Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

1…8889919394…101

Comments

  • #2702
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Separation of church and state is long overdue. In that context, secularisation is right and proper wouldn't you agree?
    ... not if the 'secularisation' is going to be even worse for people of faith, than what was there before.

    The levels of aggression shown on this forum against all faiths ... doesn't give me any confidence that replacing Roman Catholicism with secularism, will be any improvement ... quite the reverse, in fact.

    Please tell me how I'm wrong ... and secularism will increase the respect with which people of faith will be regarded?


  • #2703
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    ... not if the 'secularisation' is going to be even worse for people of faith, than what was there before.

    The levels of aggression shown on this forum against all faiths ... doesn't give me any confidence that replacing Roman Catholicism with secularism, will be any improvement ... quite the reverse, in fact.

    Please tell me how I'm wrong ... and secularism will increase the respect with which people of faith will be regarded?

    Hopefully it will be given its proper place in society. This would mean having no influence on government, education, health etc. with believers free to practice their religion in a way that does not impinge on other people in any way.


  • #2704
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    My life was much more blighted by religion than just the mention of Jesus as I wrote in my post. But you know that. Self-admittedly your life has not been blighted by atheism. So our lived experience proves that religion blights lives while atheism doesn't.
    No, the real question is how either worldview behaves when it is in the ascendent ... and has power over people.
    You complain about relatively trifling issues in relation to yourself, when you and I lived under an ascendent Roman Catholic influence ... whereas I'm citing horror stories about how Christians were treated, when they lived under ascendent secularism in Russia, within living memory.

    I would be prepared to accept that atheistic Russia was some kind of exception ... but for what I'm hearing from agressive secularists and their total dismissal of the rights and beliefs of people of faith.


  • #2705
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    No, the real question is how either worldview behaves when it is in the ascendent ... and has power over people.
    You complain about relatively trifling issues in relation to yourself, when you and I lived under an ascendent Roman Catholic influence ... whereas I'm citing horror stories about how Christians were treated, when they lived under ascendent secularism in Russia, within living memory.

    I would be prepared to accept that atheistic Russia was some kind of exception ... but for what I'm hearing from agressive secularists and their total dismissal of the rights and beliefs of people of faith.
    Physical, mental and sexual abuse of children is relatively trivial?????

    What happened in Russia has nothing to do atheism and everything to do with totalitarianism. Let's face it. Atheism has very little to apologise for whereas religion has a great deal to apologise for. Our personal experiences are evidence as we've agreed.


  • #2706
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Hopefully it will be given its proper place in society. This would mean having no influence on government, education, health etc. with believers free to practice their religion in a way that does not impinge on other people in any way.
    That's exactly what worries me ... what you describe is a perfect recipe for the suppression of both religion and people of faith.
    This was the exact rhetoric used by the Atheistic Communists who took over Russia in the 1920's.
    No mention of 'live and let live' ... or 'respect for religious diversity' in your 'brave new secularist world' ...
    ... where no concession will be made to faith on any issue and ... people of faith must be silent about their faith ... while secularists promote their worldview with the full resourses of the state at their disposal to do so.


  • Advertisement
  • #2707
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Hopefully it will be given its proper place in society. This would mean having no influence on government, education, health etc. with believers free to practice their religion in a way that does not impinge on other people in any way.

    This. It is reasonable for your unsubstantiated beliefs in ancient mythology to dictate how you behave. In is unreasonable your unsubstantiated beliefs in ancient mythology to dictate how anyone else should behave. This is pretty much all that secularists aspire to, and by this definition most Christians in this country are also secularist. For example, the Roman Catholic Church has said that gay people should not be allowed to marry. The Irish people have said they should. The Roman Catholic Church has said that the morning after pill should be banned as its use constitutes abortion. The Irish people have said this is not the case and allow it. No one is forcing anyone else to actually do these things if it acts against their beliefs, they're merely saying they can't deny those rights to others.


  • #2708
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    That's exactly what worries me ... what you describe is a perfect recipe for the suppression of both religion and people of faith.
    This was the exact rhetoric used by the Atheistic Communists who took over Russia in the 1920's.
    No mention of 'live and let live' ... or 'respect for religious diversity' in your 'brave new secularist world' ...
    ... where no concession will be made to faith on any issue and ... people of faith must be silent about their faith ... while secularists promote their worldview with the full resourses of the state at their disposal to do so.

    Why should religion have influence over government, education, health etc?

    If people are free to practice their religion in a way that doesn't impinge on other people how is that religion being suppressed?


