Atheist Ireland AGM followed by public meeting

mkaobrih

Atheist Ireland are having their AGM in Wynns Hotel Abbey St Dublin on the 19th of November at 11 till 5. The morning session is for members only and the afternoon session 2.30 to 5 is an open meeting featuring a talk from Secular imam Ibraham Noonan. All welcome. Non members can join on the day and attend the AGM.
facebook event page here
event page here

recedite

"A secular imam"??
The guy is an Ahmadi Muslim.

Now by the grace of Allah Ibrahim Noonan Sb is serving as a missionary in Ireland.

He'll have his work cut out, trying to convert that lot!

Akrasia

My brain association has turned AGM from annual general meeting, into Atheist Genital Mutilation, so I won't be attending the meeting

Peregrinus

I think you need to take your brain in hand and give it a good talking-to.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you need to take your brain in hand and give it a good talking-to.

Stealthfins

Why does the thread have to turn into a joke about Ibrahim Noonan speaking ?

Sure let's start slagging the head Of The atheists too, what's his name again ?

I met Ibrahim in Galway before he seems like a nice guy.

Peregrinus

Stealthfins wrote: »

Why does the thread have to turn into a joke about Ibrahim Noonan speaking ?

It isn't, really. It's a joke about the mental association the letters "AGM" have for Akrasia.

Nick Park

recedite wrote: »

"A secular imam"??
The guy is an Ahmadi Muslim.

Ahmadi Muslims believe in the separation of mosque and State. Therefore their goal for a secular society, where religion is granted no special privileges and subject to no special restrictions, is entirely in line with the kind of society desired by many atheists (and by Christian secularists as well).

recedite

Every minority religion believes in the separation of church/mosque and state.
Until they become a majority religion

That's why the founding fathers of the US constitution were so keen on it; to protect the religious freedom of the pilgrims who, as a minority, were getting away from religious persecution in Europe.

It still doesn't make Noonan a secular imam. A secularist imam, maybe.
But hey, no big deal. Ahmadi Muslims are my favourite Muslim flavour.

Peregrinus

Nick Park wrote: »

Ahmadi Muslims believe in the separation of mosque and State. Therefore their goal for a secular society . . .

Nitpick. Their goal is for a secular state. They certainly don't want a secular society, any more than secularist Christians do.

silverharp

Nick Park wrote: »

Ahmadi Muslims believe in the separation of mosque and State. Therefore their goal for a secular society, where religion is granted no special privileges and subject to no special restrictions, is entirely in line with the kind of society desired by many atheists (and by Christian secularists as well).

they are irrelevant though in terms of Islam, they are pretty much the 7th day Adventists of the Muslim world, is anyone suggesting that they will have an effect on other Muslims?

Nick Park

silverharp wrote: »

is anyone suggesting that they will have an effect on other Muslims?

No, I don't think anyone is suggesting such a thing. They, like atheists (and Seventh Day Adventists, for that matter) are minority groups that would be much better served by a secular society rather than one where a religion exercises any measure of dominance or control.

recedite

silverharp wrote: »

..is anyone suggesting that they will have an effect on other Muslims?

They sometimes have an aggravating effect on other Muslims.

Nick Park

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick. Their goal is for a secular state. They certainly don't want a secular society, any more than secularist Christians do.

I think that depends on how one defines 'secular.' Apologies for quoting from myself, but I think the following snippet from a recent book sums it up:

From "The Gospel & Human Rights":
One of the problems with the words secular and secularism is that they are used in two entirely different ways. Some people understand secularism as a desire to eradicate religion from public life altogether – that you can practise religion in private but shouldn’t speak about it in public. Heiner Bielefeldt, Professor of Human Rights and Human Rights Policy at the University of Erlangen, makes a very useful distinction between doctrinal secularism and political secularism.
Doctrinal secularism is anti-religious in nature and wants to see religion banished altogether. In many ways this kind of aggressive secularism functions like a dogmatic religion itself.
Political secularism is the idea that the State should be entirely neutral with respect to religion, and that religion should be afforded no special privileges and subject to no special restrictions. In a politically secular society all religious groups, and those of no religion, operate on a level playing field and compete in the marketplace of ideas. As Bielefeldt puts it, political secularism “gives religious communities their independence from unwanted state intervention, and makes possible that people across religious boundaries enjoy equal rights and an equal status as citizens.”

