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 atheist Uthopia, what ae we to expect?
-
24-10-2008 5:05pm#1Just wondering about the following rhetorical question. I'd like honest answers, even if they are extreme. So here it goes:
If atheism became the norm, and you were ruler of your own atheist country, would there be anything you'd change which would have an impact of how Christians practice their faith?
E.G. Would you ban unsolicited preaching in public? or for the more extreme, close down churches etc?
Would you ban the teaching of Christianity to children(I mean by parents, not schools). I understand that this would be hard to implement, but maybe you would ban children under a certain age attending church or something.
Anyway, not looking to attack the answers, but I really would like to know your views. Would you just let folk get on with it, or are their scenario's that you can see impacting on the Christians.
Thanks,
J.0
Comments
-
Tempting as it would be to try stamp them out (dictator that I am), it would probably only make them more determined.
Throwing endless waves of evidence their direction would probably be the best way to make them 'get with the program'.
That and the atheist propaganda buses/billboards/blimps etc. working overtime! :pac:0 -
Tempting as it would be to try stamp them out (dictator that I am), it would probably only make them more determined.
Throwing endless waves of evidence their direction would probably be the best way to make them 'get with the program'.
That and the atheist propaganda buses/billboards/blimps etc. working overtime! :pac:
i know it was a bit tongue in cheek, but seriously. Would you 'desire' to stamp them out. Would you actively do things to stamp it out?0 -
i know it was a bit tongue in cheek, but seriously. Would you 'desire' to stamp them out. Would you actively do things to stamp it out?
Not in reality. I'm of the opinion that people are entitled to any religious belief they want (provided it does not endanger others like Heaven's Gate for example), regardless of how zany it appears to me.
I would desire to have an 'atheist Utopian society' so to speak, but there's no point forcing people against their will. If you do that it's not truly Utopian. As I said forcing people to change their beliefs will only cause them to rally against you. Diplomacy is really the only way forward.0 -
Just wondering about the following rhetorical question. I'd like honest answers, even if they are extreme. So here it goes:
If atheism became the norm, and you were ruler of your own atheist country, would there be anything you'd change which would have an impact of how Christians practice their faith?
E.G. Would you ban unsolicited preaching in public? or for the more extreme, close down churches etc?
Would you ban the teaching of Christianity to children(I mean by parents, not schools). I understand that this would be hard to implement, but maybe you would ban children under a certain age attending church or something.
Anyway, not looking to attack the answers, but I really would like to know your views. Would you just let folk get on with it, or are their scenario's that you can see impacting on the Christians.
Thanks,
J.
Loaded question but...
1) All "moral" and religiously based prohibitions to be lifted (on sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, profanity, blasphemy, alcohol, meat, prostitution, abortion etc).
2) Taxation of all churches on their takings for each fiscal year in the same way as any other commercial venture.
3) Prohibition of religious education in schools wherein those schools are not 100% funded by the church. To which I mean the indoctrination seen in state "religion" classes. I have no problem with "comparative religion" as a subject or even "theological studies" when discussed in terms of philosophy, history and archaeology. When it turns the corner into doctrine and positing any of it as "true" then it needs to stop.
4) Removal of any special priviledges held by religion. The likes of with holding medical treatment from children because their parents believe it is gods will or the practice of circumcision by Jewish Mohels. Both of these protected concepts are anthema to anyone whose mind is not firmly rooted in the dark ages.
5) The removal of "the Angelus" from RTE broadcasting. Prohibition on any religious bradcasting by any state funded media outlet.
6) Zero recognition of non-state sanctioned marriages (and this is a consession people!) and the extention of marital or co-hobitation/dependency rights to couples entering into a specific legal contract.
7) All crimes deemed to be motivated by "religion" or "intolerance of religion" to be treated as the basic crimes that they are. the idea that one murder is worse than another because it was in the name of god is ridiculous (he same principal should be applied to all "hate crime" tbh).
