Militant secularisation threat to religion, says Warsi

[elmarko]

The whole point of Baroness Warsi's statement is against militant secularism. People of faith are entitled to their beliefs. Oppressing those beliefs is the hall mark of "totalitarian regimes"

Is wanting religion to not have a special status being militant? ,or not wanting religion to encroach on our government the hallmark of a totalitarian regime?

This argument is pointless, if rational discussion could persuade you otherwise then you wouldn't be religious to begin with.

I mentioned specific examples of everything you mentioned above in various posts, I don't have to time to constantly repeat myself.

1 - I am utterly ignorant to the actions of the church. - You denied that the church was promoting that condoms don't work/that they were not responsabile - RDM then showed a link directly proving otherwise - you don't even seem to know what the church is upto, but defend them anyway.

2 - I am an apologist - You are ignoring the support those high up in the catholic church have provided to those (including the pope) who have either lied about contraception or taken an active part in trying to discourage people from using.

You are ignoring the very real suffering causes by these actions by simply stating "it takes time to change" - how many more people need to die while an ex hitler youth member procrastinates on the issue? - the blood is very much on the churches hands in this case.


3 - I hold a false view that religion and science ask different questions. - I've already replied to this, more than once - science & religion both speak about some subjects which are similar.

How do you feel about senior members of the church covering up child rape? - also, to one of the previous posts you made.

You mentioned that you have to disagree with RDM - seriously, you disagree that letting people die is wrong?.

Makes me glad I have my own reasoned secular morality if that's the alternative.

 

[elmarko]

Well we only have to look at the recent case of the council who were praying before meetings to see the sort of thing she is referring to.

The council is a government organisation, if they want to pray do it at home or in church.

I fail to see how they are being mistreated, if I asked to spend 5mins of a council meeting waving around a plastic light-saber (because I claimed to be a Jedi) I'd expect to get told to do it in my own time.

Please don't say it's a silly example - it's got just as much evidence for it.

 

[elmarko]

People are using the word "Apologist" as if it is an insult....it is not.

It depends on what specifically they are being an apologist for.

I am not really interested in getting into another pointless debate

Agreed.

Secularism is not, as some people both religious and otherwise seem to think, about promoting atheism or agnosticism over religion...it is about neutrality of all philosophical positions.

Agreed, in a sense.

"In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people" - a great bit from the wiki page which is pertinent to this discussion.

People seem to think that Secularism somehow defends the rights of atheists or is an extension of atheism, including many militant atheists and that is simply a misrepresentation of what Secularism is actually about.

Secularism does provide a layer of protection for minority groups - be that religious or otherwise, it's aim is to stop the meddling on the day to day running by any religious organisation against the lives of the citizens.

Secularism is opposed to all forms of discrimination, all forms of privilege and is as opposed to the banning of the Burqa in France as it is to the sitting Bishops in the House of Lords.....

Actually, it's not that simple - if the Burqa is oppressive in it's nature (against women) then a secular country could rightfully ban it in the name of gender equality.

Is banning female genital mutilation against secularism?, I don't this it is - but then I don't believe parents have any right to brainwash or mutilate the child in question.

We have a choice to make in how far we wish the state in which we live and work to embrace secularism...I am conflicted on that as I see the point that secularism promotes in that Public decision making should not be influenced by purely religious motivation, and I include Humanism (and Atheism) in that....I also do not want to see the further erosion of the Traditions of this Country which are like it or not based firmly on a Christian History that led us to become this largely free society where we can have this kind of debate in the first place.

That depends on if you think we progressed due to or in spite of religious influence in this nation.

If you could ask anybody who was a homosexual in the last 1000 years & they will say in spite of.

For example, we should be free to send our children to Faith Schools as well as free to send our children to Secular Schools....the provision should be about equality, not about one position over the other.

It depends on if you believe parents "own" there children, if you don't then forced indoctrination into any group (strong anti-religious, or catholic) would be undesirable.

Again, it's not that simple.

France is a good example when it comes to Faith Schools. France is a secular State, yet it spends significant Tax Euros on Faith Schools...all State Schools are secular in France, yet Independent Faith schools are funded centrally as well through Grants and "écoles sous contrat" to the state education system (in other words the State pays the Teachers)...around 20% of Schools in France are funded in this way and the vast majority of them are Faith Schools (mainly Catholic). The fees for these schools (Catholic ones) are largely symbolic as they are funded directly by the Catholic Church (as in the case with many UK Catholic Schools albeit to a lesser extent) and the State (via the aforementioned contract).

