Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Separating Church & State , Why does it Matter ?
Comments
-
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »Is that not how wider society continues to function anyway? In large part thanks to hypocrisy at all levels? It seems redundant then to pick one particular example to focus on in the way you have done. I would suggest though that's just an example of human nature in action. Whether it's nasty, mean-minded and hypocritical, well, I'll leave that up to you to judge for yourself.
Very clever, ha ha. Two problems with your attempt at projecting that onto me though : I'm not the one who crossthreaded specifically to start calling someone hypocritical - though of course you have no beef with the poster who did - so my objection is not about incomplete disclosure per se, but about someone getting exercised about one example while simultaneously ignoring worse ones. What you're doing in fact.
And secondly, and more importantly, the problem with a member of the clergy being hypocritical and not practising what he preaches is that it negates his role completely. It's not like some random person on internet being a little dishonest, because the catholic church claims to have a special insight into ethics and morality.
But you're well aware of that of course, and have just decided to have a go at me instead. "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Very clever, ha ha. Two problems with your attempt at projecting that onto me though : I'm not the one who crossthreaded specifically to start calling someone hypocritical - though of course you have no beef with the poster who did - so my objection is not about incomplete disclosure per se, but about someone getting exercised about one example while simultaneously ignoring worse ones. What you're doing in fact.
And secondly, and more importantly, the problem with a member of the clergy being hypocritical and not practising what he preaches is that it negates his role completely. It's not like some random person on internet being a little dishonest, because the catholic church claims to have a special insight into ethics and morality.
But you're well aware of that of course, and have just decided to have a go at me instead.
I'm not having a go at you at all (in all fairness, I'm hypocrisied up to my eyeball!), and I wasn't trying to be clever either. I neither have a beef with you or the other poster. I wasn't aware of the cross-posting going on as both posts are actually in the same thread?
I agree with you about a member of the clergy failing to practice what they preach, and it does shed his role in a rather unfavourable light (not sure he should be smited for it though, seems a bit nuclear), but I wouldn't go pointing out anyone's hypocrisy just because they started it first. That, to me at least, would be the opposite of what I might try to achieve. In those circumstances I would understand that underneath all the pomp and circumstance, they're just as human as I am, no need to go nuclear on their ass (metaphorically speaking anyway!).
I personally wouldn't say that the religious have any more insight into ethics and morality than people who are non-religious either. I would suggest that anyone, be they religious or non-religious, who claims to have a special insight into ethics and morality, is the kind of person that's best avoided, regardless of the circumstances under which they judge themselves to hold the moral high ground over anyone else!0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Not sure what you mean. What I originally responded to was post number 2 on this thread, and the OP had not mentioned a wedding, so the poster was quite clearly crossthreading :
And this is post 6, where the OP makes the same point - post 2 was nothing more than cross threading to have a go at the OP. That's banned, btw, isn't it?
When you said crossthreading, I understand that to mean taking something someone posted in another thread, from that thread, and quoting it the current thread. I don't know if it's banned or not, but referring to posts made previously doesn't seem to be banned. I think that only refers to cross-forum posting, and even then there appears to be a fair bit of leeway.But perhaps in your eagerness to have a go at me you missed what I was actually responding to? I didn't bring in the accusation of hypocrisy, that was the poster I was responding to. I just pointed out that it was odd to fixate on the OP's alleged hypocrisy in the circumstances.One eyed Jack wrote: »I'm not having a go at you at all...
Thanks for the advice. Not that I asked for it, but I'm sure it was well meant. But you're quite simply wrong to imply that the church doesn't claim to have a special insight into morality, it most certainly does. It's the very essence of the catholic religion and thus its clergy. Unlike the OP who makes no such equivalent claim.
I didn't offer any advice, I consider it an insult unless advice is sought. You didn't appear to be seeking any so I didn't give any. I did give my opinion on what I do under those circumstances though. I don't expect either that you should apply my standards to yourself. It has no chance of a successful outcome as we're two very different individuals.
