How to achieve secular schools/educational equality

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Which is why I said we were largely in agreement, because I agree with you that morality is indeed contextual and relative

Which is why I said whatever your indigestion issue is, I am not clear. Nor, would it seem, are you. Because you expressed some issue, of some sort, with moral relativism but do not appear willing to be clear as to what that issue actually is.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Clearly, religion throughout history has added to morality.

Clearly, you like to say "clearly" at the start of sentences you present as assertion without backing up in any way. It is not the first time today. I have not seen it add anything to the discourse on morality at all. Perhaps you can give some examples.

Rather what I have seen is people taking their own morality and using religion to package it, perpetuate it or rubber stamp it.

Perhaps however rather than declaring it "clear" you can actually move forward with some arguments or examples for what you mean.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

both of you would claim that your individual standards of morality are objective.

Not a claim I have ever made ever. So perhaps respond to what I did actually say and not what you imagine I "would claim". Your need to do the latter is likely a symptom of discourse being hampered by your lack of a compelling argument tbh.

Again, I do not see morality as being objective at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

With what I would see as your vastly superior intellect, I would have thought it would be easy for you to present a compelling argument as to why your morality would be better for society than that of a bronze aged era of illiterate and relatively ignorant peasantry. I would say the discourse is hampered by your lack of a compelling argument tbh.

Except I did present that argument. Ignoring the arguments and points I have made does not magically mean I never made them. I would say the discourse is hampered by your lack of a compelling rebuttal tbh.

For example I very clearly said that a morality or moral system needs to fit with the demands put upon it. So given the demands of modernity and modern society are in many ways different to those 2000 years ago.... a modern moral system is simply logically going to be superior to an out dated one.

I would add to this that morality is also all about intent. The consequences of our actions on an individual or societal level. So understanding the consequences of ones actions is, simply by definition, going to make a more effective moral system than one where you do not. So given the progression of knowledge of our species in 2000 years, we are clearly in a better position to make moral choices.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

One is always going to find confrontation when they try to impose their morality on others.

Exactly. And discourse is basically one of our only tools to cope with that issue. I do not believe for one minute we will ever reach an ideal society where we all agree on one moral system and everyone subscribes 100% to it. The best we can do is strive TOWARDS that ideal.

As Obama said in the Keynote speech I just quoted in another post: Morality and politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.

And that is one of the ways in which Religion hampers moral discourse. Because it divests us from reality, let alone a common reality, and builds up divides in discourse, society, tribalism and more that there is no need to have there. And even internally in those religions their religion hampers reaching compromise on real world issues. Put Bill O'Reilly and Andrew Sullivan in a room together to discuss the morality of homosexuality for example.... both self identified roman catholics.... and show me what their religion adds to the moral discourse.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In the UK they are seeking to ring-fence off people whose morality they don't agree with, and this is supposed to lead to a more inclusive society how exactly?

In the UK with things like Sharia, and in the US with loons like Kim Davis, what they are trying to do is the opposite of what you describe. They are trying to get people to follow the law, without them feeling that merely claiming a religion somehow gives them exemptions to it, free passes to ignore it, or the right to re-write it for themselves.

If you want a more inclusive society then one good step is to divest these people of the notion that their religion gives them any such position at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't feel any need to manufacture agreement with your points - I simply either agree with you or I don't, and when I don't, I will address those points I disagree with.

I was more referring to the tactic of ignoring the point I was actually making by pretending to agree with one I was not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course they do, because people commit murder, rape, theft and more in any society you'd care to mention. Why? Because their moral standards differ greatly from other people's moral standards.

Oh do keep up. I am not talking about the actions of minority individuals in any society you care to mention. I am talking about the majority moral consensus that people across differing societies reach, through geographic space and temporal space.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Our what? Sounds like a standard that informs your morality, that you assume is shared by others.

Apologies I did not think the phrase shared human condition would be a block in your mental cogs. Especially given I gave several examples to make clear what the phrase means which you have either missed or, as per your usual MO, wantonly ignored.

No I make no such assumption at all. I am merely recognizing a reality that our species across the board with very few exceptions share a standard human condition. Our requirement for food shelter and security. Our aversion to pain, death and disease. Our love of family and children. Our penchant for emapthy. I could make the list longer if you like but that is surely enough to highlight what I mean even in the face of you pretending, for effect, not to get it.

We have shared goals in a shared reality and that, more than any other thing any one on threads like this have managed to list, is what actually appears to inform much of our morality and ethics.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You implied that at some point I had argued the existence of a creator in one of our many conversations

Nope not what my implication was at all. Comical that you are pretending I invented an implication you actually did make in another post, while actually inventing one for me.

No my ACTUAL point is that "many of the religious however do so by little more than declaration by fiat, and the assertion that the standard they perpetuate is objective and unchanging and rubber stamped by the creator of the universe."

I then went on to mention that this is "A being that none of them, least of all you, has substantiated the existence of in even the tiniest way.".

That is to say my point was that none of the religious (of which you are one, you said so yourself) have ever evidenced the existence of that entity.

So the implication you just invented is not there. Rather I was merely making the point that the being _I_ mentioned is one _the religious_ of this world _including you_ have not once evidenced the existence of.

Get it now? You know what I think? I think you need to stop pretending I've ever made arguments or claims that I have never made, simply because you find it easier to argue against a narrative you have constructed in your own mind. Because time and time again you do that, while time and time again falsely accusing others of it.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope not what my implication was at all. Comical that you are pretending I invented an implication you actually did make in another post, while actually inventing one for me.

No my ACTUAL point is that "many of the religious however do so by little more than declaration by fiat, and the assertion that the standard they perpetuate is objective and unchanging and rubber stamped by the creator of the universe."

I then went on to mention that this is "A being that none of them, least of all you, has substantiated the existence of in even the tiniest way.".

That is to say my point was that none of the religious (of which you are one, you said so yourself) have ever evidenced the existence of that entity.

So the implication you just invented is not there. Rather I was merely making the point that the being _I_ mentioned is one _the religious_ of this world _including you_ have not once evidenced the existence of.

Get it now? You know what I think? I think you need to stop pretending I've ever made arguments or claims that I have never made, simply because you find it easier to argue against a narrative you have constructed in your own mind. Because time and time again you do that, while time and time again falsely accusing others of it.