... I guess thats it for now.0 -
Not in reality. I'm of the opinion that people are entitled to any religious belief they want (provided it does not endanger others like Heaven's Gate for example), regardless of how zany it appears to me.
I would desire to have an 'atheist Utopian society' so to speak, but there's no point forcing people against their will. If you do that it's not truly Utopian. As I said forcing people to change their beliefs will only cause them to rally against you. Diplomacy is really the only way forward.
Any idea what methods you wold try, to ween people away from their religious crutch?:)0 -
Advertisement
-
Any idea what methods you wold try, to ween people away from their religious crutch?:)
Propaganda. Seriously. Be it in the form of billboards like the ones described in the bus thread or scientific journals publishing scientific explanations for stuff that was once taught as being supernatural or divine. That sort of stuff.0 -
Hivemind187 wrote: »Loaded question but...
1) All "moral" and religiously based prohibitions to be lifted (on sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, profanity, blasphemy, alcohol, meat, prostitution, abortion etc).
2) Taxation of all churches on their takings for each fiscal year in the same way as any other commercial venture.
3) Prohibition of religious education in schools wherein those schools are not 100% funded by the church. To which I mean the indoctrination seen in state "religion" classes. I have no problem with "comparative religion" as a subject or even "theological studies" when discussed in terms of philosophy, history and archaeology. When it turns the corner into doctrine and positing any of it as "true" then it needs to stop.
4) Removal of any special priviledges held by religion. The likes of with holding medical treatment from children because their parents believe it is gods will or the practice of circumcision by Jewish Mohels. Both of these protected concepts are anthema to anyone whose mind is not firmly rooted in the dark ages.
5) The removal of "the Angelus" from RTE broadcasting. Prohibition on any religious bradcasting by any state funded media outlet.
6) Zero recognition of non-state sanctioned marriages (and this is a consession people!) and the extention of marital or co-hobitation/dependency rights to couples entering into a specific legal contract.
7) All crimes deemed to be motivated by "religion" or "intolerance of religion" to be treated as the basic crimes that they are. the idea that one murder is worse than another because it was in the name of god is ridiculous (he same principal should be applied to all "hate crime" tbh).
... I guess thats it for now.
Cheers. Just some clarity on point 3. You would be ok with children being taught religion in school if the school is a 100% funded by the religion school? i.e. You wouldn't have a blanket ban on children being taught religion?0 -
-
Cheers. Just some clarity on point 3. You would be ok with children being taught religion in school if the school is a 100% funded by the religion school? i.e. You wouldn't have a blanket ban on children being taught religion?
My distaste for indoctrination of any kind makes me want to say that yes, it should be a blanket ban, but my libertarian politics make me say the opposite.
I personally feel irritated and often outraged by the entitlement to indoctrinate that many religious parents and teachers have. I galls me to think that young minds that could be focussing on looking outward to the stars or down microscopes to discover the eukaryotic cell are looking inwards for ghosts and upwards for fairies.
However, if it is not costing me anything and it is not interfering with me on any material level then I have no specific right or defence for interfering with those others. That I find it personally distasteful is not enough.
Should that school be used as a means to indoctrinate future Jihadi's or whatever their future Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist equivalents will be - then that is an entirely different matter.0 -
1) All "moral" and religiously based prohibitions to be lifted (on sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, profanity, blasphemy, alcohol, meat, prostitution, abortion etc).[/quoe]
Some of those prohibitions would have secular backing, and some on the left ( prostitution, for instance, not popular with a class of feminists)0 -
Advertisement
-
I galls me to think that young minds that could be focussing on looking outward to the stars or down microscopes to discover the eukaryotic cell are looking inwards for ghosts and upwards for fairies.
My science teacher was a Christian Brother. How do you like them Apples?0 -
My science teacher was a Christian Brother. How do you like them Apples?
Dont give a monkeys. He might have been able to parrot science to you but he also believed in things that he had no emperical evidence for. Not exactly a great personal standards of evidence. (assuming that your point was that he was a religious person).
