Militant secularisation threat to religion, says Warsi

[elmarko]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17021831

Another politician trying to push the pro-religious agenda onto a secular society, I fail to see how "faith schools" benefit the people of the UK - by dividing our community into small sections how are we ever going to integrate them into UK society?.

While people are allowed to hold whatever faith they may, where should the line be drawn?, according to the research a majority of the UK population believe that the law/government & institutions should be free from religious influence.

Baroness Warsi says that religion is being : "sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere" - yes it is, but by the general public - who (on average) no longer feel the same kind of connection to ancient mythology as she does.

"In practice this means individuals not diluting their faiths and nations not denying their religious heritages." - I see this comment band around allot, but fail to see any specific examples of this occurring.

"You cannot and should not extract these Christian foundations from the evolution of our nations any more than you can or should erase the spires from our landscapes." - Again, I'd love to see an example of which people would like to erase the spires from the landscape - most secular people appreciate the architectural beauty of these buildings.

She wrote that examples of a

"militant secularisation" taking hold of society could be seen in a number of things - "when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings;" - The public supports this, the separation of religion & government.

"when states won't fund faith schools; and where religion is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere". - Faith schools which teach scientific fact as subject opinion have no business being funded by the tax payers.

 

[elmarko]

I think when you actually look at the reality, governments such as the US are more secular than us.

But the people in power are outwardly religious & those who are trying for government openly admit they want to change to law to suit religious ideology. (See some of the republican candidates views on abortion, homosexuality & the changes they want to make).

Our religious influence in government is only paper, not in practice.

Nobody is trying to stop people from holding religious beliefs, people are free to believe whatever they want - but where the line should be drawn is when an institution try's to obtain political power & then enforce religious ideology on the nation.

 

[elmarko]

As long as faith schools don't alter the base curriculum and they don't incite prejudice, then I don't have any problem with them.

Indeed, as long as they don't start changing things which ends up with disadvantaged children then it's not as bad - but I don't think the state should be funding religious schools.

The morality of subjecting children to religious indoctrination is another topic.

I went to a Church of England school and despite not being a Christian I think it gave me a good set of moral foundations (not to say that such foundations could only be prescribed by religion, obviously).

I did too & I have to agree, but that's because Church Of England is pretty "religious-lite" in the UK, we don't have that much crazy dogma & the Church Of England is well ahead of most of the other major religions in regards to progression & change to suit the country of today.

 

[elmarko]

Oh dear god

Your history isn't very good is it? You do realise we had 9 separate crusades? Christianity has been the backbone of Western politics, government and culture for two millennia.

To be fair, the entire developing world has had to struggle with religion - dragging an ever decreasing in size part of the population kicking & screaming into the 21st century, the 20th ... 19th... etc.

 

[elmarko]

She's not pushing religious, she's saying that religious people today shouldn't be afraid to state their beliefs or be proud to be associated with that religion. There is a much greater emphasis on religious people recognising and embracing heritage than there is promoting the superiority of a religious society.

Yes, but I assume this has to do with the recent spat with a councillor complaining about prayers being conducted during meetings (rightly) & a backlash against the idea that religious institutions have no place in our government proceedings (IIRC).

Religious institutions globally are on the decline, much to the fear of some of the followers of said institutions - sadly as they can no longer "burn the heretics" they are trying harder to influence education/children to ensure they have sufficient sheep to herd into the churches to make donations.

The institutions have always been about money, I can't believe people can be so blind to this (not saying the individuals are - just the institutions).

 

[elmarko]

Fixed for fairness and equality , and besides, both origins of life are theories, don't get your knickers in a twist

You don't what "theory" means in regards to a scientific theory.

Do you feel the same way about the theory of gravity?.

Also, +1 to RDM's comment.

If I hear the line "EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY LOL" again, I think my brain will erode.

Evolution has hundreds of thousands of multi-supporting pieces of evidence behind it.

Intelligent design (poor choice of words if you ask me) or the biblical creation story have no evidence at all to support them.