I didn't imply either that the Church doesn't claim to have any special insight into morality. In fact I thought I made it specifically clear that nobody actually has any special insight into morality (and I include the Church in that statement). But like I would anyone who claims to have a special insight into morality, I'd just avoid them, as they clearly have a different understanding of morality to one I would hold. Different standards of morality does not mean that anyone actually has any special insight into either morality or ethics, they just have different standards. Not quite the same thing, and claiming they actually have any special insight into morality is not solely the preserve of the religious or the Church or anyone for that matter.
I wouldn't try to stop them making those claims though, I'll just avoid them. Whatever you choose to do, well, that's your own business.0 -
-
-
Dragging stuff in from other threads when it's not directly relevant is definitely against the rules, with or without a quote. I'm certain of it because someone was recently told by a mod to stop doing it.One eyed Jack wrote: »When you said crossthreading, I understand that to mean taking something someone posted in another thread, from that thread, and quoting it the current thread. I don't know if it's banned or not, but referring to posts made previously doesn't seem to be banned. I think that only refers to cross-forum posting, and even then there appears to be a fair bit of leeway.
In this case, the alleged hypocrisy of a poster for having a church wedding certainly is totally irrelevant in a discussion about separation of church and state.
And I'm going to leave that particular subject at that, as we're also pretty far off-topic ourselves here.
So if someone did ask for advice, and I replied with "Well, what I would I do is....", you would believe I had failed to offer any advice? Seriously?I didn't offer any advice, I consider it an insult unless advice is sought. You didn't appear to be seeking any so I didn't give any. I did give my opinion on what I do under those circumstances though.
Using the first person instead of the second doesn't change the fact that since no-one asked you what you would do, and it was irrelevant to the main subject of the discussion, then you were effectively telling me off.
Yes it is rude and you did do it. Pretending you didn't is adding cowardice to your "standards"I don't expect either that you should apply my standards to yourself. It has no chance of a successful outcome as we're two very different individuals.
Well since you insist on telling us, unasked, what your standards are, I imagine you'll forgive me for telling you that your "standards" do not appear to me to be either honest or coherent.
what you think about the church is a matter of indifference to me, and I don't know why you feel the need to repeat it, that was never relevant. What matters is that the church claims to have special insight. You say you accept that they do, so all the rest of your lecture to me becomes completely pointless.I didn't imply either that the Church doesn't claim to have any special insight into morality. In fact I thought I made it specifically clear that nobody actually has any special insight into morality (and I include the Church in that statement). But like I would anyone who claims to have a special insight into morality, I'd just avoid them, as they clearly have a different understanding of morality to one I would hold. Different standards of morality does not mean that anyone actually has any special insight into either morality or ethics, they just have different standards. Not quite the same thing, and claiming they actually have any special insight into morality is not solely the preserve of the religious or the Church or anyone for that matter.
I wouldn't try to stop them making those claims though, I'll just avoid them. Whatever you choose to do, well, that's your own business.
Though I do have one question about the end of your post : what other person or organization claims to have special understanding of morality in the way pretty much all organized religions do? To the extent of being uniquely positioned to teach it to children, for example?
Because apart from specialists in moral philosophy (who - by definition - "specialize" in the subject, but there are very few of them, and they don't also claim to be able to run hospitals and charities as well!), I can't think of any."If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »It was more of a general commentary, I hadn't meant for you to take it as though it was directed at you personally. That whole thing, I can see where you're coming from, but it just appears very contradictory to me is all. I will admit that I'm not able to grasp the idea and that it is my fault as I see things very differently and I just don't think that's likely to change.
But the issue, as ever, is that when you "see things differently" you do not actually present the basis or arguments for how you see it. You merely declare you see it differently, or that you see errors or contradictions, but never actually flesh out what you are saying.