As for "secular" aspects to the things I mentioned - you cant state that feminism is a purely secular motivation since its purpose was little to do with religion at all (and when it was it was about getting women ordained). The roots of the prostitution prohibition are to be found in the sanctamonious dribble of the old testament (for the most part) - most secular individuals are likely to be swayed by the abundant evidence that prostitution, properly regulated by government authorities is a benefit to the community and far less harmful to the women working in the industry than the anti-movement would have you believe (see: Amsterdam, Australia and Arizona)0 -
No to all your questions. Such authoritarianism is something I loathe about organised religion. I honestly believe atheism is a natural consequence of a comfortable educated life, and as such, such measures are not only undesirable but unnecessary.0
-
No to all your questions. Such authoritarianism is something I loathe about organised religion. I honestly believe atheism is a natural consequence of a comfortable educated life, and as such, such measures are not only undesirable but unnecessary.
So basically, leave 'em alone and hope they kop on?0 -
There is no specifically atheist utopia. Any atheist utopia is a pluralist utopia, tolerant of a diversity of religious faiths, but enacting provisions to ensure that no minority is unfairly treated.
The idea of using propaganda to dissuade theists from their beliefs is, frankly, not a good one. How indicative of the power of inappropriate propaganda that one of the main reasons for atheists being so irritated by religion is the superprevalence of religious propaganda. Seriously. That sort of thing will only entrench partisanry too. There's little more polarising than being the target of advertisements that don't speak to you - that miss their mark, so to speak, and leave you feeling annoyed that someone is directing this irritating message at you.
No. If there is to be a proper approach to a secularist utopia, with a grand regulating ideal of eventual abandonment of religious belief, that has to be a long term goal, and has to take into account not only diplomacy, but generational shifts in belief, and a long term engineering project on the zeitgeist of the society in question.
The best way to do this is by promoting dialogue. Not polarizing, partisan dialogue, such as we have today, but educated, substantive, communicative dialogue, wherein everyone involved approaches their disputant with a proper amount of respect for him. Such a dialogue, I believe, is something we must have a commitment to, a belief in, as solidly working against irrationality and factual incorrectness, since if everyone practices dialectical virtues, then they re the sorts of reasonable people who will abandon beliefs once they have been satisfactorily convinced of their incorrectness.
You inculcate said virtues in the populace via eduction. These are gifts, in themselves. There need be no surreptitiousness with which we install programmes selecting these virtues in schools. We teach children to be less ignorant. To consider critical thinking something natural and good. To argue, and to respect the views of their companions. To subject everything to a solid analysis. We teach philosophy, and familiarity with the perennial arguments. We give them knowledge of the scripture, so they know what it is, and we give them hermeneutics which contextualise scripture, etc. so that they don't have to appreciate it in a vacuum, or conform their reading to religious orthodoxy.
Religious belief doesn't magically disappear, in this system. But what you get is a populace far less prone to unsophisticated religious belief - a populace which is able to give reasons for its belief, and to discuss it openly, and without fear or persecution. A populace which listens to arguments, as should everyone, and which is willing to concede a point when it should.
Such a society, if it were possible, would, I believe - and this is a matter of "faith" for me - be in peak intellectual health (pace partisan, ignorant societies) and this would allow, over generations, for a vastly accelerated approach to the ideal of increased secularism.0 -
FionnMatthew wrote: »There is no specifically atheist utopia. Any atheist utopia is a pluralist utopia, tolerant of a diversity of religious faiths, but enacting provisions to ensure that no minority is unfairly treated.
The idea of using propaganda to dissuade theists from their beliefs is, frankly, not a good one. How indicative of the power of inappropriate propaganda that one of the main reasons for atheists being so irritated by religion is the superprevalence of religious propaganda. Seriously. That sort of thing will only entrench partisanry too. There's little more polarising than being the target of advertisements that don't speak to you - that miss their mark, so to speak, and leave you feeling annoyed that someone is directing this irritating message at you.