I think this kind of secularism goes beyond the State and speaks to how our society is constructed. It is not just separation of Church and State, but rather advocates a society where tolerance and civility is accorded to those with whom we disagree.

silverharp

Nick Park wrote: »

I think this kind of secularism goes beyond the State and speaks to how our society is constructed. It is not just separation of Church and State, but rather advocates a society where tolerance and civility is accorded to those with whom we disagree.

is there any safeguards built into that ? normally minorities have been harmless enough, if someone is Amish or a Quaker it ought not be skin off anyone's nose, the default position is that minorities like these tend to be small and stay small and tend to keep to themselves. However what happens if Salafism takes off in a minority community and that minority community is growing?

recedite

Well then the secular state would try to differentiate between religion (which it would not interfere with) and aspects of religious practice which might be illegal or against the secular values of the society. Some issues are going to be right on the borderline such as the Burqa issue in France. Is it harmless religious apparel, or the subjugation of women?
Another future one for Ireland will be the establishment of new gender segregated Salafist schools, and how that sits with our idea of equality. We already have gender specific schools, as a legacy of the past, but society's ideas of equality are constantly evolving.

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

Well then the secular state would try to differentiate between religion (which it would not interfere with) and aspects of religious practice which might be illegal or against the secular values of the society. Some issues are going to be right on the borderline such as the Burqa issue in France. Is it harmless religious apparel, or the subjugation of women?
Another future one for Ireland will be the establishment of new gender segregated Salafist schools, and how that sits with our idea of equality. We already have gender specific schools, as a legacy of the past, but society's ideas of equality are constantly evolving.

illegal might be easy enough to define, trying to tease out what is against the secular values of the state is going to be verging on thought crime at one extreme so essentially unenforceable. In the end its going to have to widen out into a numbers issue and potential for integration. the lower the number the less concern about integration the higher the number the potential spill over into the general society the more concern.

Nick Park

silverharp wrote: »

is there any safeguards built into that ? normally minorities have been harmless enough, if someone is Amish or a Quaker it ought not be skin off anyone's nose, the default position is that minorities like these tend to be small and stay small and tend to keep to themselves. However what happens if Salafism takes off in a minority community and that minority community is growing?

I think the answer is that you treat it exactly the same as you would treat a non-religious movement that promotes violence or intolerance - such as this ghastly new 'National Party' that we hear about in the news of late.

silverharp

Nick Park wrote: »

I think the answer is that you treat it exactly the same as you would treat a non-religious movement that promotes violence or intolerance - such as this ghastly new 'National Party' that we hear about in the news of late.

they are not the same though. if the "national party" set up its own schools and indoctrinated kids and wanted random special rights about how they conduct themselves in public you might be heading for a basis of comparison.

Hotblack Desiato

There's no question about it that religions get a free pass to do things that would otherwise be found unacceptable, even in western societies supposedly more secular than our own.

Fleawuss

Akrasia wrote: »

My brain association has turned AGM from annual general meeting, into Atheist Genital Mutilation, so I won't be attending the meeting

Dr Rorschach will see you shortly.

Peregrinus

Nick Park wrote: »

I think that depends on how one defines 'secular.' Apologies for quoting from myself, but I think the following snippet from a recent book sums it up:



I think this kind of secularism goes beyond the State and speaks to how our society is constructed. It is not just separation of Church and State, but rather advocates a society where tolerance and civility is accorded to those with whom we disagree.

There's usually not much value in arguing over the definition of a word, Nick. But for what it's worth I think the disagreement between us is not really about the meaning of the word "secular"; it's about the distinction between the society and the state.

A secular state acts without regard to religious beliefs, or beliefs about the afterlife, the supernatural, etc. So in a secular state the institutions of the state do not, for example, engage in parliamentary prayers, or maintain an established church, or compel church attendance, or criminalise sacrilege or blasphemy, or engage in official worship, etc..