I see no contradiction. Nor have you shown one. I distinguish strongly between people and ideas. I have been coining and pushing the term "idea Space" for awhile now (and love that Ive seen a few people on boards using it) to highlight this fact.
When I attack I attack ideas. Either ideas that I find bad, wrong or harmful.... or ideas that I have no actual problem with but are being used or expressed in the wrong time or place.
Religion I find to be unsubstantiated nonsense but I have no actual issue with it or people of faith. I have no "us and them" notion with people of faith and no faith. What I DO have issue with is religious ideas, ideology, or motivation showing up where it does not belong. Or when religious belief leads to harm, damage or unnecessary divisions.
I repeat, there is no good reason to have religion or religious ethos in our PUBLIC halls of power, education and science for example. Be it in the schools, the curriculum or both. There is no argument to have it there that I have heard, or that you have offered, other than essentially saying nothing more than "I want it so I should have it" which is about all I have distilled from your multiple posts over multiple threads on the topic.One eyed Jack wrote: »But they do that already?
Not how I mean it they don't do it already no. Once again I see no reason for religion or religious ethos to be in state run or funded schools. The idea I would work towards would be a society where no such thing exists. Faith formation or education should be kept to the club houses of people in that particular hobby.
Again, as I have said multiple times before, I have no issue at all with the formation of schools with a religious ethos or a religious curriculum. It just should have nothing to do with the state or public funds. Nor have you provided a single argument as to why it should be that way, other than to point out that it already is.One eyed Jack wrote: »It would be impractical for the State to fund the provision of a school for one child in Roscommon for example, and another school for one child in Kerry.
Then you must be overjoyed to find that I am proposing no such thing. As the ideal I envision is one where all the schools would be equal, blind to things like religion, sex, race etc, with a curriculum all children are expected to follow.
Anything on top of that, religion included, parents can do on their own time with any other hobbies they want to foist on their children.One eyed Jack wrote: »The reason is simple - because it's what people want.
Not a good enough reason in my view. I would still be waiting to hear their arguments for wanting it. If 65% of people tomorrow said they want the school curriculum to include a section on training children up to make it big on XFactor, I do not expect a sane society to suddenly go "Ok people want it, lets do it". I would expect a sane society to go "Ok people want this, so lets look at it and see if there is any good reason to give them what they want".
And as I keep pointing out, and your continued lack of arguments proves my point, there does not seem to be a SINGLE good argument for having it this way. There is just no reason there to have religion, or religious ethos in the schools. And we have multiple arguments and reasons to keep it out.... from the divisions it causes, to the ridiculous juggling of things like transport to get kids to schools that match the ethos of their parents, and so forth.
It brings absolutely nothing positive, a multitude of things negative, and "People want it" is just not a good argument to support that. Especially given there are alternatives to give the people what they want without the headaches. An alternative such as having a completely secular and religious ethos free all inclusive national school system and curriculum..... while parents can get everything they "want" by other means outside of that curriculum and those hours. Problem solved.
So no your reason is not simple, it is simplistic. An empty cop out of providing actual arguments as to the benefit of such systems or states of affairs.One eyed Jack wrote: »The State has to have a part in it, the schools have to have a part in it, and the curriculum, well, that appears to be the only place where there is likely any room for negotiation.
I do not see any reason, and I note you mentioned none here while asserting it, that it "has" to be so at all. Why does the state "have" to have anything to do with religion? Especially in the schools and curriculum? I see no reason why it "has" to be so. I just see that it "is" so. Not that it "has" to be.One eyed Jack wrote: »Well like i mentioned earlier - it's how you look at it, and when i look at religion, i see the complete opposite of what you're seeing.
I do not think you see the opposite of what I see, because I ALSO see what you see too. You said for example religion can bring some people together and I never dispute that. I agree with it. So do, for example, premier league football clubs. They bring people WITHIN any given following together. People meet friends, social support, and much more of benefit they might not otherwise find.