Nope, no I don't get why you would imply that at some point I had attempted to do something I have never done, at all, so the phrase "least of all by you" in that context is simply dishonest, when the reality is that never at all have I made such claims in any conversation we've had.

Once we clear that one up, I have no problem addressing the rest of your post.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, no I don't get why you would imply that at some point I had attempted to do something I have never done, at all, so the phrase "least of all by you" in that context is simply dishonest

Again I did no such thing, and I clarified what I actually DID do above. Is this to become an english lesson? Again:

Step 1: my ACTUAL point is that "many of the religious however do so by little more than declaration by fiat, and the assertion that the standard they perpetuate is objective and unchanging and rubber stamped by the creator of the universe."

Right with me so far? That is my core and actual point. Then:

Step 2: As an aside I also mentioned that no one who is religious, which does include you, has ever managed to show the aforementioned being exists.

Here is a similar English sentence structure which will help you see your failing here. "The target of many runners is to run a mile in under 3 minutes and 40 seconds. No human with two legs, least of all you, has managed to achieve that".

Now nothing in that English construct implies you tried, or have ever tried, or even wish to try to do it. ALL the sentence does it show that no one, including you, has done it.

Now apply that same parsing of sentence structure back to what I said to you about god, and realize I did not say, or imply, the thing you are pretending I did. You can however, if you wanted I am sure, continue to pretend not to understand that and use it as an out from replying to my post above.

Samaris

Can someone pass that Gaviscon? All the snarking is giving me indigestion now too.


Still, going to throw in my 2c worth too. The questions seem at the moment to be;
Are religions moral?
Can a secular society be moral?
And to make some stab at getting back to an educational system - can a secular school system teach children about morality?

This was my thought process on the whole thing (before I dozed off and had some really weird dreams about the morality of shellfish, the reason for which will become apparent later on).

Well, firstly, what is morality? There's three dictionary definitions;
1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
2. a particular system of values and principles of conduct.
3. the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

Are religions moral?
In a way, religions act like an invisible "state", not inherently bound to a parcel of land. The leader of said "state" is the god at the head of the religion; to make things a bit easier, I'll use the god of the Abrahamic religions. The Holy Books of each of those religions are a codified set of rules and ways of living as ordained by God (or His high priests in each separate religion), as well as example stories of what happens when one does or doesn't follow said code of behaviour. As a State punishes those that don't follow its code (legal/illegal), God (or His people) punish those that don't follow their system. Under that way of thinking, yes, I'd say a given religion is a particular system of values and principles of conduct based on "right" and "wrong" with God as the decider of what -is- right or wrong. Most of these laws are based on the prevailing society of the time, reflecting issues of the period and place and to do with binding a group of people together into a society under the leadership of various high priests. Some of the lesser laws make no sense to us now, but were very important bits of common sense at the time - such as not eating shellfish in the hot seasons - makes a lot of sense in a time that didn't have refrigeration! (Yeah, hence dreams about the morality of shellfish).

Can a secular society be moral?
A modern western state ostensibly strives for a moral (read; legal) system that protects the state first, while guaranteeing the maximum possible freedom and fairness for all individuals living in the state. Traditionally, these have been based on religious systems of morality and most of them (Thou shalt not murder/Thou shalt not steal, etcetera) still make perfect sense today. Let us note, however, that despite everything, it's not illegal in Ireland to eat shellfish, no matter what the month is. (Although it has been illegal to eat pork in Israel!)

We still have strong notions of "right" and "wrong" based on systems of ethics (fairness), and without religion being the guiding force, we'd -still- have those notions. They have come into conflict with religious mores on topics such as same-sex marriage and abortion, and secular ethics won out over religious morality on the first. But still, much of the discourse was based on terms of fairness, right and wrong.

Based on all this, I would argue that a secular society; i.e. a society that removes the influence of religion from "legal" and "illegal", whilst not removing religion from the private life of citizens, can be moral, that morality based on the prevailing (and yes, probably Catholic-influenced in Ireland) opinion of those living within the state and reflected in their laws of society.

Can a secular school system teach children about morality
So, based on all that, and bringing it back to secular education, I see no reason why good values can't be instilled into sprogs in a secular manner. Okay, we might need a better explanation for why honesty or kindness is good than "because God says so". A more complex explanation involves acting in a manner that is best for the society to which one belongs, the responsibilities one has as part of this society and the rights that one gains from living in it. An -atheistic- argument is "If the life I'm living is the only one, then I should make the most of it to act well towards my fellow people, leave something good behind rather than something bad". Note the differences - a secular explanation doesn't bother touching on any religious inferences. And also note that it will not be the sum-total of explanation that a child receives; hopefully they will be asking their parents and family also these whys and getting the private explanations too, which may or may not include religious aspects. Although a teacher could go on to explain their own private sense as to why as well.

Actually, to give a very simplistic example, the internet is essentially secular and its Golden Rule is "Don't Be A Dick". Covers a lot, doesn't it?

nozzferrahhtoo

Samaris wrote: »

Still, going to throw in my 2c worth too. The questions seem at the moment to be;
Are religions moral?
Can a secular society be moral?
And to make some stab at getting back to an educational system - can a secular school system teach children about morality?

I think the first question could be modified slightly to avoid any pedantry. Clearly a religion can not itself be moral. It is a non-sentient set of concepts. The question is does religion, or has religion, added anything to morality or our moral discourse. And despite OEJ declaring by fiat that the answer to that is yes.... I have yet to see any examples of it or arguments for it.

I think a secular society and a secular curriculum can indeed facilitate morality. Likely better than religious ones given the divides religion brings us, its lack of any apparent input into morality, its ability to hamper moral progress, and its pandering to the desire for people to ground an objective and eternally unchanging morality.

The secular alternative works more towards the Obama quote I gave earlier, which is that politics and morality depend on people pursuing common ideals in a common reality. And anything that distances us from reality is going to distance us too from a workable and applicable moral system.

Samaris wrote: »

Well, firstly, what is morality?

I would amalgamate all three of the definitions you found into one. I would describe morality and the system of rules and idea by which we live in the human relationship we call society.

When you enter into a relationship, say a romantic one, with another human being there are rules of conduct and action that one follows. "morality" for me is simply the same thing on a grander larger scale. But at the end of the day it is merely the set of guidelines by which we as people treat other people.

It is, as I said already, the means by which we pursue our goals in a shared reality.