  • #2709
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Physical, mental and sexual abuse of children is relatively trivial?????
    I was talking about what happened to you and me ... i.e. our personal experiences.
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    What happened in Russia has nothing to do atheism and everything to do with totalitarianism. Let's face it. Atheism has very little to apologise for whereas religion has a great deal to apologise for. Our personal experiences are evidence as we've agreed.
    Whatever, you call it ... it was directly linked to the take-over by aggressive secularists of a formerly Christian European country.
    ... and when you start saying that a secular utopia involves completely ignoring and marginalising people of faith ... this is quite 'hair-raising' stuff for any Christian (or a member any other religion, for that matter) to hear.


  • #2710
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    I was talking about what happened to you and me ... i.e. our personal experiences.

    Whatever, you call it ... it was directly linked to the take-over by aggressive secularists of a formerly Christian European country.
    ... and when you start saying that a secular utopia involves completely ignoring and marginalising people of faith ... this is quite 'hair-raising' stuff for any Christian (or a member any other religion, for that matter) to hear.

    I was physically and mentally abused by members of the Catholic Church.

    Why should the state concern itself with matters of faith? What's wrong with being left alone to practice your faith as long as you don't impinge on others?


  • #2711
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,858 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    I was talking about what happened to you and me ... i.e. our personal experiences.

    Had several shades of you know what beaten out of me by several members of the Catholic clergy over the years so physical and mental abuse for me is a personal experience.

    As far as I am aware I have never even been spoken rudely to by an atheist.
    Whatever, you call it ... it was directly linked to the take-over by aggressive secularists of a formerly Christian European country.
    ... and when you start saying that a secular utopia involves completely ignoring and marginalising people of faith ... this is quite 'hair-raising' stuff for any Christian (or a member any other religion, for that matter) to hear.

    Where has he (or anyone else) said this?


  • Advertisement
  • #2712
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Had several shades of you know what beaten out of me by several members of the Catholic clergy over the years so physical and mental abuse for me is a personal experience.

    As far as I am aware I have never even been spoken rudely to by an atheist.



    Where has he (or anyone else) said this?

    He always puts words in my mouth but for the sake of discussion I ignore it.


  • #2713
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Why should religion have influence over government, education, health etc?
    ... why should it not? ... what is so 'magical' about secularism that makes it have the 'wisdom of Solomon' on everything?
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    If people are free to practice their religion in a way that doesn't impinge on other people how is that religion being suppressed?
    ... What do you mean 'in a way that doesn't impinge on other people'?
    ... everything that people do 'impinges' on other people ... that's what being in society is all about.
    In extremis, I could do practically nothing, if I strictly couldn't impinge on other people.
    ... even saying 'hello' to them could be construed as 'impinging' on them!!!


  • #2714
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    ... why should it not? ... what is so 'magical' about secularism that makes it have the wisdom of Solomon on everything?

    ... What do you mean 'in a way that doesn't impinge on other people'?
    ... everything that people do 'impinges' on other people ... that's what being in society is all about.
    In extremis, I could do practically nothing, if I strictly couldn't impinge on other people.
    ... even saying 'hello' to them could be construed as 'impinging' on them!!!
    Because religious people should be given the same influence as atheists. A vote and nothing more.

    I suppose you could compare people practicing religion to fans attending a match or gig. A minor inconvenience for others that is tolerated for the good of society.


  • #2715
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Because religious people should be given the same influence as atheists. A vote and nothing more.
    ... but voting is only one way that people and groups of people have influence in society ... and get to do what they want to do.
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I suppose you could compare people practicing religion to fans attending a match or gig. A minor inconvenience for others that is tolerated for the good of society.
    ... or something to tightly regulate to the point of effectively banning it ... on the basis that it shouldn't impinge in any way, on anybody else?

    Gigs are already very tightly regulated and require planning permission and a whole host of other licences before they can proceed ... is this the bureaucratic nightmare that is envisaged for the practice of religion in future.
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    A minor inconvenience for others that is tolerated for the good of society.
    ... but who is to say that religion is 'for the good of society' ... I don't think that many on the A & A would concur ... and therein lies a further issue, once peoples absolute rights to practice their religion is compromised by a legally superior secular perogative.


  • #2716
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    ... but voting is only one way that people and groups of people have influence in society ... and get to do what they want to do.

    ... or something to tightly regulate to the point of effectively banning it ... on the basis that it shouldn't impinge in any way, on anybody else?

    Gigs are already very tightly regulated and require planning permission and whole host of other licences before they can proceed ... is this the bureaucratic nightmare that is envisaged for the practice of religion in future.

    ... but who is to say that religion is 'for the good of society' ... I don't think that many on the A & A would concur ... and therein lies a further issue, once peoples absolute rights to practice their religion is compromised by a legally superior secular perogative.
    Yeah. In a democracy all citizens should have equal influence politically. Do you disagree?

    You know, the Catholic Church's influence on Ireland has diminished almost to the point that I think we can begin to call it a secular state. It's not that oppressive is it?