The same is true for religion. But what is also true for religion and football following is the animosity and distrust, sometimes even outright hatred and violence, it fosters BETWEEN followers of each. It fosters an in-group, out-group mentality that.... as you pointed out.... is already natural to humans but we have no cause to exacerbate.
So no I do not see the opposite of what you see. Quite the contrary, I see what you see AND MORE. I look at the big picture rather than cherry picking out the roses. And when I look at something I do not focus on the good OR the bad.... I focus on the overall cost v. benefit analysis.... and I look not only at the good, but the price we pay FOR that good.
Which is why I did not and never do just say "I see no good that comes from religion" but I also say "What good I do see, is not worth the cost we pay for it, given the same good can be attained by other means lest damaging or costly".
Religion does very little positive in this world, and what little it does do can (and often is) attained by other means less costly, and less damaging.
On top of all that however religion is more divisive than other things..... you gave the example of politics.... I could also give the example of racial differences..... because the more divorced from reality something is, the harder it is to reconcile divisions and differences of opinion within it.
With politics for example you could have a political difference of opinion but eventually studies, statistics, or retrospect will settle that difference. With things like racial differences, are sciences are now showing just how baseless such differences are.... that we are so alike between our races that if we were all dogs we would be the same breed of dog..... that those espousing racial differences no longer have a leg to stand on.
So while reconciliation is still hard to attain in those spheres, it is at least possible and a basis for it exists. Not so in religion. If you have a difference of opinion about the will of god there is no basis for reconciling that difference of opinion. There is no reason to even think there IS A GOD in the first place, so how could anyone reconcile a difference of opinion on it's desires or intentions? IT can not be done. If you put Andrew Sullivan and Bill OReilly.... both Catholics.... in a room and demand they reconcile their differences about gods opinion of homosexuality before they leave that room......... I think we can fully expect they are both going to die in that room.
So THAT is what I mean when I say religion is inherently divisive. In a way that does not justify your trying to parallel it to politics. Nor is your analogy between removing religion from society and removing politics from society a good one for that reason.
But no one IS suggesting removing it from society so the analogy is pointless in the first place. I do not envision, desire, or even want a society without religion or the religious. I would not say NO to one of course, but I do not particularly care enough to want one. I just want religion out of certain aspects and areas of society. Nothing more.
Quite the difference then huh? So while you worry about throwing the baby out with the bathwater..... without actually in any way identifying what the baby even IS in this case.......... nothing I suggest is against you having the bath, the water, and the baby. I am just suggesting you do not drag the bath out into the kitchen and keep it where it belongs and use it for what it is intended.One eyed Jack wrote: »I've tried a few, shall we say, "experimental" ways in which i could derive the same contentment as I do from religion
A lot of people do it with things like art, meditation, philosophy, investing oneself in humanity and society, spirituality and much more. None of which presuppose anything on insufficient evidence in order to function or benefit.
But that said you are talking here about personal benefit again and missing my point(s). I repeat NOTHING I write should be taken as applicable in ANY way to religion itself, people having religion or faith, or people having club houses for that particular hobby which they attend. I have nothing against ANY of that. At. All. Your hobby is catholicism and your club house in the church. The next guys hobby is manchester united and his club house is the pub with Sky Television and a beer tap. The next guys hobby is art and his club house the National Art Gallery. So on so on. All good stuff. No issue with me from ANY of this.
When I talk about benefit of religion I am talking about at a social societal level. If you can not derive any contentment in life from reality and need to do so by instead subscribing to entirely unsubstantiated nonsense and fairy tales then NOTHING I say or think is against that in any way. Have at it and more power to you.
I just see no sensible leap from THERE to things some people might think like "Therefore a particular religious ethos should permeate our national school curriculum, the facility presenting that school curriculum, or both" or "Therefore state funds or facilities should be used to promote, endorse or facilitate this particular hobby over any other".