Above all though I would view morality not as a thing in and of itself, but an ongoing discourse conducted in our shared reality

And that view I am sure makes quite clear why I view many religions with their set in stone objective eternally unchanging morality from the bronze age.... and divested from reality and substantiation..... as being a bad thing

Now I am sure I will find time to dream of very cold Oysters in very hot weather, coupled with an equally cold Guinness. Thanks for that

Samaris wrote: »

Traditionally, these have been based on religious systems of morality and most of them (Thou shalt not murder/Thou shalt not steal, etcetera) still make perfect sense today.

That is where I think I would want to be more certain. I do not think I believe I have seen reason to think that the former system were "based on" the latter. Or the latter "based on" the former. But rather BOTH are based on a shared reality and shared human condition and shared set of goals and desires from our lives in that reality.

Many people writing on the subject seem to want it to be neat, for one to be based on or dependent on or founded on the other. I simply see no reason to think that true at all.

It would be like trying to work out if German is based on English or is English based on french, or is french based on German and so on. (Ok I am not a linguist, but even if my examples suck I hope the analogy is clear) when in fact they are all based on a common root language.

And I think the root common language of morality is going to turn out to be many times simpler than people want to pretend. Simply that I do not want to be murdered, I do not want my loved ones to be murdered, therefore I want to live in a society where people do not go around being murdered. And the majority of people share those sentiments.

And whether you are building a secular law or a religious moral commandment list, that is about all you need. Sometimes I think people consider the topic of "morality" to be so lofty that they feel the need to complicate it and philosophize it without ever getting to the basics and foundations of it.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again I did no such thing, and I clarified what I actually DID do above. Is this to become an english lesson? Again:

Step 1: my ACTUAL point is that "many of the religious however do so by little more than declaration by fiat, and the assertion that the standard they perpetuate is objective and unchanging and rubber stamped by the creator of the universe."

Right with me so far? That is my core and actual point. Then:

Step 2: As an aside I also mentioned that no one who is religious, which does include you, has ever managed to show the aforementioned being exists.

Here is a similar English sentence structure which will help you see your failing here. "The target of many runners is to run a mile in under 3 minutes and 40 seconds. No human with two legs, least of all you, has managed to achieve that".

Now nothing in that English construct implies you tried, or have ever tried, or even wish to try to do it. ALL the sentence does it show that no one, including you, has done it.

Actually that's exactly what it implies, because you are implying that I have tried to run a mile in under three minutes and forty seconds. If I had actually attempted it, then you would have legitimate grounds to claim that many have tried it and not succeeded, least of all me.

Now apply that same parsing of sentence structure back to what I said to you about god, and realize I did not say, or imply, the thing you are pretending I did. You can however, if you wanted I am sure, continue to pretend not to understand that and use it as an out from replying to my post above.

You appear to have ignored the part of my last post where I said that I would address the rest of your post once we had cleared this one up. You can say what you like about the people you include in your anecdotes that you seek to characterise, but if you try to include me in that characterisation, I'm going to point out that you are being deliberately dishonest in doing so. I'm not going to allow you to bolster your credibility at the expense of my own.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Actually that's exactly what it implies, because you are implying that I have tried to run a mile in under three minutes and forty seconds.

Nope. It does not. So as I feared this really is an English lesson so. All it does it show no one, including you, has done it. The implication that it says you tried exists solely in your head. The only implication I made OR intended was that no religious person HAS done it.

I did not say it, I did not imply it, I did not mean it, nothing. You are merely making it up as an out to replying to my actual post.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appear to have ignored the part of my last post where I said that I would address the rest of your post once we had cleared this one up.

And as predicted you are still not replying to it while still pretending not to understand what I said, despite two clarifications. So any erosion of your credibility is your doing not mine.

Once again my point is clear and you can reply to it or dodge it at will, and I am happy to repeat it exactly, using slightly different words to assist your (likely contrived) difficulty with my previous ones........

The difference between my morality, and that of many religious people, is that I can use arguments, evidence, data and reasoning to defend mine, while the religious merely rubber stamp their moral opinions with the vicarious opinion of their god.

And that is a problem I feel, even before you realize that god is something no religious person...... yourself included..... has ever substantiated the existence of.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Once again my point is clear and you can reply to it or dodge it at will, and I am happy to repeat it exactly, using slightly different words to assist your (likely contrived) difficulty with my previous ones........

The difference between my morality, and that of many religious people, is that I can use arguments, evidence, data and reasoning to defend mine, while the religious merely rubber stamp their moral opinions with the vicarious opinion of their god.

And that is a problem I feel, even before you realize that god is something no religious person...... yourself included..... has ever substantiated the existence of.

That's a problem you should probably take up with those people then, because I have never rubber stamped my moral opinions with the vicarious opinion of a deity. It's one of the reasons why I advocate for a secular society - so that people may live their lives by their shared moral code, free from interference from the State, and vice-versa - that their shared moral code does not interfere with the affairs of State.

It's one of the reasons why secularism works so well in the US, as observed by Obama (or Thomas Jefferson long before him), in spite of xband's objection based upon their subjective morality.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's a problem you should probably take up with those people then, because I have never rubber stamped my moral opinions with the vicarious opinion of a deity.

Nor, you will notice, did I once claim you did. I was comparing my moral systems and how I defend them to those people who rubber stamp them with an imaginary friends opinion.

And as I pointed out to you and another user quite often those moral opinions align. Not just in our society but across many societies through time and geography.

The thread is about how to achieve secular ends and I think one of the MANY steps in that direction is to divest our culture of this notion that secular morality is based on religious morality, or vice versa. Rather it seems both are based on genuine human concerns coming from a shared human reality.

And those people who assert religion has added something of utility to the religious discourse, like yourself, have not actually moved to support such claims in any substantial way(s).

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor, you will notice, did I once claim you did. I was comparing my moral systems and how I defend them to those people who rubber stamp them with an imaginary friends opinion.

Earlier you included me in your experiences of those people who are religious, and you continued to do so in spite of my pointing out to you that it is not a characterisation that fits, so in your last post when you refer to "the religious", I'm supposed to understand that you're not now including me in that group?

Fantastic, at least you've now acknowledged that not all people who identify as religious fit your characterisations.

And as I pointed out to you and another user quite often those moral opinions align. Not just in our society but across many societies through time and geography.