But that's quite different from a secular society, which would be one where society at large disregards beliefs about religion, the afterlife, the supernatural. A secular individual does not manifest religious beliefs or practices; a secular society would not manifest religious beliefs or practices. Christians don't generally aspire to a secular society, though they may aspire to a secular state. A society in which any number of people go to church, for example, is not a secular society.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Christians don't generally aspire to a secular society, though they may aspire to a secular state. A society in which any number of people go to church, for example, is not a secular society.

Its not that simple.
Imagine a society where all the schools are controlled by a religion V one where all the schools are secular. One is a secular society, one is not.

The state may or may not be secular, depending on how, or whether, it funds the schools.

A hypothetical society in which everybody went to church once a week, but everything else was religion free, could be considered to be operating as a secular society.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Its not that simple.
Imagine a society where all the schools are controlled by a religion V one where all the schools are secular. One is a secular society, one is not.

No, no, no. One society has secular schools and the other does not. But the society which has secular schools may be distinctly not-secular in other respects.

Exhibit A: the United States. Certainly not a secular society, given the role religion and churches play in social, political, cultural, etc life - and indeed in education. But it has secular (public) schools.

recedite wrote: »

The state may or may not be secular, depending on how, or whether, it funds the schools.

It has to depend on more than that, surely? The state might be not funding the schools, but doing other things that are distinctly non-secular.

Conversely, the state could be funding schools without regard to their religious character or lack of it; that would be a secular position on the part of the state. But the society would not be secular if, in fact, there were any signficant number of religious schools.

recedite wrote: »

A hypothetical society in which everybody went to church once a week, but everything else was religion free, could be considered to be operating as a secular society.

Not by me, it wouldn't. Churches are social instititions, and a society which has religions social instititution is not a secular society.

There are probably no truly, completely secular societies. But a society can fairly be called secular if most of the population pays no attention to religious considerations in their lives, their choices, their actions. Having a government that pays no attention to religious considerations is not the same thing at all.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not by me, it wouldn't. Churches are social institutions, and a society which has religions social institution is not a secular society.

There are probably no truly, completely secular societies.

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. But the point being made is that other people are likely to interpret the meaning of "a secular society" differently.
IMO a society which generally functions in a secular way ie being "blind" to a person's religion or lack of it" is a secular society. The presence of churches or religious people in the society is not the determining factor. So long as they do not seek to use their religion to influence the running of non-religious aspects of society.

Of course, therein lies the problem. The religious fundamentalist will find it impossible to separate his religion from all other aspects of life. And on finding himself in a dominant position, will seek to exert control over the society. This can happen even if the state itself is ostensibly secular and neutral.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. But the point being made is that other people are likely to interpret the meaning of "a secular society" differently.
IMO a society which generally functions in a secular way ie being "blind" to a person's religion or lack of it" is a secular society. The presence of churches or religious people in the society is not the determining factor. So long as they do not seek to use their religion to influence the running of non-religious aspects of society.

Hmm. Our old friend wikipedia says "In studies of religion, modern democracies are generally recognized as secular. This is due to the near-complete freedom of religion (beliefs on religion generally are not subject to legal or social sanctions), and the lack of authority of religious leaders over political decisions. Nevertheless, religious beliefs are widely considered by most to be a relevant part of the political discourse in many of these countries (most notably, in western society the United States ).This contrasts with other Western countries such as Britain and France where religious references are generally considered out-of-place in mainstream politics."

It seems to me secular societies might be more defined by religious freedom than the absence of religion in society? And if people are free to be religious (even if they're not) I can't see how their opinions won't be influenced by their religion. And being members of the society, their opinions (at least in a democracy) will influence all aspects of society, not just the religious ones.

recedite wrote: »

Of course, therein lies the problem. The religious fundamentalist will find it impossible to separate his religion from all other aspects of life. And on finding himself in a dominant position, will seek to exert control over the society. This can happen even if the state itself is ostensibly secular and neutral.

Well.. it's not just a problem with religious fundamentalists; anyone with an opinion is likely not to separate their opinions from all other aspects of life, and if in a dominant position will exert control in line with those opinions. You yourself have said you would nationalise private schools in Ireland in order to further your opinions, and you're not a religious fundamentalist, are you? Provided with a dominant position, you might well act to impose your view on abortion on society, and that opinion is not religiously founded is it?
Your problem is a problem with democracy; people get a say regardless of why they want to say.