  • #2717
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    J C wrote: »
    ... why should it not? ... what is so 'magical' about secularism that makes it have the 'wisdom of Solomon' on everything?

    In case you hadn't noticed, society has moved on from the times of Solomon. We have notions such as human rights, and live in a society that includes many people with varied and often opposing beliefs. Unlike religion, there is absolutely nothing magical about secularism, it is merely a pragmatic approach where we can all get along on an even footing.
    ... What do you mean 'in a way that doesn't impinge on other people'?
    ... everything that people do 'impinges' on other people ... that's what being in society is all about.
    In extremis, I could do practically nothing, if I strictly couldn't impinge on other people.
    ... even saying 'hello' to them could be construed as 'impinging' on them!!!

    Whereas in fact religious interference does impinge on basic human rights across the world, and religious infringements on Irish human rights have been commented on by the UN on numerous occasions, as has been covered at length in many threads in this forum over the years.


  • #2718
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Yeah. In a democracy all citizens should have equal influence politically. Do you disagree?
    In theory this is what a democracy should be ... but in practice, it never is.
    People campaign on behalf of their representatives, lobby their representatives and engage in PR to influence everyone else. Other people couldn't care less about particuar issues, especially those that don't affect them.

    ... and to balance democracy, people should also have individual rights that nobody else can take away, irrespective of how populist the taking away of such rights might be ... that is where law is there to balance democratic action ... which could descend into little more than 'mob rule' in extremis.
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    You know, the Catholic Church's influence on Ireland has diminished almost to the point that I think we can begin to call it a secular state. It's not that oppressive is it?
    It becomes oppressive when I hear talk about taking over church property ... and forcing Roman Catholic parents to send their children to secular schools.

    It becomes oppressive when I hear talk about banning religion and religious pastors from schools.

    Secularism has a place ... but you can have too much of a good thing ... and secularism is no exception.


  • #2719
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smacl wrote: »
    In case you hadn't noticed, society has moved on from the times of Solomon. We have notions such as human rights, and live in a society that includes many people with varied and often opposing beliefs. Unlike religion, there is absolutely nothing magical about secularism, it is merely a pragmatic approach where we can all get along on an even footing.
    ... Secularism should confine itself to matters within its competence ... and religion isn't one of them.
    ... doubly so, when many secularists have clearly expressed biases against religion.
    smacl wrote: »
    Whereas in fact religious interference does impinge on basic human rights across the world, and religious infringements on Irish human rights have been commented on by the UN on numerous occasions, as has been covered at length in many threads in this forum over the years.
    ... and religion also supports Human freedom and good socially-responsible living.

    ... so the UN, or any other secularist quango, doesn't have a monopoly of wisdom on how to live our lives - or indeed on how society should function.


  • #2720
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,247 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    ... Secularism should confine itself to matters within its competence ... and religion isn't one of them.

    We've finally reached the twilight zone.


  • #2721
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    In theory this is what a democracy should be ... but in practice, it never is.
    People campaign on behalf of their representatives, lobby their representatives and engage in PR to influence everyone else. Other people couldn't care less about particuar issues, especially those that don't affect them.

    ... and to balance democracy, people should also have individual rights that nobody else can take away, irrespective of how populist the taking away of such rights might be ... that is where law is there to balance democratic action ... which could descend into little more than 'mob rule' in extremis.

    It becomes oppressive when I hear talk about taking over church property ... and forcing Roman Catholic parents to send their children to secular schools.

    It becomes oppressive when I hear talk about banning religion and religious pastors from schools.

    Secularism has a place ... but you can have too much of a good thing ... and secularism is no exception.
    Well, why doesn't the Catholic church set up its own political party? That'll fix your lobbying problem.

    If I were the new Stalin (seeing as you brought his regime up) religion would indeed be kept out of schools. Parents can teach their kids any kind of faith they want outside of state property.

    Religion is not presently being oppressed in Ireland. That's just a fact. Comparisons with Uncle Joe's Russia is both farcical and disingenuous. Catholicism's influence on Irish society was deeply malign and Ireland is a better place now that secularisation is taking hold. You're still free to practice your religion. There are many countries where you would not be free to do so. Rejoice! Everyone's a winner.


  • Advertisement
  • #2722
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    We've finally reached the twilight zone.

    The specious nonsense thread is certainly living up to its name. To misquote Dante 'Abandon rationality all ye who enter here'.


  • #2723
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Well, why doesn't the Catholic church set up its own political party? That'll fix your lobbying problem.