So it's not unreasonable at all then that a 2,000 year old moral code could be just as relevant in modern society as it was back then? Moral codes develop from shared ideals in a society, and they spread through various means. 2,000 years ago they were mostly spread by word of mouth among the illiterate, ignorant peasantry.

That's pretty much how they're spread among the illiterate, ignorant peasantry today, while the educated, enlightened people disseminate their ideas for a moral code via the internet. Whose ideas are spreading faster do you reckon?

Those who sit behind their keyboards bemoaning the fate of humanity, or those who get down and dirty with the illiterate, ignorant peasantry?

The thread is about how to achieve secular ends and I think one of the MANY steps in that direction is to divest our culture of this notion that secular morality is based on religious morality, or vice versa. Rather it seems both are based on genuine human concerns coming from a shared human reality.

That may be the first time we are in complete agreement (although you don't seem to appreciate when I agree with you, which is odd, given our shared goals).

And those people who assert religion has added something of utility to the religious discourse, like yourself, have not actually moved to support such claims in any substantial way(s).

Earlier you mentioned that it was a discourse on morality which you claimed that religion had added nothing to, and now you're looking for utility, which is associated with secular morality, as distinct from religious morality. I'm left very confused here - you don't want people to assume secular morality is based on religious morality, but you want an argument presented to you on the utility of religious morality anyway?

I'm genuinely struggling to understand where you're coming from, because to me it comes across as though I am supposed to convince you of something I know you have no intention of buying into. What would be the utility in attempting to do something like that? I've already said I have no interest in imposing my morality on anyone else.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Earlier you included me in your experiences of those people who are religious

Yes because I was under the impression you yourself identified yourself as catholic. So in that alone I would include you in the group of people who are religious. If I mis-remember that or somehow assigned the words of another to you in my head then consider the characterisation with-drawn happily. It certainly does not impact a single point I have made either way.

I did not however include you in the group of people rubber stamping their morality with god. The difference is not difficult or complex.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

so in your last post when you refer to "the religious", I'm supposed to understand that you're not now including me in that group?

Nice of you to, as usual, only reply to part of what I said in order to distort it. I did not say "the religious" in my last post. I said "many of the religious". And my point remains. Many of the religious do little more to espouse their morality than rubber stamp it with some imaginary god or other.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Fantastic, at least you've now acknowledged that not all people who identify as religious fit your characterisations.

Fantastic, as least you've now started to understand my actual point. Because I never at any point thought that "all people who identify as religious" fit any set of characteristics. You merely invented that for me as part of a long string of things you have invented for me today.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So it's not unreasonable at all then that a 2,000 year old moral code could be just as relevant in modern society as it was back then?

No, I would be more inclined to say that parts of it are going to be still relevant today. But I say that in the same breath as repeating my point that an outdated moral code mired solely in a bronze aged illiterate and ignorant peasantry is going to suffer for that. They kept slaves back then remember, for example. That was, and is, my point. Morality has to change with changing times, in order to meet the demands put upon it, the progression in our knowledge, and the development of our moral character. Just because aspects of it are as relevant now as then.... that in no way negates a single thing I have said.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

(although you don't seem to appreciate when I agree with you, which is odd, given our shared goals).

Not true at all. And I corrected you on this very exact same error already not too many posts ago. I have no issue with agreement. I have issue with you agreeing with points I am not making as a tactic to ignore ones that I am.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Earlier you mentioned that it was a discourse on morality which you claimed that religion had added nothing to, and now you're looking for utility, which is associated with secular morality, as distinct from religious morality. I'm left very confused here - you don't want people to assume secular morality is based on religious morality, but you want an argument presented to you on the utility of religious morality anyway?

I have no idea where your confusion lies. My point has not changed. Perhaps the word utility is as over your head as other ones used today, so I will move to repeat myself without it's use. The point remains that you appear to think religion has benefited our moral discourse in some way and I am merely pointing out that the people making that claim, yourself included, appear not to back it up in even the smallest way. Something I also pointed out in post #272.... the post you entirely dodged answering by pretending to misunderstand one sentence at the end of it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm genuinely struggling to understand where you're coming from, because to me it comes across as though I am supposed to convince you of something I know you have no intention of buying into.

So now aside from inventing words and arguments I never made, you want to invent intentions for me I do and do not actually have? I have no issue buying into anything that is substantiated with argument, evidence, data or reasoning. If our moral discourse has benefited in some way from religion I have no issue in accepting that. The intention I do NOT have however, on this discussion or any other, is buying into empty assertion merely because someone started the sentence with "Clearly,".

silverharp

Samaris wrote: »

Can a secular school system teach children about morality
So, based on all that, and bringing it back to secular education, I see no reason why good values can't be instilled into sprogs in a secular manner. Okay, we might need a better explanation for why honesty or kindness is good than "because God says so". A more complex explanation involves acting in a manner that is best for the society to which one belongs, the responsibilities one has as part of this society and the rights that one gains from living in it. An -atheistic- argument is "If the life I'm living is the only one, then I should make the most of it to act well towards my fellow people, leave something good behind rather than something bad". Note the differences - a secular explanation doesn't bother touching on any religious inferences. And also note that it will not be the sum-total of explanation that a child receives; hopefully they will be asking their parents and family also these whys and getting the private explanations too, which may or may not include religious aspects. Although a teacher could go on to explain their own private sense as to why as well.

Actually, to give a very simplistic example, the internet is essentially secular and its Golden Rule is "Don't Be A Dick". Covers a lot, doesn't it?

when it comes to it telling a kid not to lie and steal because Jesus says its wrong is only using fear, its basically saying that an invisible daddy will follow you around and may punish you at some unspecified time in the future. Much better to explain that your friends will not like or trust you or when you grow up people will not want to work with you (unless you are a politician) .And then again this is parenting 101

one theory about religion was that it conferred an evolutionary advantage. this may well have been true, people were less educated and the consequences of not obeying the rules were dire, having a child out of wedlock for example. However its about time to take the training wheels off

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The point remains that you appear to think religion has benefited our moral discourse in some way and I am merely pointing out that the people making that claim, yourself included, appear not to back it up in even the smallest way. Something I also pointed out in post #272.... the post you entirely dodged answering by pretending to misunderstand one sentence at the end of it.

...