Read above.

The interesting thing about this is that in recent years the Faith Schools have been outperforming similar State Schools and thus the provision for Faith Schools in France is growing rather than shrinking.

That has more to do with funding, area & socio-economic class of the children in question - it's also worth noting that faith schools have requirements for entry - which involves parental motivation to get them in (this fact alone would be an indicated or a dedicated parent).

Combined with the good reputation they have had/been given (due to the aforementioned differences above), dedicated parents feel a strong motivation to send them to these schools.

It's what we call a "self-fulfilling prophecy" in my field.

It is also important to the debate to mention that France does not teach Religion in State Schools, (it is not banned, only it takes place as an elective after-school activity and strangely many French State schools have a Chaplain, something you don't see very often in UK schools)... however there is a growing demand that Religious Awareness is taught in State Schools as it is increasingly becoming the position in France that there is a need for development of greater understanding between Frances different religions.

I agree, awareness is important & should still be taught as it's important to understand & not irrationally fear various cultures.

Anyway I shall let you get on with your debate.

Nice to see a different side to the discussion.

Edit - As a side note, I really don't think that all cultures are equal - some promote suffering on a much larger scale than others, some think it's OK to murder women/children or deny half the population basic rights.

You don't have to sit on the fence & ignore terrible human suffering to be tolerant - tolerance should have limits - murder, slavery, child mutilation, child rape & oppression are a few of the things I will not tolerate in the name of religion, culture or anything (some tend to be cultural, others religious)

 

[elmarko]

I think that State schools should take a leaf out of the Faith school book when it comes to discipline as I would imagine that would be the key factor in them getting better results (complete guess really)

From all our understanding of human behaviour positive reinforcement works better.

The problem is these children become unruly at home - if teachers could hit pupils expect allot more teachers being hit back/children bringing in weapons.

We don't want to start the school arms-race like you have in America.

Lack of a stable home family unit, without a positive role models, intellectual stimulus & positive reinforcement for good behaviour is pretty much the cause of most of our society's problems.

but I'm certainly against children being told that there defiinitely is a God who will definitely punish them when they die if they don't do as they're told.

Indeed, there is a difference between doing what's right & doing what you are told.

And while I think Dawkin's could be a little more diplomatic, I do think he has a point. If you're not following the scriptures as they're written but are choosing to follow your own moral code, are you really a Christian? If I said I was a golfer and started kicking a ball around a field, would I really be a golfer?

I think he mostly try's to highlight how much religions change to suit the climate of the time - by what source we are referencing to decide what parts of the bible we like & which we don't (Leviticus springs to mind).

If you're not actually going to follow the tenets of the religion, why bother saying that you belong to that religion? Fear of being condemned to hell if you don't?

A good question.

 

[elmarko]

Thr burqa is not oppressive in itself....if the woman has mad a conscious choice to wear it then it would be oppressive to stop her....so the emphasis should be on the choice of the individual, the illegality should be placed on the enforcement on wearing it, not the choice of wearing it.

No it's not, but with the social consequences that come with not wearing a burqa by the male family members of the women in question the simple "choice" isn't so simple.

If Islam had no penalty for apostasy or women from Islamic family's dressing as they please I would be more understanding on the issue.

The burqa isn't even required by religion - it's a pretty obvious method of shutting of women from wider society to exert control in a patriarchal society.

Just because some women think this is OK, it does not make it so - people who aid in there own oppression are the most fundamentally enslaved.

Why only female genital mutilation?....why not circumcision? Not that I agree with either, and nor do I think banning a piece of clothing is comparable to physical mutilation.

I actually disagree with both, I use female gential mutilation as an example as most people have been de-sensitised to circumcision & don't see it for what it is - cutting part off a small child without there consent.

Female genital mutilation is also renown for removing the ability for the women to feel pleasure, to make the act of love-making a purely child making affair for women - as a further method of control.

That is a largely different debate, and one that would need to address a wide range of examples...one being the motivation of the individual, while it is true that some people will do charitible or endeavour to force change regardless of their beliefs, there are a significant number who would not if not for the requirements inherent in their beliefs.

Agreed, a totally different debate.

My son attends a Catholic School....I'm not Catholic, my son doesn't believe in God, indoctrination in School is vastly over-rated. If it wasn't then we would all still be pious and religious. There is a lot of misconception of what modern faith schools actually teach.