No. If there is to be a proper approach to a secularist utopia, with a grand regulating ideal of eventual abandonment of religious belief, that has to be a long term goal, and has to take into account not only diplomacy, but generational shifts in belief, and a long term engineering project on the zeitgeist of the society in question.
The best way to do this is by promoting dialogue. Not polarizing, partisan dialogue, such as we have today, but educated, substantive, communicative dialogue, wherein everyone involved approaches their disputant with a proper amount of respect for him. Such a dialogue, I believe, is something we must have a commitment to, a belief in, as solidly working against irrationality and factual incorrectness, since if everyone practices dialectical virtues, then they re the sorts of reasonable people who will abandon beliefs once they have been satisfactorily convinced of their incorrectness.
You inculcate said virtues in the populace via eduction. These are gifts, in themselves. There need be no surreptitiousness with which we install programmes selecting these virtues in schools. We teach children to be less ignorant. To consider critical thinking something natural and good. To argue, and to respect the views of their companions. To subject everything to a solid analysis. We teach philosophy, and familiarity with the perennial arguments. We give them knowledge of the scripture, so they know what it is, and we give them hermeneutics which contextualise scripture, etc. so that they don't have to appreciate it in a vacuum, or conform their reading to religious orthodoxy.
Religious belief doesn't magically disappear, in this system. But what you get is a populace far less prone to unsophisticated religious belief - a populace which is able to give reasons for its belief, and to discuss it openly, and without fear or persecution. A populace which listens to arguments, as should everyone, and which is willing to concede a point when it should.
Such a society, if it were possible, would, I believe - and this is a matter of "faith" for me - be in peak intellectual health (pace partisan, ignorant societies) and this would allow, over generations, for a vastly accelerated approach to the ideal of increased secularism.
My Cats breath smells of catfood:) Dictionary.com just crashed:)
Seriously though, good post. Thanks for the input.0 -
No to all your questions. Such authoritarianism is something I loathe about organised religion. I honestly believe atheism is a natural consequence of a comfortable educated life, and as such, such measures are not only undesirable but unnecessary.
So you wouldn't share Hiveminds view of what he considers religious based laws regarding Prostitution, abortion, sex, meat?:), pofanity, drugs etc?0 -
Some points bothered me.Hivemind187 wrote: »Loaded question but...
1) All "moral" and religiously based prohibitions to be lifted (on sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, profanity, blasphemy, alcohol, meat, prostitution, abortion etc).
Religiously based yes, but how is the lifting of bans on drug usage and some forms of abortion automatically in line with atheism? These are questions which go far beyond religion. There are moral and connected scientific arguments to consider.Hivemind187 wrote: »2) Taxation of all churches on their takings for each fiscal year in the same way as any other commercial venture.
Agreed.Hivemind187 wrote: »3) Prohibition of religious education in schools wherein those schools are not 100% funded by the church. To which I mean the indoctrination seen in state "religion" classes. I have no problem with "comparative religion" as a subject or even "theological studies" when discussed in terms of philosophy, history and archaeology. When it turns the corner into doctrine and positing any of it as "true" then it needs to stop.
Also agreed and very much essential.Hivemind187 wrote: »4) Removal of any special priviledges held by religion. The likes of with holding medical treatment from children because their parents believe it is gods will or the practice of circumcision by Jewish Mohels. Both of these protected concepts are anthema to anyone whose mind is not firmly rooted in the dark ages.
Witholding of medical treatment yes. Circumcision has a strong body of scientific evidence in its favour, however. That would require significant debate. Certainly if the rate of AIDS infection in your Utopia was high then it could be argued that the banning of circumcision would be unethical. An automatic ban based on its religious support would be no better than the religious banning of some of the things you listed in point 1.Hivemind187 wrote: »5) The removal of "the Angelus" from RTE broadcasting. Prohibition on any religious bradcasting by any state funded media outlet.