I have no issue buying into anything that is substantiated with argument, evidence, data or reasoning. If our moral discourse has benefited in some way from religion I have no issue in accepting that. The intention I do NOT have however, on this discussion or any other, is buying into empty assertion merely because someone started the sentence with "Clearly,".

Well one thing religion has contributed to our moral discourse then is that it provides a framework for social cohesion. That has had both positive, and negative effects on society, depending upon which side of the fence you were on of course, like any other moral framework that has both positive and negative effects for society, again of course depending upon which side of the fence you're on.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well one thing religion has contributed to our moral discourse then is that it provides a framework for social cohesion.

Not so sure that is true really. Where is the social cohesion between catholics and protestants in Ireland? Or the different branches of Islam in some countries? Or among the 33000+ offshots, sects and variations of Christianity in the world many with irreconcilable differences in belief? Where is the social cohesion between the likes of Bill OReilly and Andrew Sullivan? It seems just as likely that religion will give you a framework for ingroup-outgroup mentalities and tribalism and "us against them" as to provide cohesion.

Where are your arguments that religion within groups provides the social cohesion rather than, say the opposite, where the social cohesion within the group itself is something already there that the religion has benefited from? Was the cohesion already there and the religion(s) local to it are merely a badge of it or a team football strip? Or is it something between, more symbiotic? I am not going to assume one over the other to benefit my position or yours. Being on a football team probably adds something to the social cohesion of the people also on that team. But the bigger picture divisions it can form between teams is likely to over shadow that.

The theory is at least pretty. If everyone was the same religion and agreed on all the religious tenets, perhaps it would provide a framework for cohesion. But the further we go from that happy slappy fantasy world, the less I buy the cohesion argument and the more I see the exact opposite.

And Social Cohesion is not a synonym for morality. I asked what benefit religion has brought to morality or how it has informed it. And you have offered nothing but sentences starting with "Clearly,". I am not seeing it, you are not showing it, and I am not buying it.

And this is all before I repeat what I said multiple times before. The Big Picture. Even if we granted that religion had some benefit somewhere on this form of cohesion.... at what cost.... at what side effects.... at what fallout..... Is Farrakan getting black kids off drugs increasing social cohesion.... probably..... likely yes.... do we want to ignore the big picture there however when making that evaluation? Much like I was not buying zooming in on the big picture to cry "Look over here, some nice woman doing good things who I believe did so due to her faith" I would worry about the same issues when zooming in with "Oh look at this little group over here and their happy little cohesions".

I have seen genuine social cohesion. I have seen it in science in places like CERN. Because there we have a world that transcends color, creed, race, sexuality, religion and all our other petty differences. A genuine social cohesion stemming from, dare I repeat myself, humans coming together under shared goals in a shared reality, free from the visions our religions and the like bring to us as we become more separate from reality.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not so sure that is true really. Where is the social cohesion between catholics and protestants in Ireland? Or the different branches of Islam in some countries? Or among the 33000+ offshots, sects and variations of Christianity in the world many with irreconcilable differences in belief? Where is the social cohesion between the likes of Bill OReilly and Andrew Sullivan? It seems just as likely that religion will give you a framework for ingroup-outgroup mentalities and tribalism and "us against them" as to provide cohesion.

Where are your arguments that religion within groups provides the social cohesion rather than, say the opposite, where the social cohesion within the group itself is something already there that the religion has benefited from? Was the cohesion already there and the religion(s) local to it are merely a badge of it or a team football strip? Or is it something between, more symbiotic? I am not going to assume one over the other to benefit my position or yours. Being on a football team probably adds something to the social cohesion of the people also on that team. But the bigger picture divisions it can form between teams is likely to over shadow that.

The theory is at least pretty. If everyone was the same religion and agreed on all the religious tenets, perhaps it would provide a framework for cohesion. But the further we go from that happy slappy fantasy world, the less I buy the cohesion argument and the more I see the exact opposite.

If you think of religion as an ideology, then it's easy to understand why human beings buy into it, because ideologies provide a social structure.

And Social Cohesion is not a synonym for morality. I asked what benefit religion has brought to morality or how it has informed it. And you have offered nothing but sentences starting with "Clearly,". I am not seeing it, you are not showing it, and I am not buying it.

Religion as an ideology provides something for people to aspire to, by adhering to a code of morals. The more people in society who share the aspirations of that particular religion, the more cohesive they are in coming together to work for the benefit of the group by adhering to the principles of the religion which informs their morality.

And this is all before I repeat what I said multiple times before. The Big Picture. Even if we granted that religion had some benefit somewhere on this form of cohesion.... at what cost.... at what side effects.... at what fallout..... Is Farrakan getting black kids off drugs increasing social cohesion.... probably..... likely yes.... do we want to ignore the big picture there however when making that evaluation? Much like I was not buying zooming in on the big picture to cry "Look over here, some nice woman doing good things who I believe did so due to her faith" I would worry about the same issues when zooming in with "Oh look at this little group over here and their happy little cohesions".

Well of course like any ideology there's a cost/benefit analysis for society, and depending upon your perspective, you're either likely to see that the benefits are worth the cost, or the costs aren't worth the benefits. I could look at tne same picture as you and see it completely differently to the way you do, so I don't stress about the things I cannot change, but I work on the things I can change. I could spend decades pointing out the negatives of religion, or I could focus on the positives. I see the many ways in which religion is a positive influence in people's lives.

I have seen genuine social cohesion. I have seen it in science in places like CERN. Because there we have a world that transcends color, creed, race, sexuality, religion and all our other petty differences. A genuine social cohesion stemming from, dare I repeat myself, humans coming together under shared goals in a shared reality, free from the visions our religions and the like bring to us as we become more separate from reality.

Ahh yes, all is lovely in the world of STEM, eh?

As long as they're not wearing a shirt that's deemed by an outsider to be sexist, they should be fine, no pettiness there at all which might overshadow one of mankind's greatest achievements... :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

ideologies provide a social structure.

Which still has nothing to do with substantiating the assertions related to religion informing morality. Do keep trying though.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Religion as an ideology provides something for people to aspire to, by adhering to a code of morals.

Now you are supporting my arguments not your own. Because as I myself said no one, least of all you, has shown religion has informed morality so much as it is something used to package and perpetuate morality. It acts more like a delivery system, a framework to implement and enforce moral structures.