It is THEN that I want to hear arguments as to the benefit of religion and I do not see any. They simply appear not to exist. As I said a few people have offered some before but they have either turned out to be A) Nothing to do with religion in the first place or
Not actually beneficial things at all or C) things one might be able to admit to the benefit of in isolation, but NOT in the face of an analysis of the cost it brings to attain it or D) things we could (and usually do) also attain other ways without religion and all the associated harms and costs of it. 0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But the issue, as ever, is that when you "see things differently" you do not actually present the basis or arguments for how you see it. You merely declare you see it differently, or that you see errors or contradictions, but never actually flesh out what you are saying.
I simply see no need to expand on it when your arguments appear to me at least, to have no apparent grounding in reality. It's all lofty idealism and so forth, and granted, it makes for an interesting read at least, and I try to derive some value from it, but I simply cannot relate to your ideas at all, in any way, shape or form whatsoever unfortunately. I try to take your arguments seriously, but I just cannot relate to them.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I see no contradiction. Nor have you shown one. I distinguish strongly between people and ideas. I have been coining and pushing the term "idea Space" for awhile now (and love that Ive seen a few people on boards using it) to highlight this fact.
It just reads very contradictory to me is all. You're saying one thing one minute, and the next you're saying you're not saying the thing you appear to have said, and confusion sets in, and it's quite difficult then to follow what you are actually saying!nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »When I attack I attack ideas. Either ideas that I find bad, wrong or harmful.... or ideas that I have no actual problem with but are being used or expressed in the wrong time or place.
But that would only be a determination made by you that ideas are being used or expressed in the wrong time or place, and in a school with a Catholic ethos, those ideas are being used or expressed in the right time and place! In a school with a Catholic ethos, those ideas are exactly where they belong! In a Muslim national school, or a Jewish national school, those ideas are where they belong! In an Educate Together school, well, you get the idea. They are being used and expressed in the right time or place.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Religion I find to be unsubstantiated nonsense but I have no actual issue with it or people of faith. I have no "us and them" notion with people of faith and no faith. What I DO have issue with is religious ideas, ideology, or motivation showing up where it does not belong. Or when religious belief leads to harm, damage or unnecessary divisions.
We appear to be on the same page in that regard then. Where we appear to disagree is where religion belongs. You appear to want to restrict religion to Churches and schools where the ethos of the school is religious, but I would disagree with such restrictions. I am of the opinion that nobody should be restricted from expressing their faith, but their freedom to express their faith should be restricted when they cause harm to other people. The intent is not to restrict them from expressing their faith, but to restrict them from causing harm to themselves or other people. It is then necessary to impose a division between that person and society.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I repeat, there is no good reason to have religion or religious ethos in our PUBLIC halls of power, education and science for example. Be it in the schools, the curriculum or both. There is no argument to have it there that I have heard, or that you have offered, other than essentially saying nothing more than "I want it so I should have it" which is about all I have distilled from your multiple posts over multiple threads on the topic.
By that same token, all I have distilled from your posts on the topic is "There is no good reason to have religion in our halls of power" and so on, or our public halls even, but the general idea appears to be the same. Two opposite sides of the same coin. You have yet to present a compelling argument that would sway my opinion, and while you have said it isn't for my benefit that you continue to engage in dialogue, it is for the benefit of others; well, if those other people already agree with you, it seems like somewhat of a pointless exercise as they're not the people you have to convince. It's the people who disagree with you that you have to convince of your argument for the removal of religion and religious ethos from our public halls of power and so on. And so far, unfortunately, you appear to be more concerned with appealing to those people who agree with you, than attempting to make a compelling argument designed to convince those who don't.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Not how I mean it they don't do it already no. Once again I see no reason for religion or religious ethos to be in state run or funded schools. The idea I would work towards would be a society where no such thing exists. Faith formation or education should be kept to the club houses of people in that particular hobby.