Even if they pay? Freedom of speech? The moment we ban dissent, however ludicrous, we strengthen it. Every time a creationist gets silenced by being fired, denied the right to broadcast or is otherwise censored, the creationists take a step forward.
We should have nothing to fear of religion, if we are up to the task of showing it to be meaningless.Hivemind187 wrote: »6) Zero recognition of non-state sanctioned marriages (and this is a consession people!) and the extention of marital or co-hobitation/dependency rights to couples entering into a specific legal contract..
Agreed. How about homsexuality and polygamous contracts?Hivemind187 wrote: »7) All crimes deemed to be motivated by "religion" or "intolerance of religion" to be treated as the basic crimes that they are. the idea that one murder is worse than another because it was in the name of god is ridiculous (he same principal should be applied to all "hate crime" tbh).
Agreed.0 -
Hivemind187 wrote: »Dont give a monkeys. He might have been able to parrot science to you but he also believed in things that he had no emperical evidence for. Not exactly a great personal standards of evidence. (assuming that your point was that he was a religious person).
Would you take issue with such a person teaching science in the Utopia?0 -
If atheism became the norm, and you were ruler of your own atheist country, would there be anything you'd change which would have an impact of how Christians practice their faith?
Such a question is loaded with the idea that I would be a dictator, rather than a democratic representative of the people, and since I would never want that it is difficult to give a serious answer.
I can tell you what I would like, ie what I would vote for and hope that others vote for it as well.
1) An American still of separation of Church and State, freedom of religion and freedom from religion. No laws or public policy can be introduced that advances the position of one religion or religion point of view at the expense of others (and atheism/scientisim/materialism etc isn't a religious point of view so this wouldn't be a reason to say ban evolution from class-rooms)
2) Establishment of a proper public school system (we don't have public schools in Ireland, just schools funded by the government and schools not funded by the government). All public schools must adhere to secular running, again freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
3) Removal of the privileged place Christianity has in the hospital system, while still recognising that access to religious services (as in facilities) is important to sick or dying people. All hospitals should attempt to facilitate private religious facilities on an equal footing, ie not the case where a Jewish person dying can only get access to a Catholic of CoI priest.
4) A serious rethink about how marriage is recognised by the State. The idea, protected by the Constitution, that the 2 heterosexual couples married raising children is the ideal state of being that should be encouraged and protected by the State is out dated. The incentive to get married, such as tax and legal authority, should be generalised out to recognise that there are far more diverse and complicated relationships going on in society at the moment. We should look at what the goals of these incentives are, rather that dictating what relationship should produce these goals. For example the automatic idea that married people should have different tax and legal rights simply because they are married because that is traditionally where people had children and we want to help people with children is a skewed way of looking at it. If we want to help people with children we should help people with children, rather than dictating that you should have children when married and that is where we will help you. A lot of the arguments that such and such should only be done in such and such relationship simply comes from the fact that we as a society only help people in these relationships.0 -
Advertisement
-
AtomicHorror wrote: »Would you take issue with such a person teaching science in the Utopia?
Depends on whats more important to them. Teaching the methodology and facts of science or using terms like "intelligent design" or "evolution is just a theory".
A person who holds religious beliefs that have no basis in fact, science or evidence but understands that these beiefs are held irrationally or in defiance of evidence but still teaches science without colouring it with their personal issues is fine.
The one who insists on teaching ID as a viable alternative to evolution or condemns "science" as immoral or any of the other seething gibberish we have seen pushed in classrooms should be prevented from teaching in any state funded school.
Personally? I would hope that science and its methodology would be taught well enough that a persons religious beliefs (if discovered) would have little baring on the assimiliation of information by students because they would be able to separate the two (fact supported by evidence and superstition).0 -
Yeah. I have problems with the way you expressed this too.All "moral" and religiously based prohibitions to be lifted (on sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, profanity, blasphemy, alcohol, meat, prostitution, abortion etc).