So keep going as I said, it is nice how you are proving my points for me, while leaving your own floundering around.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The more people in society who share the aspirations of that particular religion, the more cohesive they are in coming together to work for the benefit of the group by adhering to the principles of the religion which informs their morality.

Again supporting what I said in the last post about how this sounds all very pretty when you are inside any particular religion.... but consequentially it also supports "us and them" and "in group out group" mentalities between religions or internal divisions in religions.

Further you are over stating and not at all supporting the intra-religon stuff by merely repeating your assertions with different words while entirely ignoring the parts of my post like "Where are your arguments that religion within groups provides the social cohesion rather than, say the opposite, where the social cohesion within the group itself is something already there that the religion has benefited from? Was the cohesion already there and the religion(s) local to it are merely a badge of it or a team football strip?". Your positions simply assume things you have not supported. At. All.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

depending upon your perspective, you're either likely to see that the benefits are worth the cost, or the costs aren't worth the benefits.

Very little to do with perspetive and all to do with actually looking at the costs and the benefits. Little of which you have moved to do in your posts while you merely assert (without support) your alleged benefits and saying little to nothing about the costs and side effects and detriment of those same things.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I could spend decades pointing out the negatives of religion, or I could focus on the positives. I see the many ways in which religion is a positive influence in people's lives.

While many of us do both. And in doing so we often see that very few, if any, of the alleged benefits you keep asserting require religion at all. Religion may be one way to attain SOME of them, I would not deny it, but that does not automatically score a point for religion. One must also question whether the same benefits are attainable without religion.

As an example let us look again at charity and humanitarian works, such as the single asserted based on an imaginary conversation case you pasted of a woman working against AIDS.

I repeat what I said then, we have many people in the world doing such work without faith or religion driving them, and without using that work and aid as a means to target perpetuating their religion to the needy and vulnerable.

So the "big picture" is more than just looking at the cost and benefits of religion, but ALSO looking at other sources of those benefits and asking is religion required for them at all. And so far I have not seen a SINGLE one where it is needed _at all_ even before considering the costs and detriments associated with it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh yes, all is lovely in the world of STEM, eh?

If you say so. I certainly did not. But keep up the good work of replying to things I never said in your pursuit ignoring what I did say. What I did say however is I can very clearly see the differences many wish to ignore between a world that strongly fosters divisions and irreconcilable ones at that, and one that speaks in a language that crosses all barriers and moves us towards a common human goal in a common human reality. If the only rebuttal to that point is to demand perfection of it and then show it falls short of it, then the rebuttal is worth squat.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which still has nothing to do with substantiating the assertions related to religion informing morality. Do keep trying though.

Now you are supporting my arguments not your own. Because as I myself said no one, least of all you, has shown religion has informed morality so much as it is something used to package and perpetuate morality. It acts more like a delivery system, a framework to implement and enforce moral structures.

"Religion doesn't inform morality, it merely informs morality"??

So keep going as I said, it is nice how you are proving my points for me, while leaving your own floundering around.

I'm not floundering around at all, I've made my points. You don't buy it. Grand.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"Religion doesn't inform morality, it merely informs morality"??

Well I guess I did say "keep up the good work of replying to things I never said in your pursuit ignoring what I did say." and you certainly followed through on that. Thats three posts too now, almost in a row, where you have ignored and dodged the vast majority of the content from. Floundering indeed.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not floundering around at all, I've made my points. You don't buy it. Grand.

You have asserted some points alright. Little else.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well I guess I did say "keep up the good work of replying to things I never said in your pursuit ignoring what I did say." and you certainly followed through on that. Thats three posts too now, almost in a row, where you have ignored and dodged the vast majority of the content from. Floundering indeed.

I already explained that I would only feel a need to address points I disagree with, or points where further clarification is required. The way I interpreted that point was that's exactly how I perceived what you were attempting to say. I'm not dodging the vast majority of content at all, but I can ignore as much or as little as I like, and I can be as obtuse as I like too, but I haven't tried to be obtuse, nor have I ignored what you were attempting to say.

You have asserted some points alright. Little else.

What was the point in that remark? You were giving it welly about transcending barriers and this, that and the other, yet at every opportunity, you come out with that sort of nonsense. I don't see how that contributes anything to achieving secular education in Ireland?

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

nor have I ignored what you were attempting to say.

Except yes you have. You have ignored the vast majority of three posts now, one by pretending to misunderstand a very simple english sentence. All the while claiming I said things I never did like "Religion doesn't inform morality, it merely informs morality".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What was the point in that remark?

Very simply to make the distinction between "making a point" and "asserting a point". And to establish that the reason "I don't but it" is because the asserted points are not defended or substantiated in any way except by misrepresentation and retreat and dodge.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except yes you have. You have ignored the vast majority of three posts now, one by pretending to misunderstand a very simple english sentence. All the while claiming I said things I never did like "Religion doesn't inform morality, it merely informs morality".

Is there any point in telling you I wasn't pretending? I haven't at all claimed you never said things you didn't say, I was demonstrating how your point reads to me. Sometimes I genuinely fail to see the points you're attempting to make, and you appear to assume this is a pretence on my behalf. Rest assured it isn't, as I do genuinely try and understand where you're coming from. I won't lie, it's exhausting, but I want to understand where you're coming from, and condescending remarks don't endear me to your position - they are in fact divisive, which flies in the face of any discussion about breaking down barriers and fostering understanding and cooperation in society.

Very simply to make the distinction between "making a point" and "asserting a point". And to establish that the reason "I don't but it" is because the asserted points are not defended or substantiated in any way except by misrepresentation and retreat and dodge.

I do believe you're actually serious. I don't have anything to say to that tbh. It's not that I'm avoiding addressing it or any of the rest of that nonsense. It's simply that it's just so petty and pointless it's not even worth entertaining. Here we are in a discussion about achieving secular schools / equality in education in Ireland... and you're attempting to school me on the difference between "making a point" and "asserting a point".

There's no words for that kind of behaviour.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is there any point in telling you I wasn't pretending?