Indoctrination is obviously going to be more powerful if the child is also being taught it at home, it's also worth noting that we have many many different levels of faith school in the UK - with COE & Catholic schools being the least detrimental.

Look up some of the videos of the new round of evangelical Christian schools, or Islamic schools - you will see first hand how different they are to our quite tame faith schools.

in France, due to the symbolic fees and the way in which they are funded anyone has access to a Faith School, not only those in a specific socio-economic group.

Well, proximity will play a factor & postcode is one of the key indicators of socio-economic class - but I agree, it can be mitigated against.

On a slightly different topic, I think Selective Schools (as in grammar schools) are a good idea. It is simply the responsibilty of the State to provide equal provision to all.

Personally I'd prefer schools to all be improved to cater for gifted children, as splitting kids (as per the recent research) tends to exaggerate differences in intellect - minor differences at the age of 10 can become quite significant by 16 (based off our current system of grouping by intellect)

If the funding followed the Child rather than the School, Parents would have better choice and Schools would be forced to compete and improve or close.

I'd agree with that system totally, that way parents don't feel forced into sending a child to a school due to it's increased funding.

 

[elmarko]

Lol. The household mousetrap is made up of five parts, the platform - hammer - spring - catch - and locking pin. If you remove one of those parts the system does not work. How did complex biochemical systems evolve?.

Firstly,

Are you implying that none of those parts could have an independent use outside of that of a mouse-trap?, are do know that certain things have multiple functions.

Also, are you ignoring the point to which I say,

"Why are you using the example of a mouse-trap, something we both know DIDN'T evolve" to try to disprove evolution.

That's akin to me saying "All dogs bite" then as a counter argument you show me a rabbit that does not bite.

The argument you present is utterly invalid.

An eye that works is an eye that works, it is as simple as that.

No it isn't.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[elmarko]

Not allowing prayer in council meeting isn't the atheists getting there own way - something which people are failing to appreciate, it's simply maintaining a neutral position - this is providing no preference to any group.

That is the democratic approach, to maintain neutrality.

It's not like they are asking for a 5m video of a Dawkins talking about the flaws of religion before every single meeting - I'd be against that equally for the same reason.

Also, you can't just ignore the fact 90% of the arguments in favour are nothing but an appeal to tradition - it undermines the argument as being logically fallacious from the get go.

The fact we have done it in the past is meaningless, we used to kill homosexuals, lock up disabled people, burn witches & enslave black-people - the fact we used to do things isn't really any indication we should continue to do them.

Change is not always for the worse & preaching to maintain the status-quo is usually done by those already in a position of advantage & are accustomed to it.

 

[elmarko]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9082059/For-once-Richard-Dawkins-is-lost-for-words.html

An old person forgets something once & is caught unprepared for a question - the sky is falling.

"It was a golden minute of radio. But as well as being hilarious, it was hugely symbolic." - I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why it's symbolic.

"the atheist army is led by an embarrassingly feeble general" - Ad hominem attack.

"We’ve had nothing but negativity from Richard Dawkins." - Not really - also a gross generalisation.

"And he is now, after yesterday’s intellectual savaging, a busted flush." - Not really.

Again, religious people being unable to distinguish between returning to as position of neutrality and moving towards a position of disadvantage.

As I said before, if an alternative anti-religious method was played instead of the prayer I'd understand, as that would be moving from a position of advantage to dis-advantage - this is not the case.

Terrible article.

 

[elmarko]

Also however you define it, it was still one man imposing his will on the rest, and undermining the democratic process, all in the name of his ideology.

As Naffa pointed out, this is tyranny of a majority - not democracy.

The rights of the minority also need to be protected, if that's a Christian in a group of Islamic people, an atheists with a group of Catholics or a Christian with a group of atheists.

In all cases nobody should have to be subjected to the personal religious ideology of others in governmental proceedings.

Which is why a neutral position is preferable, as it protects everybody.

And yes Secularism is about neutrality, however for some reason people seem to be oblivious to the fact that the UK is NOT a secular society.

Again, as pointed out above.

Just because we are not currently a fully secular country it doesn't mean we don't want to fight for it.

We didn't live in a country with gender equality some time ago, it doesn't mean that people didn't try to change that.

Besides, in regards to the attitudes of the population - we are a secular country, just we have aged remnants of old laws/traditions which have yet to be adjusted to align with the social attitudes of the time.