I don't think religious reasons for upholding any of these prohibitions are valid in a pluralist society.
But the objection to any of these things on, ostensibly, non-religious grounds is not prima facie incorrect.
For instance, there are plenty of classical, secular political discourses, that don't draw on religious discourse, which have something to say about these things. Classical rights talk, and the wider field of deontology, has a lot to say about this. The consequentialist tradition has a similar engagement with exactly these sorts of issues.
There are strong non-religious arguments for regulating sexual behaviour within society - for keeping the age of consent up, for instance, and for protecting minors from sexual attention.
The legality of drugs is certainly an issue, but not one I've seen in a religious light much.
On the issue of profanity, I'm pretty latitudinarian, but I do think there ought to be a certain standard of comportment and behaviour in society, which makes being in that society more pleasant. I don't see this in a religious context at all, but, for instance I would (and do) have a problem with some ridiculous scumbag bellowing "c*nt!" repeatedly and inarticulately in a public place, or making lewd comments about passing women, even irrespective of the harassment content of those comments.
In regard to blasphemy, I think that, so long as religious people hold their beliefs privately, and do not proseletyse, there ought to be public acknowledgement that those beliefs are deserving of a certain amount of respect. I don't see this in a religious light. It is obvious that religious matters are very important to religious people - being a central part of their person - something they hold very dear. I don't think rational and polite discourse ought to be debarred within society. I think discussion of religion is entirely permissable, and good, and ought to be supported. It's an issue of freedom of speech.
However, I think it's bad form for someone to go around deliberately trying to be as insulting as possible about another person's privately held belief. It's hard for atheists to appreciate just how close to the heart this stuff is. I think it's unnecessarily coarse and intellectually violent to be aggressively demeaning about another's religious beliefs. I am, for instance, a person who holds little respect for the idea of nationhood, and of flags, but I appreciate that there are those who hold these things so dear that I do not consider it a very admirable thing to go around demeaning, say, the Irish flag in the most awful ways, just because I know it would get up their noses. I feel the contempt that it has become fashionable to show theists borders on the lampoonery of elements of foreign cultures, or the cultures of minority groups, which we see in classical examples of racism and bigotry. The greedy Jew. The stupid Irishman. The stupid theist.
And I am not averse to a certain, nominal legal nod at that sort of decorum in public discourse, with regard to religious belief. The thought alarms me that such a thing could be taken advantage of to silence rational debate on religion, but it also seems to me that there ought to be a staunch and principled aversion within a pluralist, progressive society for the sort of cultural pogrom that we see in the ideals of current atheist thought. That does not appear, to me, to be the path of tolerance and reason. The scientific tradition and the academy in general tends towards certain ideals in the way even people who disagree with each other treat each other. Respect is a duty, not just a "how one feels" sort of thing. I think we could learn this better within public discourse pertaining to religion, as we have had to, painfully, in other areas, like race and gender.
As for alcohol, I've seen great evils wrought by alcohol on people I know. There are excellent non-religious reasons to be dubious about the consumption of alcohol. One is that, if we DO still have a public health system in the coming years, and even only in terms of organ donorship and supply, the rise in alcoholic hepatic and billiary disease coincident with the greater amount of expendable (read: drinkable) cash during the boom here in Ireland is going to cripple this country. I live in the city, and routinely wake in the night to hear bellowing idiots outside my window. The drinking habits of Dubliners really are disgraceful. If you have any respect for the intelligence of man, what goes on is awful. I think there's something wrong with this culture, and I think it's in the category of a mass pathology. And I think there is something of an ideological, cultural identification with drinking culture here that goes well beyond normal, and is, in many cases, as damaging to the individual and as socially hazardous as religious beliefs can become.
I presume by meat, you mean kosher and halal style meat prohibitions. But vegetarian arguments, though I am not a vegetarian myself, tend to be rather robust, and non-religious.