No. When someone thinks a sentence like "No one, including you, has done X" automatically implies they have tried to do X... then they are either a complete idiot which I do not believe you to be.... or they are faking it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven't at all claimed you never said things you didn't say

Except you have, several times, and I called you on it each time so you.... or anyone else.... can scroll back and read them all again. Some of them cases where I said "No that is not my point at all" and you have simply replied to tell me that "yes it was" as if you know my points better than I do. No point in re-hashing them all here and going in circle, anyone can go back and read them over and over if they wish.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

condescending remarks don't endear me to your position

Lucky I do no such thing then, with the willful and contrived exception of when I throw someone else's throw away condescending remarks right back at them. Case in point the "If that is over your head, that's ok" remark which was uncalled for and I simply threw it right back at the source. I can give multiple other examples so perhaps realize you are the last person with a pedestal from which to admonish others about the tone of their content.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Here we are in a discussion about achieving secular schools / equality in education in Ireland... and you're attempting to school me on the difference between "making a point" and "asserting a point".

There's no words for that kind of behaviour.

Yes there is no words for the kind of behavior of someone claiming to have made and supported points when in fact all they have been doing is engaging in outright assertion and then dodging, ignoring, or outright misrepresenting rebuttals to them. Actually there is words for it but none that would be in the spirit of the charter of this area of the forum so I will not engage in their use.

So to return to the actual topic and thread content:

The simple fact here however is many claims have been asserted such as religion being of some informative benefit to morality or moral discourse, or religion as a social cohesive. Sentences like "Clearly, religion throughout history has added to morality." have just been asserted. And when they are called out or rebutted the response is, as I said, petty and condescending
dodging, ignoring, or outright misrepresention of those rebuttals.

The thread is about how to move towards secularism in places like school and equality. And as I said before one of the first steps in doing this is to stand up to people who claim religion is adding something useful or even indispensable to society, morality or education and say "Hang on, can you support that claim at all?"

And as you demonstrate all too readily, the answer to that question appears to be "No, no you can not". And when we as a whole society realize this we will be firmly on the right path towards achieving secular ends.

Because what we see time and time again is such people can almost never support the claim that religion is adding, or has added, the benefits they claim it has...... and on those few occasions where they actually can show it..... the things they show turn out to be things that can be perfectly well attained without religion.... but with less of.... and sometimes NONE of..... the costs, side effects and detriment that religion brings.

The claim that religion someone adds to morality or moral discourse is the case in point that has been relevant over the last few points. Yet no one, least of all you, is showing what it has added or adds. Just assertions in sentences starting with "Clearly,".

Rather what religion appears to do is not add to morality or moral discourse at all, but acts as a packaging or distribution method for already existing morality or moral discourse. If it does anything more than that, I have not seen it and you, certainly, have not shown it.

One eyed Jack

I'm not going to quote the whole post, but I actually have demonstrated what you have asked for, on numerous occasions now, nothing of which appears to satisfy you, but that's a different matter entirely. You have equally failed to demonstrate that the same people would have achieved the same results without religion, and granted you believe that those results which have been achieved as a result of religion come at too high a cost to humanity to be sustainable any longer in modern society.

Then the best way to demonstrate that IMO is to show by doing, rather than simply telling people how things should be. It's easy to point at CERN and say "look at what science is doing for humanity!", but that kind of achievement isn't actually all that relevant to a Ugandan population listening to a scientist using magnets to promote Government policy about homosexuality!!

You appear to want people to come up to your standards, but you don't appear to appreciate the fact that they do not share your perspective because they see no benefit in it. I do not share your cost/benefit analysis of religion, and I'm not alone in that regard, because I simply do not share your perspective. I don't share your perspective because I haven't shared your experiences.

Perhaps if I had, I might think differently. But then I would be a different person to the person I am now. I'm quite happy with who I am now, and so I see no reason to change that as I don't see religion as having had a negative influence on my life, I see it as having had an overwhelming positive influence in my life. I may not be able to articulate that to your satisfaction, but I can live with that.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not going to quote the whole post, but I actually have demonstrated what you have asked for

Nope. You have not. You claimed that religion somehow informs or adds to morality. This was an assertion and you did not back it up much at all.... except to follow it with another equally unsubstantiated assertion about social cohesion. Assertion backed up by assertion does not add much to the original assertion that I can see.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You have equally failed to demonstrate that the same people would have achieved the same results without religion

Yes, because as I pointed out before that was not, is not, and has never been my point. And as I said before I see no reason to back up positions and points I never made, or do not hold. If you can think of any reason why I might feel compelled to do so, by all means lay it out.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's easy to point at CERN and say "look at what science is doing for humanity!"

Again, as usual, not really the point I was making. The point I was making was related to things like morality being, as Obama put it, reliant on us pursuing shared goals in a shared reality.

The reference to science is merely an example of that. When you have a culture that transcends creed and geography and race and sex(uality) you can see what we as a species achieve.

And I offered that as a counter point to the religion informing or helping with morality, or acting as a social cohesive. Because in fact the exact OPPOSITE is true of religion. It creates divides and group mentalities where none need exist. And when it creates differences, those differences are often by definition irreconcilable because they are differences in relation to things no one has any data to argue upon.

For example if two people, Bill OReilly and Andrew Sullivan again been a great example as they profess to be of the exact same religion, come up with a difference of opinion about the morality of something like homosexuality and their god's opinion in it.... they can not be reconciled. They can not ask their god to clarify. Hell they, like all religious believers I have encountered, can not even show the first shred of evidence that their god even exists. So their differences are _by definition_ irreconcilable.

In a pluralist secular society, again as Obama puts it, our concepts of morality and democracy and so forth really are reliant on discourse and being able to show why some action "violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." and "ur ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences."

So not only have you failed... quite completely..... to show religion informing or in any way benefiting morality, there is a host of reasons (many of which when I bring them up you have merely ignored those areas of my posts) to argue the exact opposite quite strongly.

But if a move towards a secular society, curriculum and so forth is the topic at hand, then that mentality I describe vicariously through Obama's words is exactly the one required. And people, like yourself, who claim some benefit from religion in things like morality, or education, or any of our halls of power or influence.... have a lot of steps to engage with to do the convincing and you have not even taken the first one on this thread. So when they claim it, we should be stepping up and calling them on it, and highlighting their cop outs, failures or "I would explain it to you but I can not be bothered" cop out mantras.

Shrap

^^ Bravo

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But if a move towards a secular society, curriculum and so forth is the topic at hand, then that mentality I describe vicariously through Obama's words is exactly the one required. And people, like yourself, who claim some benefit from religion in things like morality, or education, or any of our halls of power or influence.... have a lot of steps to engage with to do the convincing and you have not even taken the first one on this thread. So when they claim it, we should be stepping up and calling them on it, and highlighting their cop outs, failures or "I would explain it to you but I can not be bothered" cop out mantras.