That is the difference.

 

[elmarko]

What??, lol mate, define evolution.

Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations.

Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

I suggest you spend some time on wiki, you could learn something (but I doubt you will).

 

[elmarko]

Well subjective i suppose, i see complex life in its basic form not basic life evolving into more complex life, the life form is already complex, and irreducibly complex.

Oh dear,

Cite one example of irreducible complexity.

I'll happily demolish it.

 

[elmarko]

Let me just get this straight. Are you honestly arguing that any good done by the church is actually done by individuals yet any bad done by the church is due to the church itself? Because this argument in reverse is used to defend religion and is a bit rubbish then too.

To be fair,

The Church doesn't do anything - it simply preaches a set of values (which have changed over time), some of which had have a positive impact others a negative.

Negative & positive things are done in the name of & against religion from all sides, but what we should be doing is challenging the negative things.

I don't think the "promotion of charity" should be our highest concern, but the promotion of homophobia, backwards scientific ideas & the covering up of the molestation of children from various religious groups.

The problem with religious values is that religion can make a good person do terrible things - as if our data in invalid our decision making process is also.

To use an example,

Mentally ill children with tourettes.

A loving family if they genuinely believed in possession would think drowning the child would save it's eternal soul.

In the eyes of the parents this act is moral, because they are acting off a flawed view of reality it stop them from making a rational judgement.

Add in modern understanding.

Which now indicates that tourettes is an inherited neuropsychiatric disorder,

The behaviour of the adults in question would now change to a caring moral duty, all that has changed is the data & information to act off.

Religion overall denies this kind of advancement at every turn, morality isn't some fixed system in which we call all follow mindlessly, but a constantly changing set of values based off information provided.

If it was determined that child abuse was 100% the cause of all murder (not really this is an example), would we then view murderers in the same light?, would we stop demonising them & put efforts in place to ensure they don't develop?.

Obviously, that's a made up example - but that kind of progression isn't possible with black/white morality which religion promotes.

 

[elmarko]

I believe it is very disingenuous to teach kids that we evolved from monkeys/apes or ape like creatures as fact.

But we did evolve (we didn't from monkeys & apes specifically, we share a common ancestry).

You only display how little you understand the subject.

 

[elmarko]

Regardless of whether you agree with the Church or not - to say it doesn't do anything is just silly.

The Church isn't a person, it's not capable of directly doing anything - it's the people who follow it or the members within it.

 

[elmarko]

The common household mousetrap and the human eye.

1. Mousetrap - you can remove the base & attach the pieces to the floor, keeping part of the function but losing one attribute - mobility.

2. The eye, the lens of the eye - is similar to the lens in the pinhole style eye in the nautilus - a less complex version - some fish have basic eyes using part of our system using the flagellum.

Some species have light sensitive skin, you can use most of the parts of the eye & still have some functionality - also, you can remove parts of the eye (like the ability for it to move & the eye will retain it's functionality (by being able to move the body instead of the eye for a light sensitive patch of skin).

Both of these examples show that neither of the things you listed are irreducibly complex.

Also, on a lasting note.

Why are you trying to use an example of a mouse-trap, something which we both know DIDN'T evolve as an example against evolution & irreducible complexity?, even if it was irreducible complex (which it isn't as I just proved), it is irrelevant in this discussion as it's not even biological & was created by man.

But anyway, enough on evolution - I've demolished every single thing you have said & if you want to discuss it further make a new thread.

 

[elmarko]

Indeed. Using it as an argument against religion comes from a position of ignorance.

What the hell are you talking about?.

I wasn't using it as an argument against religion, if you read the thread instead of being a contrarian you would understand this discussion was started by somebody calling evolution BS.

Besides, religions resistance to evolution does provide a reasonable grounds for criticism religion & it's denying reality.

Just because you can't understand the importance of this, it does not mean that it's not important.