As for prostitution, there are plenty of non-religiously motivated arguments against that, and the same goes for abortion. I'm not necessarily down with them. But there is a lot more to social conservatism than simply religious dogma. The notions of decency, decorum, politeness, community, etc. These are not mere chimerae - and many of these ideas have some cash value in debates about prostitution and abortion. Furthermore, feminist arguments on abortion, prostitution and pornography are pretty strong, and interestingly don't covary with religious arguments, typically taking a stand against pornography, prostitution, etc, and for abortion rights for the individual, etc.
So I think these issues are a lot more complex. And I don't think we can debar people from having reasons to have one opinion or the other on these issues either. What I do take issue with is the public justification of this type of prohibition along religious grounds.0 -
Such a question is loaded with the idea that I would be a dictator, rather than a democratic representative of the people, and since I would never want that it is difficult to give a serious answer.
Not the intention. If you had a mandate from the people or whatever. I'm not looking to trap on technicalities. 'SEE I knew you were all Stalinists':)
Really, Just looking for what you would look for. Things in society you'd like to see happen, be it by democracy or whatever. You get the idea...........Adolf:)0 -
Erm pretend to be very religious, start cult, impose cult worship on your people...roll around in money!0
-
-
He has a point. If it was a predominately atheist society there is probably a massive gap in the market to start a new religion.0
-
-
A person who holds religious beliefs that have no basis in fact, science or evidence but understands that these beliefs are held irrationally or in defiance of evidence but still teaches science without colouring it with their personal issues is fine.
which pretty much describes science teaching in most standard ( non-fundamentalist) Christian societies for generations. Unless you think the 19th century had no science.
Honestly I find you guys hilarious. The way to have less problems with religion is not to ban it from proper society, but to promote less fundamental religion - Anglicanism, Catholicism ( which is, as practiced, a very mild religion and/or a cultural marker) etc.
The US you so love is the home of Christian fundamentalism. And I believe that that is not unrelated to the fact that religion is banned from normal political activities - like a church gathering at the local community hall. Not much freedom there ( and a total misreading by the Supreme Court of the original meaning of disestablishment).
The founder of Islamic Radicalism - Quytb - was reacting to US secularism, not to it's christianity.
And as for this:
2) Establishment of a proper public school system (we don't have public schools in Ireland, just schools funded by the government and schools not funded by the government). All public schools must adhere to secular running, again freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
3) Removal of the privileged place Christianity has in the hospital system, while still recognising that access to religious services (as in facilities) is important to sick or dying people. All hospitals should attempt to facilitate private religious facilities on an equal footing, i.e. not the case where a Jewish person dying can only get access to a Catholic of CoI priest.
Both institutions were better for the fact that they were religious. Religious schools - which never teach much religion - are better than comprehensives and there was no MSRA in religiously run schools. Lets not have comprehensives. They suck. THe ( effective) post-religious schools in Ireland have a much better academic record.
An the Angelus. The dividing line between sanity and lunacy, Clearly it is angry dogmatic Atheists that give a ****e, the rest of us ( normal atheists - I dont believe in God) not only dont care but kinda like it. Its traditional. In Japan there may be some Shinto popular festival on television. Not only would immigrants to Japan not get a damn, but Japan does not seem to have the very angry secularists who want to ban tradition. The sane amongst us like that fact that cultures are different and Ireland would, naturally, have had different religious traditions to Japan and is now expressing this, in a very light fashion, as a cultural marker. We are not the US.
I suspect that most ANGRY ATHEISTS are the very complement of the religions nuts the so despise, and in a different era would be the most religious - particularly they remind me of Puritans and Anabaptists during the reformation. Destroy the old. Replace it with banality.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »Religiously based yes, but how is the lifting of bans on drug usage and some forms of abortion automatically in line with atheism? These are questions which go far beyond religion. There are moral and connected scientific arguments to consider.