 

[elmarko]

Clive Bone removed his neutrality when he decided to impose his will on everyone else....that is not a neutral position.

He simply did not have to participate....that is neutrality.

I expect better from you.

That's a pretty poor argument, you know full well a neutral position is one which does not advantage or disadvantage anybody.

If he will is one of neutrality then I fail to see how he is imposing his will, are gay people who wish to be treated with equality "imposing there will" on the rest of us?.

It's OK to admit you were wrong.

 

[elmarko]

He was not discriminated against...his equality was not infringed, his Human Rights were not under threat.

He was imposing his will, he tried democratically and failed, so tried the courts instead.

So,

Let's turn the tables.

5 people, one of which is a Christian - ask's to not be subjected to a 5m Dawkin's rant on religion during council meetings.

They take a vote & the 4 atheists decide to keep it as it is.

Is this right?.

Should be Christian just "deal with it and ignore it"?.

I wouldn't expect a Christian to be treated that way, so I fail to see why it should not apply the other way around.

His will he was imposing was for equality, not personal preference - something which you keep selectively ignoring.

 

[elmarko]

You are predisposing that the prayer was in somehow intentionally offensive to someone in particular or that it was a rant against non-religious positions....to my mind that would be unacceptable anyway.

Who said that showing a rant on religion would be intentionally offence, it could be done due to a motivation to educate, show an alternative point of view.

I never mentioned intentionality offence from either side - not the actual situation or the hypothetical one.

If the vote was on taking a moment to reflect on [insert secular matter here] and the group voted to retain that, then I would support the majority ruling.....as long as all participants were involved in the democratic process....as Clive Bone was, in fact he instigated the process.

So, if a group decided to show Dawkin's videos to a Christian during meeting time that would also be fine?, or don't you think it would be inappropriate for a meeting - as .... drum-roll - a persons personal religion has no place in council meetings?

I do not agree with your stance on his motivation either, this is the same Clive Bone who refused to attend a Remembrance Day Service (although he did attend the parade) because it was held in a Church. As the court ruled, his equality was not infringed by the practice.

What, if anything that shows his motivation is to not be subjected to Christianity during work-time - which he has EVERY right to do.

I wound't force a Christian to goto a Mosque if they didn't want to, or force a religious person into watching debates on religion - neither would it be allowed for a second in my place of work.

I agree with him on that.

 

[elmarko]

For me it should be the decision of the Council or Group to make, not for one individual to impose his opinion on the majority.

You are missing the point entirely.

As we have said, ad infinitum.

His will is to impose a neutral position - a position of equality.

There will is to continue a position which is of preference to them.

He wishes to move it to a position in which neither is given preference.

I don't believe for a moment you can't understand this.

 

[elmarko]

This is the difference between being an atheist in that you hold no belief in God, and being an Atheist in that God is offensive to you.

No it isn't.

Atheists don't believe in a god - they lack belief.

I find god as offensive as I find the Loch Ness monster - I don't hold negative views on something which does not feature amongst the things I know exist.

You are mistaking atheist with anti-theist, which are entirely different things.

You are again missing the point on the above examples, you are either trying to save face by arguing a losing battle, or I've seriously misjudged how rational you are.

 

[elmarko]

That is a form of Anti-Clericalism.

Atheism in it's purest form doesn't or at least shouldn't hold any other position than that Deities simply do not exist....the position that others are foolish or childish, or that the Church is bad for society are not necessarily related to Atheism directly.

There is a huge range of positions that come under the umbrella due to the evolving nature of the position...but elmarko gave a specific position and that one doesn't say anything about the beliefs of others or hold any negativity to others positions...he said so himself, in that case an Atheist should have no issue with attending a Remembrance Service as part of their Council duties.



Again, a form of Anti-Clericalism.

Even if he does hold anti-theistic views, his rights should be protected.

Just because you may not agree with anti-theism it doesn't make it any less valid than theism.

He shouldn't be forced to endure religious practices during work time, it's that simple.

It makes no difference what kind of atheist he is, he is simply a person who does not think it's appropriate to conduct religious ceremonies (prayer) during a work environment.

The same argument would apply if he was a Muslim, Catholic, Jewish or agnostic.

Religion should be kept out of work & not only is it the best stance for equality (as it protects the wishes of the minority) - it's also what a majority of the country wants.

There is no way to win this argument.