Peregrinus

I think what we're arguing over is not the nature of secularism, rec. It's the meaning of "society". Churches, etc, are part of society - often, quite an important part. A society in which churches and the like are a significant or influential presence is not a secular society. A society in which any significant number of citizens or voters or politicians act in a way that is influenced by their religious beliefs is not a secular society. Such a society may contain secular institutions, and/or significant numbers of secular individuals, but I don't think you can say that society overall is secular. A secular society would have to be largely irreligious.

It's perfectly possible to have secular state in a society which is not secular. France would be a good example.

Qs

I disagree. I think even if we still had a massive majority who were nominally catholic we would still have a secular society (if we removed Church influence from the state) as most people claiming Catholicism in Ireland live far more secular lives than devout ones.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

It seems to me secular societies might be more defined by religious freedom than the absence of religion in society?

That's my point, so I agree. It was Peregrinus who suggested otherwise.

Absolam wrote: »

And if people are free to be religious (even if they're not) I can't see how their opinions won't be influenced by their religion.

A fair point, and some influence is acceptable and only to be expected. But if their religion is a dominant influence, then it can't be considered a secular society.
A good example is the recent SSM referendum which indicates that our own society is maturing into a predominantly secular society. That in itself is a momentous and very recent development.

You yourself have said you would nationalise private schools in Ireland in order to further your opinions, and you're not a religious fundamentalist, are you?

Not "to further my opinions". I don't envision my musings being read out to pupils in future schools, in lecture form. Not that I would object to them being studied outside of school, you understand. Its just that the whole purpose of secular schools would be to keep propaganda and all that sort of thing out of the schools.

Provided with a dominant position, you might well act to impose your view on abortion on society, and that opinion is not religiously founded is it?

Perhaps when I am benevolent dictator that will happen. But as you seem to be pointing out yourself, it won't have any bearing on whether the society is secular or not.

Hotblack Desiato

Qs wrote: »

I disagree. I think even if we still had a massive majority who were nominally catholic we would still have a secular society (if we removed Church influence from the state) as most people claiming Catholicism in Ireland live far more secular lives than devout ones.

They might well do but the fact is that our constitution mandates all Irish citizens and our institutions of state to follow a specific belief system (christianity) and it's been pretty damn clear from the establishment of same to the present day that the RC 'hierarchy' are upon a pedestal and have bulletproof legal immunity, defended by the state, up to and including freedom to rape tens of thousands of children with legal impunity.

Just watch Enda or his useless successor fawn over the child-rape-defender-in-chief when he visits. :mad:

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

A fair point, and some influence is acceptable and only to be expected. But if their religion is a dominant influence, then it can't be considered a secular society.

What is acceptable would seem to me to be a matter for the people themselves, and if they are strongly religious they would deem a strong religious influence acceptable, would they not?

recedite wrote: »

A good example is the recent SSM referendum which indicates that our own society is maturing into a predominantly secular society. That in itself is a momentous and very recent development.

What if the recent SSM referendum result was a result of a resurgent Christian sentiment "love thy neighbour as thyself?" Then religion would have been a dominant influence in society maturing into a predominantly secular society. Or would it be maturing into a predominantly religious society? I think your example probably bears more scrutiny before using it as a springboard for leaping to any conclusions.

recedite wrote: »

Not "to further my opinions". I don't envision my musings being read out to pupils in future schools, in lecture form. Not that I would object to them being studied outside of school, you understand. Its just that the whole purpose of secular schools would be to keep propaganda and all that sort of thing out of the schools.

Well.... your purpose of secular schools would be to keep propaganda and the sort of thing you don't agree with out of the schools, which is my point, you're only swapping someone else's opinion for yours. It's the same thing, just the way you like it instead of the way everyone else likes it.

recedite wrote: »

Perhaps when I am benevolent dictator that will happen. But as you seem to be pointing out yourself, it won't have any bearing on whether the society is secular or not.

Well, there's also the point that a dictatorship wouldn't fit too well with the notion of modern democracy, so falls at the first hurdle when it comes to the definition we're considering.