I took the OP to be a "personal" position on the issue, not a global one. And I maintian that a lot of these "prohibitions" are unreasonably enforced, against statistical evidence available form the statistics board of the US, the UK and Ireland (Austraila and Holland are trickier).AtomicHorror wrote: »Witholding of medical treatment yes. Circumcision has a strong body of scientific evidence in its favour, however. That would require significant debate. Certainly if the rate of AIDS infection in your Utopia was high then it could be argued that the banning of circumcision would be unethical. An automatic ban based on its religious support would be no better than the religious banning of some of the things you listed in point 1
Shopw me the scientific evidence favoring circumcision. Not being cheeky but I havent seen it and everything I have seen suggests that there is zero benefit and/or zero detriment. In other words, its waffle and mutilation without necessity.
(this does not include circumcisions due to a small number of medical discomfort complaints).AtomicHorror wrote: »Even if they pay? Freedom of speech? The moment we ban dissent, however ludicrous, we strengthen it. Every time a creationist gets silenced by being fired, denied the right to broadcast or is otherwise censored, the creationists take a step forward.
Hang on a minute here! there is freedom of speech and then their is propagandising for a chosen few. Show me the Judaic shows on RTE? What about the prime time Islam centric prgramming? What of the atheist, satanist, pagan, wiccan, Hindu, Buddhist etc pouint of view represented on the 6 o' clock shows bropadcast by the state?
I'm not saying deny their right to braodcast - but do it on an independant non-state funded network. Why should I pay for points of view I do not agree with regardless of freedom of speech? Why should I pony up for the right for a vested interest to profess their superstitions on a national network without contest?
The creationists dont take a step forward by being denied their right to un-contested propaganda.AtomicHorror wrote: »We should have nothing to fear of religion, if we are up to the task of showing it to be meaningless.
Personally I belive we have a lot to fear from religion with any fundamentalist position. any organisation who is capable of cnvincing themselves that great atrocities, whether religiously motivated or not, are justifiable in the name of unquestionable faith. is a danger to liberty, freedom and individualityAtomicHorror wrote: »Agreed. How about homsexuality and polygamous contracts?
yup. Nobody elses business but their own. I personally am opposed to the benfits of marriage but I am not fool enough to think they can be removed. No, I think the best option is to extend them to those who co-habit in any meaningful way.
"Meaningful" being too difficult to define right now (too tired).
Other than that, no issueswith your post.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hang on a minute here! there is freedom of speech and then their is propagandising for a chosen few. Show me the Judaic shows on RTE? What about the prime time Islam centric programing? What of the atheist, satanist, pagan, wiccan, Hindu, Buddhist etc point of view represented on the 6 o' clock shows broadcast by the state?
As I said the Angelus is traditional. And it is bells. Hardly propagandistic. Nor do most minority religions oppose it. Only MAD ANGRY SECULARISTS. And on the Jewish new year the Chief Rabbi of Ireland pops up on RTE to say a few words. In any case do you want this type of programming to be extended to all religions ( which may be the minority religious view), or to remove all religious programming entirely, which is the ANGRY SECULARIST view. I am partial to songs of praise on BBC on a Sunday. Want to ban that? Because it upsets you. Cry us a river.
As for the rest of your post it is hard to know what to do with this:Why should I pay for points of view I do not agree with regardless of freedom of speech?
It just cannot be parsed in any other way than you ( you personally?) do not believe that anybody opposing your politics should get on Television. The real libertarian view would be to oppose funding to RTE in the first place but seeing that it is there the political views of everybody, not just you need to be represented.
Hivemind has a very weak libertarian position - he is open to freedom of views unless the views are religious, or ( he decides) are influenced by religion. So even if the majority are opposed to prostitution ( say) and some of that is due to religious beliefs, and some not, the "Atheist Utopia" will still legalise prostitution, but ban priests opposed to legalisation from television.
About as libertarian as Stalin.0
Advertisement