you fully understood my post either. You just keep repeating sentences like "proposed laws should be rooted in logical arguments", which was addressed in my original post.

True but we can stride to make the legal system as fair as possible, and making sure no religion is favoured (which simultaneously makes all other religions ill-favoured) is the fairest way to achieve religious freedom.

The law should favour the value system of the people, like it does. Like you'd want it to when everyone votes for things like gay marriage. You want this value, that people have, to be put in the law. If the majority of people were religious, then the law should reflect whatever values they want enshrined in law. There is nothing "fair" about arbitrarily outlawing certain values because they come from value systems which can be described with the word religion. Neither is there anything secular about it. That would be the state having a very specific relationship with outlawing religious considerations when it comes to lawmaking. Which is a classic misuse of terms like "separate state and religion", which is again aided by massive ignorance and is just a back route for anti religious sentiment, which is the primary motivation for the "secularism" of these "rationalists" who use the term today.

Anyway, as I said, you contradicted your self and misinterpreted me in the first few sentences of your previous post, this post consists of repetitions aided by further misinterpretations.

Wiggles88

raah: ok we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot, please let me clarify. You seem to have misinterpreted my original point so let my clarify. Lets take a fresh approach shall we, my point was simply explaining how a secular society works, which is as follows:

Person 1: I want to introduce a law inspired by my religious convictions.
Persone 2: Ok thats great, whats the reason why it should be enforced onto the general public.

(So far this is totally in line with a secular society)

Person 1: I have nothing other than what my religious text tells me.

(this is where secular society conflicts with religious ideals, if you cannot explain why it should be law beyond your religious text then you have no real argument, I cannot explain it any more simply than this.)

That is all I'm saying, it is not, as you say a contradiction, it was you who misinterpreted my post.

The reason I repeated my point several times is you misinterpreted my post several times, that is all.

Secondly if it was addresses to doctoremma why did you quote me in the specific text I responded to? Please be clearer in your future responses.

I never once mentioned abortion or gay rights thats you putting words in my mouth, please refrain from doing so in the future, if you want to talk about homosexuality PND has set up an gay megathread, if you want to talk about homosexuality please take it there. If you want to talk about abortion do not put words in my mouth but rather ask me directly or open a separate thread on abortion and ask for my response there.

Again let me say that it was you who misinterpreted my original post and do not have the audacity to talk down to me when it was you who misinterpreted me.

Rasheed

Regarding teaching religion in schools, the only good reason I can think of for keeping it is it was a doss class.

All we did was colouring in primary, watching films/ doing last nights homework in secondary.

A few hours every Sunday after mass or service or other religious equivilant would suit deadly. Like the Yanks do with their Sunday school.

raah!

Wiggles88 wrote: »

raah: ok we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot, please let me clarify. You seem to have misinterpreted my original point so let my clarify. Lets take a fresh approach shall we, my point was simply explaining how a secular society works, which is as follows:

Person 1: I want to introduce a law inspired by my religious convictions.
Persone 2: Ok thats great, whats the reason why it should be enforced onto the general public.

(So far this is totally in line with a secular society)

Person 1: I have nothing other than what my religious text tells me.

(this is where secular society conflicts with religious ideals, if you cannot explain why it should be law beyond your religious text then you have no real argument, I cannot explain it any more simply than this.)

Ok, I'll make perfeclty explicit what is wrong with this. A religious person says "I want a law against murder, because I think murder is wrong because it says so in the bible". A "secular person" says "I want a law against murder, because that would be economically beneficial for everyone", or "I want slavery to be legal because that would be economically beneficial".

Now there is now common "objective" stand point from which these people can communicate with each other. If the religious person says "why does economically beneficial equate with good?" and you say "beacuse something" and they say "why that?", eventually you will just get down to your grassroots definition of what you think good or bad is, and there won't be any further "objective reasoning" to be had.

So we eventually get down to he bottom of value judgements. The ignorance you displayed, is thinking that there is some how more "justification" for a value which is sourced "secularly" than one which is sourced religiously. Now, there is something called Hume's gap, which really doesn't need to be given a name, but it's nice to have a concise form "it is logically impossible to go from an is to an aught", of course you've never heard of this, or even thought about why this is the case. You just think that there is an objective and reasonable way to justify moral propositions.

So, you are saying that religious people can be religious, but that they must use secular justification for anything they say. This is not at all allowing them to be religious. This is saying that they mus adopt secular value systems. That is a contradiction. And I have already (twice) pointed out that the extent to which their proposed value to be legalised is convincing is of course dependent on being able to translate it into some common language that other value systems can understand. But to say that its "inadmissible" in a "secular society" is absurd. And I've already pointed this out to you, twice, and I've put it in bold, but you still missed it.

That is all I'm saying, it is not, as you say a contradiction, it was you who misinterpreted my post.

The reason I repeated my point several times is you misinterpreted my post several times, that is all.

Secondly if it was addresses to doctoremma why did you quote me in the specific text I responded to? Please be clearer in your future responses.