 

[elmarko]

Hang on, the flaw in my argument is that the Chruch is quite happy to ignore reality? No, I would say that this is a flaw in the Church policy.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

One among many.

I was thinking his argument seemed a little flawed...

Also from that article.

"The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV."

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.

The WHO has condemned the Vatican's views, saying: "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."

The organisation says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass .

 

[elmarko]

Are you not bright enough to understand the point I was making? Let me spell it out for you.

Religion as a concept does not contradict evolution.

Certain individual religions don't believe in evolution. If you want to make this point then make it against those specific religions not against religion as a whole.

As I pointed out the largest religion in the world (along with many others) is perfectly happy with evolution.

We are talking about religious groups & religious people who don't believe in evolution, not those that do - I never said evolution was evidence against the existence of god - neither did I say that religion a as a concept contradicts evolution.

But evolution does directly go against the creation story's, which most religions do have.

Nice straw-man.

It's not possible to get evidence against something which doesn't exist.

I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

 

[elmarko]

The Church has very clear teachings on this matter. You can't pick and choose parts in isolation.


In fairness that doesn't seem to be an official Church teaching. It seems to be the opinion of one person who admittedly is in an influential position.

As a Catholic I often criticise the views and opinions of senior clergy. +Vincent Nichols is currently the leader of the Catholic Church in this country. I strongly disagree with some of the things he comes out with (as does the Vatican from time to time) but it doesn't mean every word he utters is an official Church position.

"The church opposes any kind of contraception because it claims it breaks the link between sex and procreation - a position Pope John Paul II has fought to defend." - I'm sure the pope was the official position.

Do you read anything written/linked on here before posting?.

 

[elmarko]

No it doesn't. Try opening your mind.

So it was all a metaphor/allegories - then by what criteria do you determine what's actual & what's allegorical?.

Let me guess, everything that's been dis proven by science is a metaphor & everything which hasn't/can't is factual.

You are intolerant and close minded.

Being closed minded does not mean accepting anything uncritically & without evidence.

I'd be happy to open my mind if evidence was provided, can you say the same thing?.

How exactly am I being intolerant?, all I'm saying is that you & the evolution poster can't assert what you are trying to assert - providing factual based evidence to combat the unfounded claims put against them.

 

[elmarko]

Never mind reading the thread. You seem to be unable to read an individual post that you are commenting on.

The point about an official Church position was in direct response to the reference to Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo.

If you look at my post you will see it was in direct response. No obfuscation.

I fail to see what you don't understand.

High ranking church members making things up about contraception (not being corrected by the leadership).

The pope continuing to be against contraception - (which is the best way to combat the aids epidemic?, because unlike preaching abstinence it would work).

Don't even get me started on the leadership being complicit in the covering up of child rape, at times it makes me sad there isn't a hell for them to burn in.

 

[elmarko]

What am I trying to assert that you take exception to?

You are utterly ignorant to the actions of the church, an apologist & hold a false view that religion & science ask difference questions.

How the world came into existence, how humans should behave, our origins are questions in which science & religion have conflicting viewpoints.

A few of the major religions have given up ground on the arguments they can't afford to publicly lose again & again & again ad infinitum, due to the problem it makes them look even more ridiculous than they do already.

Nobody is trying to tell you that you pretend that a man exists in the sky & cares for you, just that you should keep those view at home & don't try to make scientific claims about the origins of the world.

I respect religious people who simply admit, it's a matter of faith & the religion is personal to them & they keep it at home (outside of workplace/government/decision making) - as long as they are not actively hurting anybody.

 

[elmarko]

How exactly?

Because religion makes scientific claims.

Science is not just confined to physics. biology & chemistry - religion is also being challenged by our understanding of neuroscience, psychology & sociology.

The entire concept of "right & wrong/good & evil" is considered a gross oversimplification of complex human behaviour patterns - with causes & effects which are pretty well documented & understood.

It's quite hard to find a religion which does not at least subscribe to this flawed concept (even most none-religious people suffer from this - as they have dropped religion but remnants still remain).