Faith formation and education is already kept to the club houses of people in that particular hobby - it's kept to the Churches, and it's kept to the schools of those people in that particular hobby. They're even welcoming to people who don't share in their hobby to come and join them! Divisive you say? Far from it, it appears. If people do not want to share in their hobby, then those people are still accommodated as far as is practicably possible, but nobody is going to allow someone to come into their clubhouse or their school and that person then starts calling the shots for everyone else! That's when things become divisive!
If they were State schools, then yes, I'd agree with you that I see no necessity for religion to be in State or State funded shcools.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Again, as I have said multiple times before, I have no issue at all with the formation of schools with a religious ethos or a religious curriculum. It just should have nothing to do with the state or public funds. Nor have you provided a single argument as to why it should be that way, other than to point out that it already is.
Yes, it is that way, and that's reality, and if you're going to talk about the way things should be in your ideaspace that bears no reflection on reality, then I'd suggest you acknowledge reality first as your starting point before leaping off into your ideaspace. What you appear to be doing is talking from your ideaspace as though it actally has any chance of becoming reality. Why you think I should need to address an argument that has no apparent basis in reality is lost on me tbh. Your arguments appear to ignore the legal system, politics, society, and so on, so your ideaspace only serves utility for your own purposes really.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Then you must be overjoyed to find that I am proposing no such thing. As the ideal I envision is one where all the schools would be equal, blind to things like religion, sex, race etc, with a curriculum all children are expected to follow.
Anything on top of that, religion included, parents can do on their own time with any other hobbies they want to foist on their children.
That'd be the ideal you envision in your ideaspace that has no grounding whatsoever in reality then? You must surely be able to appreciate how useless then your ideas in your ideaspace actually are. You appear somehow to intend to defy evolution, and that's an idea I find intriguing!
I think I've sufficiently covered what parents can do in their own time already, without necessitating your permission to do so. The reality is that they already do it anyway. What conditions you think they should be restricted to are another matter entirely based upon your ideas in your own headspace.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Not a good enough reason in my view. I would still be waiting to hear their arguments for wanting it. If 65% of people tomorrow said they want the school curriculum to include a section on training children up to make it big on XFactor, I do not expect a sane society to suddenly go "Ok people want it, lets do it". I would expect a sane society to go "Ok people want this, so lets look at it and see if there is any good reason to give them what they want".
Fatal logic error there
Otherwise, if a sane society did actually exist in reality, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation now, and your ideas might actually be worth something. If only everyone in society were capable of reason and logic and critical thinking and so on, but the way I see it, the popular vote appears to win out over logic and reason every time.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And as I keep pointing out, and your continued lack of arguments proves my point, there does not seem to be a SINGLE good argument for having it this way. There is just no reason there to have religion, or religious ethos in the schools. And we have multiple arguments and reasons to keep it out.... from the divisions it causes, to the ridiculous juggling of things like transport to get kids to schools that match the ethos of their parents, and so forth.
I give you my word as a (somewhat?) gentleman, that as soon as you get your head out of your ideaspace and start acknowledging reality, I will provide you with a list of arguments that are actually based in reality. Until then, I simply cannot relate to or enter your ideaspace and I cannot come up with arguments against ideas that have no grounding in reality.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »It brings absolutely nothing positive, a multitude of things negative, and "People want it" is just not a good argument to support that. Especially given there are alternatives to give the people what they want without the headaches. An alternative such as having a completely secular and religious ethos free all inclusive national school system and curriculum..... while parents can get everything they "want" by other means outside of that curriculum and those hours. Problem solved.
I find "people want it" to be a good argument to support what people actually want. What you want, is another matter entirely. You say religion brings nothing positive, and I can only say that I disagree entirely with that assertion. I have witnessed for myself the positive influence religion has on a society. I have also witnessed for myself the negative influence religion has on a society, and IMO we could go round in circles all day while I see the donut, and you only manage to see the hole. I do not want your 'alternative'. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp? Your 'alternative' is... well, it actually offers me nothing! You can keep it tbh. I have no utility for it.