    If I were the new Stalin (seeing as you brought his regime up) religion would indeed be kept out of schools. Parents can teach their kids any kind of faith they want outside of state property.
    ... you're making the assumption that all primary schools are state property ... when over 90% aren't.
    ... and if children can't be taught religion on state property ... then not many schools will be volunteered to the state.
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Religion is not presently being oppressed in Ireland. That's just a fact. Comparisons with Uncle Joe's Russia is both farcical and disingenuous. Catholicism's influence on Irish society was deeply malign and Ireland is a better place now that secularisation is taking hold. You're still free to practice your religion. There are many countries where you would not be free to do so. Rejoice! Everyone's a winner.
    ... You are correct that religion is not presently being oppressed in Ireland ... and I think that this is how the vast majority of people want it to remain.


  • #2724
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    We've finally reached the twilight zone.
    Why?
    ... do you think that secularism has expertise in religious matters ?


  • #2725
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    .
    .. you're making the assumption that all primary schools are state property ... when over 90% aren't.
    ... and if children can't be taught religion on state property ... then not many schools will be volunteered to the state.

    Yeah, but the infrastructure within the Catholic church required to manage and maintain the system and its building no longer exists. Witness the demise of the teaching orders. So what is left of the infrastructure is rightly handing matters over to the state.
    ... You are correct that religion is not presently being oppressed in Ireland ... and I think that this is how the vast majority of people want it to remain.

    We have consensual reality! Yay!


  • #2726
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,908 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    J C wrote: »
    Why?
    ... do you think that secularism has expertise in religious matters ?

    Perhaps you could define secularism in a way that doesn't reference religion?


  • #2727
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,739 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Secularism does not have and does not need an expertise in religious matters. It is only concerned with the absence of religious influence in state and public affairs.


  • #2728
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smacl wrote: »
    Perhaps you could define secularism in a way that doesn't reference religion?
    ... or perhaps you could define secularism in a way that doesn't set out to exclude religious POVs from the public space.


  • #2729
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    looksee wrote: »
    Secularism does not have and does not need an expertise in religious matters. It is only concerned with the absence of religious influence in state and public affairs.
    If secular POVs are to be taken account of in framing state and public policy ... why shouldn't religious POVs also be taken account of?
    Why should public policy be solely driven by secular concerns?


  • #2730
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,739 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    A secular point of view is not an active thing, it is simply an absence of religion.

    For example if you go into, say, the planning office in your local town, you discuss planning. You do not say a prayer before your discussion, you do not see holy pictures on the wall, the planner does not say to you 'oh we can't let you build a house there, you would be more than 10 miles away from a church'. If you want to say a quiet prayer before going to speak to someone, well that's fine, go ahead. But it is not necessary or relevant to the business of the planning office.

    If you go into a hospital however there is every chance you will see holy pictures and statues, depending on the hospital. You may be given to understand that this is a religious hospital, even though you have simply been sent there for a check up and had no need nor desire to be engaged in any religious implications. You will be asked what is your religion, and in a religious hospital be told 'it isn't possible to put your religion down as 'none'' (that happened to me in the last couple of years). So I lied just to get on with the procedure. It isn't in my nature to lie, but had a choice of that or not be admitted (presumably). I was not in the humour to play silly beggers with their bureaucracy.

    In the past in a public, state hospital all patients would be told to get into their beds and the nurses would tidy the bed round you so you looked respectable while the host was carried round with all ceremony, whether you wished to partake or not. Now it is much more relaxed and private to the individual - that is a secular approach coming in and better for it. No one is preventing the individual taking communion, or disrespecting them or the host. If you don't want it you can ignore it, if you do want it you are free to take it. These are very minor concerns, they don't begin to deal with the much more significant matters of religious teaching directly affecting patients' health. Nowhere though is there any suggestion that the secular approach is imposing anything on religious people, simply that religion doesn't come into day to day events where it is not relevant.


  • Advertisement
  • #2731
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    J C wrote: »
    It seems that many Atheists not only don't believe that God (or gods) exist ... but if the God of the Bible does exist, they would reject Him and would have nothing to do with Him ... citing numerous negatives supposedly associated with Him. They're also deeply anti-religion and especially anti-christian, as a result of their views on the God of the Bible. I'm not sure whether this anti-God/Christian position is a new phenomenon amongst some Atheists ... or whether it has always existed. I'd be interested in getting the views of Atheists on this.
    My own experience is that most atheists hold an agnostic view of religion; any religion. I've noticed that those (whom I've met and discussed with) who are active anti-theists, particularly anti-Catholic (generally an Irish thing to be fair) tend to be either teenagers being teenagers or people who had unusually troubled relationships with authority figures when younger and use religion/ the Church as a substitute for that adversary as they've grown up. I'd say it's far from many atheists; I reckon it's a very small minority indeed, since the majority of people I know take no interest in religious matters at all.

    That's not to say there aren't genuine crusaders on either side, dedicated to the promulgation or suppression of religion, true believers in the righteousness of their cause which they feel more than justifies the specious nonsense they come up with.


Advertisement