I had a lengthy reply written out, but my browser timed out on me when I went to post. Suffice to say I won't be typing all that out again, but I'll take your points on board.

nozzferrahhtoo

I will be sure to add that to the list of ways you have left a discussion

But on a serious (off topic) note.... I always advocate never writing forum posts in the forum. But in something like Word or Notepad, then copy and paste it over when you are ready to post.

Then when the forum software gets uppity, which the software this site and City Data use does with depressing frequency, you lose nothing. Except a good excuse of course

I remember in my first year using this forum I wrote not one but 10 posts, all very long, in different tabs as I wanted to post them all onto the thread at the same time. ALL TEN timed out and died on me. It was like I lost half a novel Never wrote a forum post outside MS Word since

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I will be sure to add that to the list of ways you have left a discussion

I never leave a discussion. The very reason I engage in the first place, and one of the reasons I enjoy this forum in particular as much as I do is because I am always interested in other people's points of view other than my own. I would never want anyone to think they may have wasted their time. I would always be straight up and tell someone they were wasting their time if I wasn't interested in their opinion. I may not always agree with everything they have to say, but their opinion gives me food for thought and allows me to understand their perspective better.

But on a serious (off topic) note.... I always advocate never writing forum posts in the forum. But in something like Word or Notepad, then copy and paste it over when you are ready to post.

Then when the forum software gets uppity, which the software this site and City Data use does with depressing frequency, you lose nothing. Except a good excuse of course

I remember in my first year using this forum I wrote not one but 10 posts, all very long, in different tabs as I wanted to post them all onto the thread at the same time. ALL TEN timed out and died on me. It was like I lost half a novel Never wrote a forum post outside MS Word since

I'm usually posting on the touch site, hence sometimes when I'd like to link to something and do a copy and paste, I lose the text in the previous tab when the browser refreshes, otherwise I would have linked to Obamas' many contradictions with regard to his opinions on his ideas for American society. While he has a great speech writer, the man lacks the courage of his convictions.

It's one of those peculiarities about religion and atheism and why political leaders are the last people I personally would have any faith in for bringing about change in society - the illiterate, ignorant peasantry do not look favorably on atheism, so if a politician wants to become the most powerful person in the world, it benefits their political aspirations if they express a belief in a deity!


Had to go get a link -


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3944108

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never leave a discussion.

Although I do believe you duck and dive out of discussions you can not handle with a variety of underhand tactics, many of which I have highlighted on this thread and others..... I was in THIS case being tongue in cheek. Apologies I thought I had made it obvious with the abundance of smileys and the "on a serious note" line.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would have linked to Obamas' many contradictions with regard to his opinions on his ideas for American society.

I wonder would it have been relevant to my point(s) however. I guess I will not know now.

It is a common tactic I guess on forums when someone quotes something a person said.... for people to "rebut" it with "Oh that guy.... well look how wrong he was about what he did/said over HERE......"

Then they then proceed to tear apart something else from that quoted source.... or tear apart the person themselves who was quoted.... which has little, if anything at all, to do with the original quote, or the point the quote was made in reference to.

I remember I quoted one beautiful line from someone once and rather than reply to my point the other forum user said "Oh THAT guy is a liberal and the problem with liberals is......" and in the blink of an eye I found the entire thread was not even REMOTELY about what the original topic was. :eek:

It is not something I do. If someone makes my point for me better than I do.... be it Obama or Hitler.... I would happily quote them simply because their words were better than mine on THAT point.

Anything else they did or said, or whatever their failings may have been... is less than relevant. I merely quote people who's words say something better and more clear than my own. I quote them for their words, not for who THEY are.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Although I do believe you duck and dive out of discussions you can not handle with a variety of underhand tactics, many of which I have highlighted on this thread and others..... I was in THIS case being tongue in cheek. Apologies I thought I had made it obvious with the abundance of smileys and the "on a serious note" line.

Crossed wires is all I guess, I would just never want you to think I actually do duck and dive and try avoid things. I'd think such behaviour was disrespectful when I appreciate the thought you put into your posts. I may not always understand what you're saying, but I do try at least fo make an honest effort to engage with the best of intentions.

I wonder would it have been relevant to my point(s) however. I guess I will not know now.

It is a common tactic I guess on forums when someone quotes something a person said.... for people to "rebut" it with "Oh that guy.... well look how wrong he was about what he did/said over HERE......"

Then they then proceed to tear apart something else from that quoted source.... or tear apart the person themselves who was quoted.... which has little, if anything at all, to do with the original quote, or the point the quote was made in reference to.

I remember I quoted one beautiful line from someone once and rather than reply to my point the other forum user said "Oh THAT guy is a liberal and the problem with liberals is......" and in the blink of an eye I found the entire thread was not even REMOTELY about what the original topic was. :eek:

Well now you mention it, no, it wouldn't have been directly related to the content of the speech you quoted, but it would indeed have been to point out that depending upon his audience, Obama (or whoever writes his speeches) tailors his speeches to suit his audience, so his credibility with regard to social policy and secularism is questionable to say the least, and certainly if one were to look at the bigger picture, it's easy to understand why he is all talk and very little in the way of action - he knows which side his bread is buttered.

It is not something I do. If someone makes my point for me better than I do.... be it Obama or Hitler.... I would happily quote them simply because their words were better than mine on THAT point.

Anything else they did or said, or whatever their failings may have been... is less than relevant. I merely quote people who's words say something better and more clear than my own. I quote them for their words, not for who THEY are.

I couldn't ever do that. Although I appreciate when someone may have said something better than I can (which often happens), that is still their opinion, in their words. I prefer to give my opinion in my own words, even though that opinion may have been previously informed by listening to or reading the opinions of other people.

I feel that if we are to encourage people to think for themselves, then they should be encouraged to speak for themselves, in their own way. I don't believe that can be done if they just parrot the words of others because someone else said it better. They may not always be able to make themselves understood, they may nor always be popular, but at least they're being true to themselves IMO.

It's one of the reasons why I feel that social media is a double-edged sword - it facilities communication, but it appears to make people value validation for their opinions over educating themselves and gaining the skills to question what they're being told to believe in.