I can have what I want now, and your suggested system not only offers me nothing, but it appears to restrict what I can do already without requiring your permission! I can see why that might be a hard sell for society - once you move it outside your ideaspace and attempt to map it to reality, it holds together about as well as two ply toilet roll.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »So no your reason is not simple, it is simplistic. An empty cop out of providing actual arguments as to the benefit of such systems or states of affairs.
We've been over this - of course my reason is simplistic. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than simply "NO", and I would entertain your argument no further. But doing so is not actually a cop out, so much as it is a reluctance to buy into your ideaspace where reality is abandoned in favour of, well, I don't know really, as I cannot relate to it at all.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I do not see any reason, and I note you mentioned none here while asserting it, that it "has" to be so at all. Why does the state "have" to have anything to do with religion? Especially in the schools and curriculum? I see no reason why it "has" to be so. I just see that it "is" so. Not that it "has" to be.
Because the reality is that it's written in the Irish Constitution that the State has these obligations, duties and responsibilities. I have elaborated at length as to why the current reality exists, and yet you insist on substituting reality for your own ideaspace.
No.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I do not think you see the opposite of what I see, because I ALSO see what you see too. You said for example religion can bring some people together and I never dispute that. I agree with it. So do, for example, premier league football clubs. They bring people WITHIN any given following together. People meet friends, social support, and much more of benefit they might not otherwise find.
The same is true for religion. But what is also true for religion and football following is the animosity and distrust, sometimes even outright hatred and violence, it fosters BETWEEN followers of each. It fosters an in-group, out-group mentality that.... as you pointed out.... is already natural to humans but we have no cause to exacerbate.
You really don't. You tried that before and you failed miserably at it, so I suggest with the greatest of respect that you remain outside my headspace and restrict your arguments to your own ideaspace.
Apart from that, it is as I suggested before, that it is people's judgement of other people who are different to them in some way, that is harmful. Religion isn't the problem then, passing judgement upon other people who are in any way different to us, is the problem. Since that has been a trait instinctive in humans since the dawn of man, that is why I suggest you appear to want to defy evolution.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »So no I do not see the opposite of what you see. Quite the contrary, I see what you see AND MORE. I look at the big picture rather than cherry picking out the roses. And when I look at something I do not focus on the good OR the bad.... I focus on the overall cost v. benefit analysis.... and I look not only at the good, but the price we pay FOR that good.
You really don't, and you actually never will. That is reality.
How you choose to evaluate your ideas is utterly meaningless to me as you are logically predisposed to place an unrealistic over-evaluation on your ideas than I would. Thankfully for you at least, your thoughts cost me nothing, not even a penny. If I had to pay for your thoughts, I'd be expecting better value for money as the cost v. benefit analysis would show the penny simply isn't worth the candle.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Which is why I did not and never do just say "I see no good that comes from religion" but I also say "What good I do see, is not worth the cost we pay for it, given the same good can be attained by other means lest damaging or costly".
Religion does very little positive in this world, and what little it does do can (and often is) attained by other means less costly, and less damaging.
Religion costs nothing though? It literally costs nothing! What you are arguing we pay for, is actually the cost of being human. What you see as damaging and costly, I see as more than worth that cost to humanity, because the benefits by far and above outweigh the costs. Again, we could argue back and forth all day on the value we place on ideas, but it wouldn't get us anywhere, which is why I don't engage in it, and have a selection of rebuttals to choose from -
"NO", and... actually I thought I had more.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »On top of all that however religion is more divisive than other things..... you gave the example of politics.... I could also give the example of racial differences..... because the more divorced from reality something is, the harder it is to reconcile divisions and differences of opinion within it.
With politics for example you could have a political difference of opinion but eventually studies, statistics, or retrospect will settle that difference. With things like racial differences, are sciences are now showing just how baseless such differences are.... that we are so alike between our races that if we were all dogs we would be the same breed of dog..... that those espousing racial differences no longer have a leg to stand on.