It was in response to doctoremma and in the rest of the post. I have pionted out why what you said was what i said it was, merely repeating what you said does not constitute a counter argument. I don't think any further discussion is possible between us if your only response to criticisms is to repeat what you originally said.

I never once mentioned abortion or gay rights thats you putting words in my mouth, please refrain from doing so in the future, if you want to talk about homosexuality PND has set up an gay megathread, if you want to talk about homosexuality please take it there. If you want to talk about abortion do not put words in my mouth but rather ask me directly or open a separate thread on abortion and ask for my response there.

Again let me say that it was you who misinterpreted my original post and do not have the audacity to talk down to me when it was you who misinterpreted me.

I'm afraid you've again misunderstood my post in such a way as to allow yourself to post some nonsense. I was not really important whether or not you espoused those views, which were being used as examples of "secular" style values. Also, hilariously, the only time anyone has mentioned abortion in this thread has been in your post. Obviously you knew what i was getting at though, if you were able to think of this example yourself. And if you knew what I was getting at, then what was the point of this whole tract here at the end?

Anyway, I don't see much hope for any constructive discussion between us if you can do nothing more than repeat your original post in an attempt to trick people into thinking that you've addressed anything anyone has said with regard to it. Add to this your use of words you don't understand, and your repeated misinterpretations of my posts (aided by selective quoting and outright invention of contexts and topics. Again this new post doesn't quote any of my post, and this further facilitates your repeating the same thing as though they haven't been repeatedly addressed) and I don't think there is very much hope for a constructive discussion at all. Nor do I have any desire to interact with this political style of communication. Come to think of it, I don't know why I even responded to this post, given that you completely ignored everything in the previous post.

Wiggles88

I have repeated myself because I made a point and you responded several times (which is great but) with a misunderstanding of what I said and it is impossible to continue conversation if it is based on a misunderstanding.

Also, hilariously, the only time anyone has mentioned abortion in this thread has been in your post.

talk about aborting downs syndrome people

Really? You are going to lie in a medium where everything you say is recorded? Good luck with that.

"I want a law against murder, because that would be economically beneficial for everyone", or "I want slavery to be legal because that would be economically beneficial".l

Look you clearly have a preconceived notion of the evil atheist that I am with how you conceive an atheists morals to be based. To continue conversation in a constructive way I would have to try to first dispel these silly notions you have of me and then go back on topic. All of which is far too exhausting, I do not have the time to indulge in such things and I doubt it would do any good so I'm afraid I am bowing out of this conversation.

raah!

Wiggles88 wrote: »

I have repeated myself because I made a point and you responded several times (which is great but) with a misunderstanding of what I said and it is impossible to continue conversation if it is based on a misunderstanding.



Really? You are going to lie in a medium where everything you say is recorded? Good luck with that.



Look you clearly have a preconceived notion of the evil atheist that I am with how you conceive an atheists morals to be based. To continue conversation in a constructive way I would have to try to first dispel these silly notions you have of me and then go back on topic. All of which is far too exhausting, I do not have the time to indulge in such things and I doubt it would do any good so I'm afraid I am bowing out of this conversation.

You do know that those were simply satirical examples of value systems that weren't religious. And that I was never attributing them to you specifically (and it didn't matter if I did)? Do you really think this is a respectable form of argument? Do you think it's an argument at all? You pointed out that I used the word abort. Well done. Is that really in any way relevant to any of the arguments I made? Or was it just a throwaway remark? It seems you think it was the central pillar of my argument and by contradicting it you have contradicted everything I've said.

It is almost unbearably ironic that you talk about "rooting laws in reasoning" when the only "reasoning" you have yourself is repetition and distraction tactics. I wouldn't mind this sort of retarded nonsense if it wasn't so effective on other retards. There are probably people out there who think you addressed some arguments with that nonsense.

Look at that for a joke of a post, look at the selective quoting. That really is horrendous. That is the worst example of sophistry I've seen yet. And I've seen alot.

And yes, we have both stopped interacting. But I felt it necessary to post out how terribly dishonest your style of argument was. You should really be ashamed of yourself with that sort of nonsense. I mean, you are trying to influence how people think about certain important matters with that?

And this is a post attack, not a poster attack. The post, and the style of argumentation contained with them, are repulsive to me.

Bannasidhe

raah! wrote: »

I wouldn't mind this sort of retarded nonsense if it wasn't so effective on other retards. ... And this is a post attack, not a poster attack.

I beg to disagree with the last sentence.

raah!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I beg to disagree with the last sentence.

Ok well, there's no difference really. If you say a post is completely and utterly retarded you are saying something about the poster. There's no point in pretending you can separate the two. That I didn't think highly of the poster was implicit in what I was saying about his post. But well done on fishing the only reference to him from the word "other". That's really top notch stuff. Now you can report the post. I put that last sentence in there because I wanted waggles to see it. The hypocrisy of this "ooh lets have a reasoned discussion", and then getting up to those tactics is something which really needs to be pointed out, and which shouldn't be tolerated.