So while reconciliation is still hard to attain in those spheres, it is at least possible and a basis for it exists. Not so in religion. If you have a difference of opinion about the will of god there is no basis for reconciling that difference of opinion. There is no reason to even think there IS A GOD in the first place, so how could anyone reconcile a difference of opinion on it's desires or intentions? IT can not be done. If you put Andrew Sullivan and Bill OReilly.... both Catholics.... in a room and demand they reconcile their differences about gods opinion of homosexuality before they leave that room......... I think we can fully expect they are both going to die in that room.
So THAT is what I mean when I say religion is inherently divisive. In a way that does not justify your trying to parallel it to politics. Nor is your analogy between removing religion from society and removing politics from society a good one for that reason.
Sam Harris and Michael Nugent seem to be making great roads into inter-faith dialogue?
Meanwhile, we here in Ireland still have no Government after an election that was how many weeks ago now?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But no one IS suggesting removing it from society so the analogy is pointless in the first place. I do not envision, desire, or even want a society without religion or the religious. I would not say NO to one of course, but I do not particularly care enough to want one. I just want religion out of certain aspects and areas of society. Nothing more.
Quite the difference then huh? So while you worry about throwing the baby out with the bathwater..... without actually in any way identifying what the baby even IS in this case.......... nothing I suggest is against you having the bath, the water, and the baby. I am just suggesting you do not drag the bath out into the kitchen and keep it where it belongs and use it for what it is intended.
I did identify who the baby was? The bath water though, is the corrupt element within religion, the same as we would discard with the corrupt element in politics. Then we are left with all of the good, and none of the bad. To extend your analogy somewhat - I will bathe wherever the bloody hell I like, and there is literally squat you can do about that. You can ask nicely, and I will refuse nicely to adhere to your preferences. At least we can be civil about our disagreement.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »A lot of people do it with things like art, meditation, philosophy, investing oneself in humanity and society, spirituality and much more. None of which presuppose anything on insufficient evidence in order to function or benefit.
Good for them. I'm not sure how that relates to anything I said for myself though? If they derive benefit from those activities, I have no doubt that there are at least as many people who have little or no interest in 'alternatives'.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But that said you are talking here about personal benefit again and missing my point(s). I repeat NOTHING I write should be taken as applicable in ANY way to religion itself, people having religion or faith, or people having club houses for that particular hobby which they attend. I have nothing against ANY of that. At. All. Your hobby is catholicism and your club house in the church. The next guys hobby is manchester united and his club house is the pub with Sky Television and a beer tap. The next guys hobby is art and his club house the National Art Gallery. So on so on. All good stuff. No issue with me from ANY of this.
My clubhouse, lest you need reminding, is also the Catholic ethos school.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »When I talk about benefit of religion I am talking about at a social societal level. If you can not derive any contentment in life from reality and need to do so by instead subscribing to entirely unsubstantiated nonsense and fairy tales then NOTHING I say or think is against that in any way. Have at it and more power to you.
Thank you, I will.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I just see no sensible leap from THERE to things some people might think like "Therefore a particular religious ethos should permeate our national school curriculum, the facility presenting that school curriculum, or both" or "Therefore state funds or facilities should be used to promote, endorse or facilitate this particular hobby over any other".
It is THEN that I want to hear arguments as to the benefit of religion and I do not see any. They simply appear not to exist. As I said a few people have offered some before but they have either turned out to be A) Nothing to do with religion in the first place or Not actually beneficial things at all or C) things one might be able to admit to the benefit of in isolation, but NOT in the face of an analysis of the cost it brings to attain it or D) things we could (and usually do) also attain other ways without religion and all the associated harms and costs of it.
It's quite something when I could say exactly, well, almost the same thing as you have just done, except for the fact that while you want to hear arguments for why reality should not be substituted for your ideaspace, I want to hear your argument for why your ideaspace should substitute reality.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement