Obama, Pastors & Illiberal Liberals

PDN

I saw this interesting piece in the Washington Post:

The Washington Post wrote:

Inauguration Week: Rick Warren Reaches Out to Gene Robinson
By Jacqui Salmon

The Rev. Rick Warren, the conservative evangelical minister who will deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration, has extended an olive branch to Bishop V. Gene Robinson.

Robinson, an openly gay Episcopal bishop, had reacted angrily to the selection of Warren, who opposes gay marriage, calling it a "slap in the face." But then Robinson was selected this week to give the invocation at the inaugural opening ceremony at the Sunday afternoon concert on the Mall.

Today, Warren issued a statement praising Obama for selecting Robinson, saying the president-elect "has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground. I applaud his desire to be the president of every citizen."

I like Warren's position in recognising that the new President should represent all Americans, not just those who agree with his views.

What I find interesting in all this is that Bishop Robinson (who likes to present himself as the voice of liberalism and toleration) is the one who wants to silence any theological viewpoint other than his own, whereas Warren (whom people attack as a bigot because of his evangelicalism) is the one praising Obama's diverse choices.

Interesting times that we live in.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

What I find interesting in all this is that Bishop Robinson (who likes to present himself as the voice of liberalism and toleration) is the one who wants to silence any theological viewpoint other than his own, whereas Warren (whom people attack as a bigot because of his evangelicalism) is the one praising Obama's diverse choices.

That's really misrepresenting the motivations here.

It would be fairer, I think, to say that Robinson is cheesed off at Warren for the latter's views on homosexuality, which Warren has publicly compared to incest and pedophilia (see here). It would be difficult to imagine the scale of the protest, not to say the derision, that would happen if Robinson, in response, were to say the same about Warren's sexual interests.

And neither do people "attack" Warren "as a bigot because of his evangelism". Rather, as the article above points out, people object to him referring to women who terminate pregnancies as "Nazis", and the general pro-choice position as being equivalent to "Holocaust denial". While Jews seem to be unhappy that he's publicly stated that they're going to "burn in hell". Promoters of equal rights don't like him telling women that they must submit to the will of their husbands, while, strangely, also speaking in favour of equal rights! Then there are the scientists and other members of the reality-based community object to his open support for creationism, while many more object to his public call for the US government to assassinate the President of Iran.

I suspect that most people object to Warren for the much simpler reason that his views appear to be those of a slightly confused, and occasionally rather obnoxious, man.

.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

And neither do people "attack" Warren "as a bigot because of his evangelism". Rather, as the article above points out, people object to him referring to women who terminate pregnancies as "Nazis", and the general pro-choice position as being equivalent to "Holocaust denial". While Jews seem to be unhappy that he's publicly stated that they're going to "burn in hell". Promoters of equal rights don't like him telling women that they must submit to the will of their husbands, while, strangely, also speaking in favour of equal rights! Then there are the scientists and other members of the reality-based community object to his open support for creationism, while many more object to his public call for the US government to assassinate the President of Iran.

I suspect that most people object to Warren for the much simpler reason that his views appear to be those of a slightly confused, and occasionally rather obnoxious, man.

.

Certainly a meeting of groups not offended by Warren wouldn't need a large hall for the event. The fair thing to do would to hold a multi-faith ceremony with everybody having a turn, thus making sure everyone gets offended in turn by everybody else. Or scrap the religous element.

studiorat

That Inauguration is a bloody circus, nothing more.

These two guys are at each others throats and now Warren is applauding Obama's choice of the gay bishop for the inaugural prayer. I doubt that very much.

Obamas confusion in this matter should not be applauded. But then again Obama is no stranger to cynical use of preachers for his own gain.
Let's remember he sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. Obama even used the title of his book from one of Wright's sermons and then dropped him like a hot brick when he became a political liability.

It would look like Warren's invitation is payback for the presidential forum he held at Saddleback, Warren helped get Obama elected and the new president understands there is still evangelical gold in them there hills. He needs their support on issues such as climate change.

Also, Warren's PR company certainly earned their money this last few weeks. Since the Warren inauguration controversy, the nature of his work against AIDS in Africa has gone unexamined, lucky him.

The United Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa,commented that Warren and his allies actions were "resulting in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred."

His allies stunts have included burning condoms in the name of Jesus and arranging the publication of names of homosexuals in local newspapers while lobbying to imprison them.

report by Human Rights Watch documented educational material in Uganda's secondary schools falsely claiming condoms had microscopic pores that could be penetrated by the AIDS virus and noted the sudden nationwide shortage of condoms due to new restrictions imposed on condom imports.

As long as he's running around Washington,out of harm's way and not displaying his missionary zeal in Uganda and Rwanda I'll be happy enough.

For the ceremonies themselves, Robinson doesn't yet know what he'll say, but he knows he won't use a Bible:
"While that is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans," Robinson said. "I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer. This is a prayer for the whole nation."
Will Warren be as gracious?

Húrin

People should leave Robinson alone, he's always getting attacked.

At the same time, I do tire of people on either side blowing up the homosexuality issues to an unwarranted level of importance.

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

Bishop Robinson (who likes to present himself as the voice of liberalism and toleration) is the one who wants to silence any theological viewpoint other than his own.

back again...
I don't see any evidence for this, how do you make out he want's to silence anybody? Would you like to support this, please.

Interview with Robinson

PDN

robindch wrote: »

That's really misrepresenting the motivations here.

It would be fairer, I think, to say that Robinson is cheesed off at Warren for the latter's views on homosexuality, which Warren has publicly compared to incest and pedophilia (see here). It would be difficult to imagine the scale of the protest, not to say the derision, that would happen if Robinson, in response, were to say the same about Warren's sexual interests.

Have you got a source for this (apart from a hysterical rant by an unbalanced journalist)? I have googled this and all I can find is a youtube clip which is repeatedly & falsely claimed to show Warren making that comparison.

However, when I viewed the clip what I actually saw & heard was Warren making the following statements:
a) That he believes divorce to be a much greater threat to American families than homosexual marriage.
b) That gossip is every bit as much of a sin as homosexual acts, and that it is wrong to zero in on one and ignore the other (as many christians do).
c) That he believes homosexual couples should have legally recognised civil unions with the same partnership benefits & pension or insurance rights etc. as heterosexual couples.
d) That he does not believe that the word 'marriage' should be redefined, but should retain its traditional meaning of a union between one man and one woman.
e) He then gives examples of things that do not fit in the traditional understanding of marriage, including a brother marrying his sister or an older man marrying a child.

Now, there is no moral equivalence or comparison made between those actions and homosexuality. This is yet another example of downright lying by those who object to the biblical view on homosexuality. I have experienced it myself in a thread on this board when the same lie was directed at me.

If I made a statement saying, "We should obey the law in all things. Jay walking is against the law, so we should not do it. Murder is against the law, so we should not do it." I am not comparing the two acts, nor am I insinuating that they are equal. I am simply saying that we should obey the law both in respect to big issues and seemingly insignificant issues."

Warren is saying that he believes marriage should not be redefined. It should not be redefined to include socially unacceptable things like incest or paedophilia, nor should it be redefined to include socially acceptable things like homosexual acts. He's all for civil unions, but he doesn't want to call them 'marriage'.

Now, people are free to diagree with Warren on that issue - but they are no free to tell blatant lies. So, I would ask that if posters repeat Statements like this they back them up with sources, otherwise you are lying as well.

The only thing Warren compared homosexuality to was gossip - but that isn't going to create headlines as easily as lying slurs.

And neither do people "attack" Warren "as a bigot because of his evangelism".

If you're going to put quotation marks around my words then please do me the courtesy of quoting me correctly. Nobody mentioned his 'evangelism'. I referred to his evangelicalism. He holds normal evangelical views on homosexuality (not hatred, but incompatible with Christianity or a traditional definition of marriage) and abortion (killing babies with a loss of human life greater than the Holocaust).

Neither did I see Warren making any public call for the President of Iran to be assassinated. I saw him starting to make a reasoned response which began with stating that the Bible justifies the punishment of evildoers, then he was cut off by a loud mouthed right wing interviewer who began rambling about King David. Unfortunately we never got to hear in what context the Iranian President could be punished, because it ended up becoming a discussion on whether you can kill someone in self defence as when they break into your home. At no stage did he make any public call for anyone to be assassinated.

I suspect that most people object to Warren for the much simpler reason that his views appear to be those of a slightly confused, and occasionally rather obnoxious, man.

I don't think most people object to Warren at all. The objections come from a highly vocal group of people who appear to be too stupid to read a transcript of an interview or hear what a man actually says, or are simply so dishonest that they will stoop to telling blatant lies.

Fanny Cradock

Got a source for that?

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

These two guys are at each others throats and now Warren is applauding Obama's choice of the gay bishop for the inaugural prayer. I doubt that very much.

To say that two guys are at each other's throats would, to most of us, mean that they have been attacking each other.

Can you cite me some of these examples where Rick Warren has attacked Gene Robinson? Even one example would be a start.

The United Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa,commented that Warren and his allies actions were "resulting in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred."

Personally I don't agree with Warren's strategy in Uganda concerning AIDS. I'm glad he's doing something, but I wish it would include a greater element of condom distribution. It also sounds to me like he's chosen a rather unsavoury character to work with on the ground.

But it's funny, when I google that UN quotation it brings up a New York Times article from 2005 that does not mention Rick Warren at all but rather states that the quote in question was directed at the Bush administration.

For the ceremonies themselves, Robinson doesn't yet know what he'll say, but he knows he won't use a Bible:
"While that is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans," Robinson said. "I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer. This is a prayer for the whole nation."
Will Warren be as gracious?

Appeasement ≠ Graciousness.

back again...
I don't see any evidence for this, how do you make out he want's to silence anybody? Would you like to support this, please.

He objects to Warren being allowed to speak at the inauguration because of Warren's theological stance on homosexual acts.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

What I find interesting in all this is that Bishop Robinson (who likes to present himself as the voice of liberalism and toleration) is the one who wants to silence any theological viewpoint other than his own

Bishop Robinson wants to "silence" all theological viewpoints but his own?

I don't know much about Bishop Robinson, other than him being openly gay and a supporter of Obama, do you have anything to support the idea that Robinson is interested in, or leading a campaign, to silence all theological viewpoints other than his own?

Does he have a website calling for this or something?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

He objects to Warren being allowed to speak at the inauguration because of Warren's theological stance on homosexual acts.

LOL :rolleyes:

You make that sound like Warren is having his freedom of speech rights oppressed. .

This seems to be a mountain out of a mole hill, a trumped up reason to be outraged.

It is hardly surprising that liberal Obama supporters are not pleased with Obama choosing someone who they feel doesn't represent their views or the views of Obama that they voted for, speaking at his address.

How you turn this is into some claim of religious or speech oppression, or that they want to silence all opposing view points, is beyond me.

studiorat

Warren's public offering of his church to those who left Robinson's congregation while not an outright attack is an fine example of showboating and one-up-man-ship IMO. As was Robinson's "not my god" comment. I personally have little regard for either.
.
The quote comes from an article from a Max Blumental, or at least that's where I got it, it's all over the net in various parts at this stage. Warren began his partnership with Ssempa in 2002 afaik. He seems to have little trouble working with this man, no doubt he's aware of his past tactics. This is a concern I think.

If you can help me with an adjective for appeasment I'll edit the post. I wonder will Warren be as appeasing. How's that?

I had a look at the famous interview btw,
Warren said, he was opposed to brother and sister getting married, men and boys getting married and polygamy. When then asked does he see that as the same as gay marriage. He replies "Oh, I do!" What I find most interesting however is how he continues and how quickly he associates this train of thought with Aids.

In another interview, Warren said that “it doesn’t matter” whether or not homosexuality is “part of your biology”; it’s still wrong. Attempting to explain , he compared accepting one’s homosexuality to being “naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see.”

philologos

Warren didn't say that. What he did was say that he would offer his church to any conservative Anglicans who fall into disagreement with the Episcopal Church, which I think is a nice gesture.

I’ve been on Gene Robinson and other’s attack list for my position on gay marriage. ....[Our] brothers and sisters here at St. James in Newport Beach lost their California State Supreme Court case to keep their property.
We stand in solidarity with them, and with all orthodox, evangelical Anglicans. I offer the campus of Saddleback Church to any Anglican congregation who need a place to meet, or if you want to plant a new congregation in south Orange County.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2009&base_name=rick_warrens_meddling_with_gen

To me that seems a nice thing to offer, and this is from a rather critical article. As an Anglican personally I think that the Episcopal Church should be offering to work with people who disagree with them on homosexuality instead of against them.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

If you're going to put quotation marks around my words then please do me the courtesy of quoting me correctly.

Humble apologies for mis-typing "evangelicism" as "evangelism".

PDN wrote: »

Now, people are free to diagree with Warren on that issue - but they are no free to tell blatant lies. So, I would ask that if posters repeat Statements like this they back them up with sources, otherwise you are lying as well.

I've certainly backed up my claims with several sources -- could you do the same for your claim that Robinson wants to "silence any theological viewpoint other than his own"?

studiorat

Either way his nice gesture is politiking IMO.

The Court said it wasn't their property BTW. They Lost...

Maybe the people who disagree on homosexuality should be the ones offering to work with the Epsipolcal church.

philologos

studiorat: I can see why they disagree though, and I don't think the Episcopal Church should have gone this far, when the church is still a full part of the global Anglican communion.

Anyhow, I think Rick Warren's gesture was a decent one to fellow Christians, and I don't think it has anything to do with Gene Robinson. He just disagrees with the current Episcopal policy, and that's fair enough. It is more to do with him and the Episcopal Church, and if they have an issue with him doing this, that is for them to resolve.

studiorat

I'll submit to your superior knowledge on the finer details of the apparent schism. (for want of a better word)

However given Warren's political manovering past and present I cannot but be cynical about his motives and the obvious political motivation behind his and Robinsons role in the whole circus.

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

Warren's public offering of his church to those who left Robinson's congregation while not an outright attack is an fine example of showboating and one-up-man-ship IMO. As was Robinson's "not my god" comment. I personally have little regard for either.

No, I didn't ask you for examples of show-boating. I asked you for even one example of where Warren has been at Bishop Robinson's throat. Again, if you're going to make such a claim then you should have plenty of examples of Warren attacking Robinson. Just one would suffice for the purposes of this debate, otherwise you are the one doing the showboating.

If you can help me with an adjective for appeasment I'll edit the post. I wonder will Warren be as appeasing. How's that?

An adjective for 'appeasement' would be 'lily-livered' (in Warren's case) because the Bible is key to who and what he is. In Robinson's case I don't think it's graciousness or appeasement, because it's not like the Bible is very important to him anyway.

Obama's Presidency represents diversity. Diversity does not mean everyone pretending to be the same, but rather people to celebrate their differences. His train journey to Washington included a Black Gospel Choir singing in Baltimore. For them to pretend to be white, or to sing songs that studiously avoid mentioning God, would defeat the whole point of celebrating diversity.

Rick Warren is part of that diversity because he represents a huge swathe of Americans (including Obama himself) who believe the Bible has an important place in their lives. Of course some people disagree with him - fundamentalist Baptists detest Warren - but diversity by its very nature does not try to be bland. Bishop Robinson is also part of that diversity, and, while I disagree with Robinson profoundly, I applaud Obama's courage in choosing him to participate in the inauguration events. I don't expect Robinson to hide his homosexuality and I don't expect Warren to hide his Bible.

The point is that Warren, by applauding Robinson's inclusion, understands the whole diversity thing. Robinson, by attacking Warren's inclusion, hasn't.

I had a look at the famous interview btw,
Warren said, he was opposed to brother and sister getting married, men and boys getting married and polygamy. When then asked does he see that as the same as gay marriage. He replies "Oh, I do!" What I find most interesting however is how he continues and how quickly he associates this train of thought with Aids.

As your own quote makes clear, he was not speaking about homosexuality per se but specifically about gay marriage. And, as soon as he said "I do" he went on to stress what he meant, that they are the same in that they are attempts to redefine marriage to something other than its traditional meaning.

Then he went on to talk about AIDS because this is the context in which he and his church has most contact with homosexuals, in helping and caring for those who have AIDS.

In another interview, Warren said that “it doesn’t matter” whether or not homosexuality is “part of your biology”; it’s still wrong. Attempting to explain , he compared accepting one’s homosexuality to being “naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see.”

And he's making a very valid point, that the issue is not your inclination but how you act on that inclination. Only a moron or a liar would attempt to transform that into some kind of homophobic statement.

Robin wrote:

I've certainly backed up my claims with several sources -- could you do the same for your claim that Robinson wants to "silence any theological viewpoint other than his own"?

The point of sources is that they are supposed to be sources for the claims you are making, not saying something different.

The only source you cited that actually agrees with your claims is an opinion piece by a journalist that is long on bile and hysteria but short on facts. I could just as easily cite an article by Mary Kenny as a source for saying that an atheist bus will promote child abuse.

However, I, for one, am happy to admit when I am wrong. My statement about Robinson wanting to "silence any theological viewpoint than his own" was a gross exaggeration. I'm sure he would be quite happy for Muslims, Hindus, pagans, or indeed anyone other than an evangelical pastor to participate in the inauguration. He specifically wants to silence Warren from speaking at the inauguration because Warren holds a particular theological opinion that he disagrees with. Warren, on the other hand, supports Robinson's choice to speak at an inauguration event precisely because of their disagreement on that particular issue. One of them gets the point of diversity and toleration while the other doesn't.

philologos

studiorat: St. John's grounds had also been 100% owned by it's parishioners, so I do see the verdict of this trial to be grossly unfair.

studiorat

PDN, you are the one who is suggesting there is personal attacks taking place. I said they were at each others throats. In a frame of discussion, they are. That is to say the discussion is heated to say the least. In two posts you’ve completely dropped our debate and seem bent on asking me to provide a citation on a point that you in fact made up your self. I would say we are each others throats right now yet there have’nt been any personal attacks, yet…

Both Warren and Robinson are lily-livered imo. However I do respect Robinson for speaking out despite death threats against him.

If Warren had a bit more conviction and as he says loves and respects all. He wouldn't be dealing with the likes of Ssempra, unless of course he condones Ssempras actions. There are plenty of other aid workers in the region.

Robinson is right in his call to re-evaluate the bible. Warren and most people who use the bible as their moral compass choose to obey and ignore it’s text as they see fit.

The Bible says you must not wear garments made from 2 kinds of material, I’m sure all parties here regularly break that rule.

The Bible says you must not let 2 kinds of animals breed, for years we have bred horses and donkeys.

The Bible says that we must not receive interest on money.

Jesus forbids divorce, yet Christians divorce all the time.

Women must not speak in church, if they have a question they must ask their husbands. There’s even women clergy.

The lists goes on…

Why can the cases I’ve illustrated here be ignored and Robinson’s case not?
If they are all the word of God why is one obeyed and one isn’t?

Anyway, I don’t know what nonsense you are talking about Gospel choirs pretending to be white, it’s a moot point. However it would seem to represent only Christian diversity. Frankly I think the whole thing is a circus anyway. I’d be more concerned as to whether Obama can do his job rather than which particular flavor of Christian he chooses to kick off the party.

However, I don’t think Warren represents Obama himself as you state. They were in fact on opposite sides on the Prop 8 issue. I’m sure Warren would like to think so but I doubt if Obama would concur. I've already stated how Obama will use each pastor as he finds useful to himself. Warren and Robinson are no exception.
Warren by applauding Robinson's choice is merely taking the moral high ground. We both know he is a capable politician and is acutely aware
of how this will present him to the media. As you like to say so often yourself, only a fool would see it any other way.

The statement that he and his church mostly meet homosexuals through working with people with AIDS is absolute fiction on your behalf, though. Warren frequently goes out of his way to suggest that he has many gay friends, and he and his wife dine with them regularly. Giving the “water and doughnuts” to protesters is just another example of the pious and sanctimonious postition in which he views himself. “No, you can’t have equal rights, here, have a dough-nut instead”

I'm astounded PDN, at the way you can retract a statement of gross exaggeration in your closing paragraph and yet replace that statement with a similar statement the next sentence.

---

Jakass: that unfortunately is the nature of the law, someone wins someone looses. If they feel out-done they may be able to bring the case up again. Maybe Warren will put his money where his mouth is, and help them.

Hivemind187

I'm wondering why the real issue here isnt "Why, in a nation who has a separation of church and state, is there an argument over which religious leader is getting speak."

Should it not be abhorrent that ANY religious leader is asked to thump their chest in the name of their chosen deity? Are they going to say that Obama was put their by god thus undermining the whole point of holding a democratic election? Will Obama say that "God is on our side" or some variation of that comment?

Isnt it weird how there has never been an General who stood before his army on the morning of a battle and said "Last night while I was at prayer, the lord came to me and spoke ... and I'm afraid he's backing the Turks on this one"?

Warren has put his foot in it there is no doubt and considering that the politics between himself and Robinson are similar to those between the Democrats and Republicans I'm not suprised that Robinson was peeved.

philologos

Warren was invited by Obama, so I don't see how possibly he has put his foot in.

It might be abhorrent to you, however I think it's quite positive that America is more open about faith than in Europe which is often rather cold towards it. Infact in some ways I think Europe could learn some lessons in that respect.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

Warren was invited by Obama, so I don't see how possibly he has put his foot in.

I meant in relation to his commentary in the media, I'll make it clearer next time.

Jakkass wrote: »

It might be abhorrent to you, however I think it's quite positive that America is more open about faith than in Europe which is often rather cold towards it. Infact in some ways I think Europe could learn some lessons in that respect.

Havent read the bit about separation of church and state then? Its supposed to be a fundamental principal of the office of the President and the government of the US.

I will repeat my point.

A secular government in a nation with a clear separation of church and state why is there any requirement or invitation to the religious to pass comment or to speak on behalf of a man elected by the people of that nation?

philologos

The separation of church and state can be taken too far. I personally would see it as religious institutions having direct impact in lawmaking and so on, not in relation to who Obama would want to speak at his inauguration. I think people want to take "separation of church and state" further than it was ever intended to be, such as the headscarf ban in Turkish universities, or the banning of religious symbols in French schools. This seems more a plan to ostracise people of faith rather than to keep the State separate from religion.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

The separation of church and state can be taken too far. I personally would see it as religious institutions having direct impact in lawmaking and so on, not in relation to who Obama would want to speak at his inauguration. I think people want to take "separation of church and state" further than it was ever intended to be, such as the headscarf ban in Turkish universities, or the banning of religious symbols in French schools. This seems more a plan to ostracise people of faith rather than to keep the State separate from religion.

Either they are separate without leaning on one another or they are not.

No one is trying to ostracise anyone. They separate themselves by choosing to follow certain dogmatic principals that are individual to their belief system.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

My statement about Robinson wanting to "silence any theological viewpoint than his own" was a gross exaggeration.

Good to hear.

PDN wrote: »

The only source you cited that actually agrees with your claims is an opinion piece by a journalist that is long on bile and hysteria but short on facts.

Well, let's look at the transcript of the video in which Warren supports Hannity's call to assassinate the President of Iran:

Hannity and Warren wrote:

Hannity: Can you talk to rogue dictators? Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, wants to wipe Israel off the map, is seeking nuclear weapons.
Warren: Yeah.
Hannity: I think we need to take him out.
Warren: Yeah.
Hannity: Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?
Warren: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe.
Hannity: By force?
Warren: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers.

While it's not the "public call" that I mentioned above, since Hannity was the man who brought up the topic of assassinating the Iranian President, Warren was still the man who agreed with Hannity when he had a chance to register a vigorous dissent. Warren then reinforced Hannity's point by explaining that such a state-sponsored murder was actually fully supported by Warren's own personal interpretation of his own chosen religious text.

PDN wrote: »

He specifically wants to silence Warren from speaking at the inauguration because Warren holds a particular theological opinion that he disagrees with.

Which is a reasonable thing to think if you believe -- as you appear to -- that the right to say whatever you like, is more important than the right for people to live without prejudice.

As I said above, one could hardly imagine the howl that would go up if Robinson described Warren's sexual interests in the same terms that Warren described Robinson's.

Or indeed, imagine there were a worldwide religion that declared openly that while being a christian was ok, the act of practicing christianity was a moral abomination and equivalent to incest. It is possible to describe such a declaration as a "theological opinion" and hope that everybody would file it in the same criticism-free region of their brains traditionally reserved for other peoples' religious opinions, but I suspect that's really quite unlikely.

PDN wrote: »

One of them gets the point of diversity and toleration while the other doesn't.

As you have pointed out yourself once or twice, toleration does not extend to letting people get away with anti-social behavior or anti-social crowd-mongering. Or in this case, agreeing that it's the god-given duty of the US government to assassinate the President of Iran.

philologos

The French system currently isn't tolerant to Muslims and Sikhs in particular, and quite honestly it doesn't make for a society where it is comfortable for Muslims and Sikhs to live in amongst others I am sure. I thought secularism was meant to welcome freedom of religion and freedom of expression, part of this would fall into the way that people dress.

Either they are separate or they or not, in terms of lawmaking they are. It is only the view of individuals who get elected, the church has no direct involvement in political decisions apart from believers who happen to get elected. It is a misinterpretation in my opinion of what "separation of church and state" actually means if you are to ban individuals from expressing their faith even if they are the President of the USA.

Tim Robbins

Nodin wrote: »

Certainly a meeting of groups not offended by Warren wouldn't need a large hall for the event. The fair thing to do would to hold a multi-faith ceremony with everybody having a turn, thus making sure everyone gets offended in turn by everybody else. Or scrap the religous element.

Could you imagine if he invited Sam Harris?

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

Either they are separate or they or not, in terms of lawmaking they are. It is only the view of individuals who get elected, the church has no direct involvement in political decisions apart from believers who happen to get elected. It is a misinterpretation in my opinion of what "separation of church and state" actually means if you are to ban individuals from expressing their faith even if they are the President of the USA.

I see it as imprecise use of the English language. Perhaps we should just refer to it as "Separation of Church from State's legislation process". As to you, PDN etc that's exactly what it means.

To other people's it also means,
"Separation of Church from State's ceremonies".

You could argue about the original meaning of the phrase, but you could counter that by the original meaning of the word "state".

I am not weakest link, hello.

Fanny Cradock

Jakkass wrote: »

Warren was invited by Obama, so I don't see how possibly he has put his foot in.

It might be abhorrent to you, however I think it's quite positive that America is more open about faith than in Europe which is often rather cold towards it. Infact in some ways I think Europe could learn some lessons in that respect.

Indeed! In Europe it would seem like political suicide to admit that faith has any prominence in your lie. Whatever your feelings towards Tony Blair - I'm inclined to think that an otherwise excellent couple of turns in office has been overshadowed by his horribly misguided decision to go to war - it is telling that his final conversion to RC was forestalled when he was in office, spoken only of in hushed tones. I can only imagine that such an admission was not considered politically expedient.

Nodin

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I can only imagine that such an admission was not considered politically expedient.

...or to avoid the number of remarks that would be made about him choosing a church that had the sacrament of confession.

Phototoxin

It might be abhorrent to you, however I think it's quite positive that America is more open about faith than in Europe which is often rather cold towards it. Infact in some ways I think Europe could learn some lessons in that respect.

i would see america as being choked by faith. They think they are the chosen of God or something and so they do whatever they want and take whatever they want. While they admirably try to incorporate thier religion into everything sometimes its not right to do so as some people may disagree.

Also re the OP and pro-choice 'nazis' while the nazis sterlisied many women, Hitler initially forbade abortion as he wanted more little Aryans running around!

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

The French system currently isn't tolerant to Muslims and Sikhs in particular, and quite honestly it doesn't make for a society where it is comfortable for Muslims and Sikhs to live in amongst others I am sure. I thought secularism was meant to welcome freedom of religion and freedom of expression, part of this would fall into the way that people dress.

They choose to affect the trappings of their religion and this may be offensive to people who believe that Christians are a heretical sect of Judaism or that the wearing of a yamacha (sp?) is a reminder of those who bare the blood liable for the killing of christ. Those persons are forcing other who hold other beliefs to confront such items on a daily basis - what of their rights? Same thing for Sikhs and Muslims and everyone else. You want to be in the police force but wear your turban? Tough luck! The helmet is there to protect your bonce from a pummeling from angry crusties.

Jakkass wrote: »

Either they are separate or they or not, in terms of lawmaking they are. It is only the view of individuals who get elected, the church has no direct involvement in political decisions apart from believers who happen to get elected. It is a misinterpretation in my opinion of what "separation of church and state" actually means if you are to ban individuals from expressing their faith even if they are the President of the USA.

Schools. Nothing to do with legislation and the church is kept out of their by dint of secular and legal resistance.

Government funding. Its unethical to hand over money to a group who have a specific agenda to push or to restrict funding to those who are not on the list of approved religions. This has happened and it has been cause of criticism for both Bushes, Regan and Clinton. The reason? Because that money is collected from the people and is to be used for their benefit, not the benefit of a vested interest group.

Fanny Cradock

Nodin wrote: »

...or to avoid the number of remarks that would be made about him choosing a church that had the sacrament of confession.

One can safely assume that he wasn't immune from such remarks even before he 'outed' himself as a Catholic.

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote: »

They choose to affect the trappings of their religion and this may be offensive to people who believe that Christians are a heretical sect of Judaism or that the wearing of a yamacha (sp?) is a reminder of those who bare the blood liable for the killing of christ. Those persons are forcing other who hold other beliefs to confront such items on a daily basis - what of their rights? Same thing for Sikhs and Muslims and everyone else. You want to be in the police force but wear your turban? Tough luck! The helmet is there to protect your bonce from a pummeling from angry crusties.

It's still supporting that your rights will be restricted if you believe certain things. I cannot and I will not support this. This is aggressive secularism that causes people of faith to be pushed aside, and I don't want to live in a country like you are describing. Jews should have every right to wear a kippah or a yarmulke, and it isn't offensive to Christians. I respect the Jews, because they were a light to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. They should have their freedoms to practice, as I should have mine. As for the Sikhs being rejected for the police force due to wearing a turban, I utterly oppose that move to, it doesn't encourage social cohesion but rather ostracising of those who do not follow the same beliefs concerning religious symbols as others. This isn't what secularism was originally intended to do, this is just abuse. Although I do not wear a turban, or wear a kippah, I do support peoples rights to wear either of those things. I do wear a crucifix occasionally, but it is not essential to my faith to do so, so I would be quite happy to remove it, but for Sikhs and Muslims it is a key tenet of their faith, and I'm not happy to exclude people from civil society and the police because they do not conform to our view.

I think there is a form of helmet that can be integrated with the turbans, or there must be given that turbans are welcomed in many police forces in the USA, Canada and the UK in particular.

Tough luck doesn't cut it, we have a responsibility to other people. Just because you do not believe what they believe doesn't mean you have any right to restrict or ostracise people.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Schools. Nothing to do with legislation and the church is kept out of their by dint of secular and legal resistance.

If secular resistance discourages the rights of Sikhs, Muslims and others to wear religious symbols, then I remain clearly opposed. Nobody has a right to ostracise other people, and nobody has a right to restrict what people can do legally based on their beliefs.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Government funding. Its unethical to hand over money to a group who have a specific agenda to push or to restrict funding to those who are not on the list of approved religions. This has happened and it has been cause of criticism for both Bushes, Regan and Clinton. The reason? Because that money is collected from the people and is to be used for their benefit, not the benefit of a vested interest group.

Based on what degree of ethics? This declaration of unethical would imply a universal morality, and that you are appealing to this morality in some way for me to also see it as unethical? Unethical? Certainly not it's only right and proper that such organisations which have fulfilled people spiritually, philosophically and in other ways be recognised by the State. The same tax benefits (as far as I know) go to secular humanist associations, and if it doesn't it should in my opinion. The Church doesn't profit, it takes donations that's rather different and much of said donations go to charitable project. (I know this is true especially of the Anglican church).

I have no dispute with either of the Bushes, Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton in how they dealt with religion within the United States.

Nodin

Hivemind187 wrote:

They choose to affect the trappings of their religion and this may be offensive to people who believe that Christians are a heretical sect of Judaism or that the wearing of a yamacha (sp?) is a reminder of those who bare the blood liable for the killing of christ. Those persons are forcing other who hold other beliefs to confront such items on a daily basis - what of their rights?.

...but thats the kind of "O NOES!!" easily offended nonsense that goes on on Joe Duffy. Who gives a rats ass what anyone believes or looks like. It doesn't say much of somebodys faith or lack thereof if its so weak and humourless it can't stand the sight of another. Thats like the constant editing of your sig.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's still supporting that your rights will be restricted if you believe certain things.(.............)ise people. .

Indeed. Each unto their own. Certainly my idea of "secular" has never been to stop people doing anything, but to remove religon as integral to the state. The individual should have freedom of expression artistically, politicaly, sexually and in matters of faith and religon, with as few exceptions as possible.

Hivemind187

Nodin wrote: »

...but thats the kind of "O NOES!!" easily offended nonsense that goes on on Joe Duffy. Who gives a rats ass what anyone believes or looks like. It doesn't say much of somebodys faith or lack thereof if its so weak and humourless it can't stand the sight of another. Thats like the constant editing of your sig.

That was kind of my point.

The trouble is that the urge to protect the so-called freedom to worship is often only the freedom to worship approved things. In other words, I could have an irrational belief that says that I must drive in the opposite lane of traffic and because it is my religioous conviction, by your standards I should have every right to do so. However, other drivers may feel differently and may take offense at having a volkswagen baring down on them when everyone else on the road has agreed which side they will drive on.

The same thing is applicable here. If, for example, I were in school and I believed the Jews to by Christ killers and was very Mel Gibson about the whole thing I might be inclined to attempt to "save their souls" by converting them to christianity. Is this not offensive to Jews? But is it not my right to express myself in whatever manner I so choose? Whose rights get protected in these circumstances?

What if the presence of Muslims in a school causes offense or upset etc to Jews and Christians - especially after some ludicrous suicide attack. The wearing of the veils etc is a reminder to some that these people are heretics or not of the same faith and it can be construed as offensive.

Or does this kind of carry on have no place in schools, hospitals, congress, courts etc?

Franky while you can say that people should be able to tolerate certain things - they clearly can't or wont. The result is you get people demanding that all faiths be respected which is impossible since many faiths are dedicated to opposing one another even within the Abrahamic religions. Its a bit of a no win situation when you allow these things to be presented so why not clear up the issue - at least in places where everyone is paying for it by removing the trappings of religion?

Nodin wrote: »

Indeed. Each unto their own. Certainly my idea of "secular" has never been to stop people doing anything, but to remove religon as integral to the state. The individual should have freedom of expression artistically, politicaly, sexually and in matters of faith and religon, with as few exceptions as possible.

Well thats very idealistic but it doesnt coutn for peanuts in reality.

The point of a secular society is that if we all pay - christian, muslim, jew, atheist, scientologist, mormon - for the state. That state should in no way favor one religions ideals over another. No taxation without representation.

As such, the only fair way is to represent all faiths simoultaneously or no faiths as consensus.

Representing all faiths simoultaneously is an absurdity by dint of time, scheduling and their own irritability towards one another (who goes first? Who shares a stage with whom? etc etc etc).

Therefore, the only logical and rational poisition to take is to have no references to faith or religion, no investment or funding in religious groups and to ensure that the integrity of separation of religion and state remains.

It has nothing to do with preventing people expressing themselves in public, on the train, in the park, in their home, on the commercial (non-state) media etc

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

Based on what degree of ethics? This declaration of unethical would imply a universal morality, and that you are appealing to this morality in some way for me to also see it as unethical? Unethical? Certainly not it's only right and proper that such organisations which have fulfilled people spiritually, philosophically and in other ways be recognised by the State. The same tax benefits (as far as I know) go to secular humanist associations, and if it doesn't it should in my opinion. The Church doesn't profit, it takes donations that's rather different and much of said donations go to charitable project. (I know this is true especially of the Anglican church).

The ethical position in this instance is the one which provides the fairest and most balanced representation to the individuals paying for it without marginalising anyone.

A system that promotes the inclusion of religions which - whether you like it or not - re exclusionary, prejudiced, bigotted, arrogant and often inflamatory does not fulfill those criteria.

Eliminating religion from the state operation at all levels is the only way that the will of the people - and not that of the church - can be ensured.

You are also wrong in your fiscal analysis.

Bill Clinton cut all funding to any organisation which included abortion as part of family planning education. This effectively eliminated secular groups from the list of who was eligible.

Churches do profit, televangelists profit, the Church Of Scientology profits ...

In fact, I believe the Church of England was busted by Mark Thomas in the late 1990's for having its investments involved in the manufacture of armaments (BAE specifically). That is playing the stock market. That is capital gain. There is no church on earth that does not do this and I'll go one further: The solicitation of "donations" is nothing other than changing the word to avoid paying the tax. People attend church for absolution, they are treated to a bit of a show or a lecture then they have a plate shoved under their nose. You could call this a "donation" but the same can be said of the tip you leave a waiter in a restaraunt.

In the majority of US states: Tips are taxed.

Nodin

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Representing all faiths simoultaneously is an absurdity by dint of time, scheduling and their own irritability towards one another (who goes first? Who shares a stage with whom? etc etc etc).

Therefore, the only logical and rational poisition to take is to have no references to faith or religion, no investment or funding in religious groups and to ensure that the integrity of separation of religion and state remains.

It has nothing to do with preventing people expressing themselves in public, on the train, in the park, in their home, on the commercial (non-state) media etc

Indeed, I would have no problem with the removal of such things from state property, but not individuals on state property, if you get me. No religous elements to state ceremonies etc would bother me not a jot.

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote: »

The same thing is applicable here. If, for example, I were in school and I believed the Jews to by Christ killers and was very Mel Gibson about the whole thing I might be inclined to attempt to "save their souls" by converting them to christianity. Is this not offensive to Jews? But is it not my right to express myself in whatever manner I so choose? Whose rights get protected in these circumstances?

I really doubt Mel Gibson's issues with anti-Semitism stem from his acceptance of Christianity. I thought he made the Passion of the Christ as a sign of his return to Catholicism after issues in his faith. Mel Gibson isn't a figurehead for Christianity, our only figurehead is Jesus Christ.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

What if the presence of Muslims in a school causes offense or upset etc to Jews and Christians - especially after some ludicrous suicide attack. The wearing of the veils etc is a reminder to some that these people are heretics or not of the same faith and it can be construed as offensive.

Tough luck, all people have their rights. Are you honestly suggesting that Jews and Christians get that offended as to physically drive Muslims out of their community? This isn't so much a dilemma it's about the said "Jews and Christians" being utterly ignorant to the fact that one suicide bomber doesn't reflect the entire Islamic community.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Or does this kind of carry on have no place in schools, hospitals, congress, courts etc?

Or does the type of carrying on that you are discussing have no place in our society. What about separating an atheist agenda from the State or from separating this kind of extreme secularism from the State and to honour peoples rights in relation to what they can and cannot wear?

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Franky while you can say that people should be able to tolerate certain things - they clearly can't or wont. The result is you get people demanding that all faiths be respected which is impossible since many faiths are dedicated to opposing one another even within the Abrahamic religions. Its a bit of a no win situation when you allow these things to be presented so why not clear up the issue - at least in places where everyone is paying for it by removing the trappings of religion?

You can't remove religion from the people ever. Faith influences people and it always will. You aren't proposing secularism as much as state atheism, and it quite frankly scares me that this idea is still circulating in this day and age. Religious freedom is a right, not a privilege under the Irish constitution.

Your "clear up the issue" is effectively a type of religious cleansing from life, and it's horrifying really. How is "everyone paying" for their right to religious freedom? As for people of faiths dedicated to opposing eachother, I have no issue with Jews or Muslims, I just choose to follow Christianity. I do believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, but I certainly won't hate people for it, that would be violating the commandments that Jesus gave us.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

The point of a secular society is that if we all pay - christian, muslim, jew, atheist, scientologist, mormon - for the state. That state should in no way favor one religions ideals over another. No taxation without representation.

And this relates to freedom of religion and peoples rights to wear religious symbols how?

Hivemind187 wrote: »

As such, the only fair way is to represent all faiths simoultaneously or no faiths as consensus.

Again, the latter sounds as if you are trying to enforce state atheism by restrictin religious freedom, and if that is what secularism is in your mind then I don't want it anywhere in my society at all. I personally see secularism as no direct religious influence on legislation and that's it.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Representing all faiths simoultaneously is an absurdity by dint of time, scheduling and their own irritability towards one another (who goes first? Who shares a stage with whom? etc etc etc).

Supporting the restriction of peoples freedom of a religion is an absurdity, and it is seriously disturbing. You have freedom of conscience to live your atheism freely, if I am to expose some of the hypocrisy here, why should you impose your views on us? This country is for a people of faith and those who don't, and the State should recognise that by providing freedoms for all, not making society conform to some irreligious pedestal of how religious people should live their lives. These decisions impact people of faith and people of faith alone, therefore one could conclude this constitutes discrimination.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Therefore, the only logical and rational poisition to take is to have no references to faith or religion, no investment or funding in religious groups and to ensure that the integrity of separation of religion and state remains.

If religions are non-profit organisations they should not be taxed, if they charge subscriptions they should be. Surely that is rather reasonable.

As for "separation between church and state", you are blowing it out of proportions. Nobody has the right to insist that the rights of people of faith should be infringed, just as much as saying that Indian cultural clothing, or African cultural clothing should be banned in schools. When it's cultural it could be perceived as xenophobic, but when it is religious, it's fair game apparently.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

It has nothing to do with preventing people expressing themselves in public, on the train, in the park, in their home, on the commercial (non-state) media etc

It has everything to do with restricting those of faith to enter education. It poses a severe risk to the educational attainment of Muslims and Sikhs in particular.

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Eliminating religion from the state operation at all levels is the only way that the will of the people - and not that of the church - can be ensured.

Again, abusing the phrase "separating the church from the state". Your definition is too broad and would impact the private lives of the citizens who are of particular religions as well as just separating to church from legislative decisions.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

You are also wrong in your fiscal analysis.

Bill Clinton cut all funding to any organisation which included abortion as part of family planning education. This effectively eliminated secular groups from the list of who was eligible.

Churches do profit, televangelists profit, the Church Of Scientology profits ...

No, churches receive donations in most cases, and if they charge a subscription they should be taxed (i.e Scientology). Televangelists should also be taxed, so I would agree with you on those two. I have major gripes with profiting off the Gospel. However church congregations do not profit, they merely ensure the survival and the spread of the Church in the world. From what I have experienced in my own church, the donations generally, go towards the upkeep of the church, charitable organisations, and to give the pastor some form of salary.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

In fact, I believe the Church of England was busted by Mark Thomas in the late 1990's for having its investments involved in the manufacture of armaments (BAE specifically). That is playing the stock market. That is capital gain. There is no church on earth that does not do this and I'll go one further: The solicitation of "donations" is nothing other than changing the word to avoid paying the tax. People attend church for absolution, they are treated to a bit of a show or a lecture then they have a plate shoved under their nose. You could call this a "donation" but the same can be said of the tip you leave a waiter in a restaraunt.

Many other Christian denominations do this, and in fairness if the church plays the stock market to spread the word of God and to help in charitable roles I quite honestly don't see your objection.

Donations are optional and they are generally to keep the church going. So I see your comments on this to be highly ignorant.

Hivemind187

Nodin wrote: »

Indeed, I would have no problem with the removal of such things from state property, but not individuals on state property, if you get me. No religous elements to state ceremonies etc would bother me not a jot.

Which was precisely my gripe.

It's a pity others can't comprehend what "separation of church and state" actually means nor its purpose.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

I really doubt Mel Gibson's issues with anti-Semitism stem from his acceptance of Christianity. I thought he made the Passion of the Christ as a sign of his return to Catholicism after issues in his faith. Mel Gibson isn't a figurehead for Christianity, our only figurehead is Jesus Christ.

Wow. Intellectual dishonesty and clinging to a tiny turn-of-phraze in a pale attempt to discredit. Good to see the standards of religious argument held so high.

Jakkass wrote: »

Tough luck, all people have their rights. Are you honestly suggesting that Jews and Christians get that offended as to physically drive Muslims out of their community? This isn't so much a dilemma it's about the said "Jews and Christians" being utterly ignorant to the fact that one suicide bomber doesn't reflect the entire Islamic community.

Tum ti tiddly tum ti too ... you done?

Yes. Precisely. And they are that way by justification of their religious zealotry and willful ignorance.

Jakkass wrote: »

Or does the type of carrying on that you are discussing have no place in our society. What about separating an atheist agenda from the State or from separating this kind of extreme secularism from the State and to honour peoples rights in relation to what they can and cannot wear?

Atheist agenda. *Hands you a tin foil hat*.

People have the right to personal religion - not to foist it on everyone else and ram it down their throats.

I will ask you again, can you garauntee that everyones religious beliefs will be "honoured" and catered to simoultaneously and without exception? If you can I might consider your point of view as valid. If you can't then the only alternative to maintain a fair and balanced perspective is to remove all theistic notions from the operation of the state.

Jakkass wrote: »

You can't remove religion from the people ever. Faith influences people and it always will. You aren't proposing secularism as much as state atheism, and it quite frankly scares me that this idea is still circulating in this day and age. Religious freedom is a right, not a privilege under the Irish constitution.

I'm doing no such thing. The state should have no opinion one way or the other with regard to faith. It should stay the hell out of it. Removing religion from the operation of the state is not state atheism. It's state disinterest.

Religious freedom might be a right, thats fine, it is not an obligation.

Jakkass wrote: »

Your "clear up the issue" is effectively a type of religious cleansing from life, and it's horrifying really. How is "everyone paying" for their right to religious freedom? As for people of faiths dedicated to opposing eachother, I have no issue with Jews or Muslims, I just choose to follow Christianity. I do believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, but I certainly won't hate people for it, that would be violating the commandments that Jesus gave us.

So thats your argument? Because someone feels that religious beliefs and practices should have no part in the operation of a state they are an ethnic cleanser? Your arguments would carry a lot more power if you didnt resort to the transparent attempt to characterise me as a "scary Nazi sympathsing, atheist who wants to murder ouor children and harvest their organs" ... feel free to pick and choose your favorite reference from that.

Every one pays because they pay tax. Tax goes into the state to run the judiciary, the civil service, the army, the emergency services, the schools and every other branch of the state apparatus.

You may not hate others because they are of a different religion - but YOU are an individual and YOU do not represnt the whole of your ilk. There are those who do hate others simply because of their religion. Its not different than having a prejudice based on skin colour, sexual orientation etc (both of which have been included in religious hatred for a long time).

Jakkass wrote: »

And this relates to freedom of religion and peoples rights to wear religious symbols how?

Because I didnt say they couldnt wear them at home etc

My point is two fold
a) That no theistic nonsense should be involved in the operation of the state.
b) That anyone who wears such thngs as crucifixes, head scarves etc is doing so as a statement of their faith and that where such things are inappropriate they should either have the common curteousy to remove them or not to attend the inappropriate location.

I would sincerely prefer a situation wherein people could wear whatever they like - up to and including being nude 24/7 but the chances of that scenario happening is highly unlikely with the kind of people around who will claim that their religious sensibilities are being offended by such things.

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, the latter sounds as if you are trying to enforce state atheism by restrictin religious freedom, and if that is what secularism is in your mind then I don't want it anywhere in my society at all. I personally see secularism as no direct religious influence on legislation and that's it.

Then you need reading lessons because that isnt what I said. Please stop with this "state atheism" nonsense. The state should be entirely disinterested in matters of faith. By pure definition of having "no religion" then yes, state atheism, but not the weird view of atheism as some concerted foriegn belief structure trying to turn your mind to the devil.

Not nice when someone does it back to you is it?

Legislation is only the begining.

TV, Radio, schools, hospitals, social initiatives, sports funding etc etc etc Not a single one of them should have any religious component what so ever.

Jakkass wrote: »

Supporting the restriction of peoples freedom of a religion is an absurdity, and it is seriously disturbing. You have freedom of conscience to live your atheism freely, if I am to expose some of the hypocrisy here, why should you impose your views on us? This country is for a people of faith and those who don't, and the State should recognise that by providing freedoms for all, not making society conform to some irreligious pedestal of how religious people should live their lives. These decisions impact people of faith and people of faith alone, therefore one could conclude this constitutes discrimination.

Again, I'm not trying to impose an "atheism" on anyone. I'm saying that the sate is incapable of providing equal and simoultaneous representation for all faiths and as such should seek to ignore all of them trusting that the will of the nation will elect the correct representatives to power.

No vested interest such as the church should have any say whatsoever in the running of the state because to do so disenfranchises every single person whose church is not influencing a specific issue. Surely thats not a bad thing?

Jakkass wrote: »

If religions are non-profit organisations they should not be taxed, if they charge subscriptions they should be. Surely that is rather reasonable.

No. It's rubbish. It's no more a donation than a tip. If tips are taxed, then donations should be too. Capital gains should be taxed. Priests should pay income tax if they dont already. Just because you have some wibbly-wobbly beliefs does not entitle you to special treatment.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for "separation between church and state", you are blowing it out of proportions. Nobody has the right to insist that the rights of people of faith should be infringed, just as much as saying that Indian cultural clothing, or African cultural clothing should be banned in schools. When it's cultural it could be perceived as xenophobic, but when it is religious, it's fair game apparently.

Garbage. If someone walks into a school in native head dress and demands special treatment of their cultural mores before proceeding to demand the immediate marriage of "all comely girls of virtue true" to him because he was a tribal prince in his mud-village there would be a public outcry and I dare say you would be decrying him as a primitive or heathen or some such.

The only group infringing on anyone else is the one imposing their religious paraphenalia on everyone else. I've expressed my views about clothing above.

Jakkass wrote: »

It has everything to do with restricting those of faith to enter education. It poses a severe risk to the educational attainment of Muslims and Sikhs in particular.

Can you show me where I said that people of faith should be restricted from having an education?

If they want to wear a different silly hat to your silly hat I personally dont care but the fact is that if you want to do so in a place that is funded by everyone, where such itemss are innappropriate then you have a choice. Either you take off the silly hat or you go to a private school that is not funded by everyone else.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, abusing the phrase "separating the church from the state". Your definition is too broad and would impact the private lives of the citizens who are of particular religions as well as just separating to church from legislative decisions.

Sorry but that isnt my definition. Its the standard definition.

Your religion has no right to educate my child nor would my religion have a right to educate yours. Cant you see what I'm saying here?

I pay my taxes, I dont want it to be used to fund your church or to spread your message. I want it to go towards running a state who legislation is rational and appropritate to the circumstances. Not based on some notion of "10 simple rules for being in my club".

Jakkass wrote: »

No, churches receive donations in most cases, and if they charge a subscription they should be taxed (i.e Scientology). Televangelists should also be taxed, so I would agree with you on those two. I have major gripes with profiting off the Gospel. However church congregations do not profit, they merely ensure the survival and the spread of the Church in the world. From what I have experienced in my own church, the donations generally, go towards the upkeep of the church, charitable organisations, and to give the pastor some form of salary.

And they should all pay tax. Their parent company makes a capital gains and should pay tax. The priest is a professional doing a job and should receive a salary and pay income tax.

If tips can be taxed, then the so-called "donations" should be taxed as well.

Jakkass wrote: »

Many other Christian denominations do this, and in fairness if the church plays the stock market to spread the word of God and to help in charitable roles I quite honestly don't see your objection.

Then it should be taxed. Its a captial gain.

Frankly the church should be subject to corporate law.

Wherein such monies are used for charitable purposes and can be documented as such those monies should be deductable from the income tax.

Jakkass wrote: »

Donations are optional and they are generally to keep the church going. So I see your comments on this to be highly ignorant.

Uh-huh. and what of the other money? the moola made from the stock market, sale of lands etc?

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Sorry but that isnt my definition. Its the standard definition.

It isn't the standard definition at all.

"Secularism is generally the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious belief"

You however are arguing that religion should be separated from citizens who attend state forms of education. That isn't included in that definition, and it's a prime example of people distorting secularism to suit their own agenda.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Your religion has no right to educate my child nor would my religion have a right to educate yours. Cant you see what I'm saying here?

See the thread in Humanities about this. I personally think there should be secular alternatives to faith schools in this country, but if they are to exist, I don't support banning people wearing religious symbols as that is an invasion on human dignity and human preference of faith.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I pay my taxes, I dont want it to be used to fund your church or to spread your message. I want it to go towards running a state who legislation is rational and appropritate to the circumstances. Not based on some notion of "10 simple rules for being in my club".

Your taxes don't fund any church or club, tax incentives are given to churches as they are non-profit, and promote spirituality, and ethical values within a nation, I assume the same is done for Secular Humanist associations and if not it should be.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

And they should all pay tax. Their parent company makes a capital gains and should pay tax. The priest is a professional doing a job and should receive a salary and pay income tax.

It's not a company, that's the difference.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

If tips can be taxed, then the so-called "donations" should be taxed as well.

Should we tax NGO's such as Concern then by the same rationale? Again, a church isn't a business if it takes subscriptions then fair game tax all you like, but I don't know any church in Ireland which charges a subscription.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Then it should be taxed. Its a captial gain.

For who? To maintain churches? Capital gain applies to business, again the church is not a business.

Actually, should the State be also separate from the church if the church is to be separate from the State?

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Frankly the church should be subject to corporate law.

Again the church isn't a corporate entity.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Wherein such monies are used for charitable purposes and can be documented as such those monies should be deductable from the income tax.

Look at the publication from the General Synod in 2008 if you want to see the exact figures. They are published.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Uh-huh. and what of the other money? the moola made from the stock market, sale of lands etc?

See above.

Nodin

Hivemind187 wrote: »

My point is two fold
a) That no theistic nonsense should be involved in the operation of the state.
b) That anyone who wears such thngs as crucifixes, head scarves etc is doing so as a statement of their faith and that where such things are inappropriate they should either have the common curteousy to remove them or not to attend the inappropriate location.

I would sincerely prefer a situation wherein people could wear whatever they like - up to and including being nude 24/7 but the chances of that scenario happening is highly unlikely with the kind of people around who will claim that their religious sensibilities are being offended by such things.
.

I'm afraid (b) is a step too far for me. I was never fond of the idea of dress codes and that kind of nonsense, and to start picking on headscarfs, crucifixes and the like strikes me as just as bad as forcing them on people. It's just a no-no. Theres absolutely nothing to be gained by it.

JimiTime

Nodin wrote: »

I'm afraid (b) is a step too far for me. Theres absolutely nothing to be gained by it.

Unless of course you are not actually interested in peoples welfare, but merely hide behind the word 'secular' to push for your 'i hate religion' agenda.

Hivemind187

Nodin wrote: »

I'm afraid (b) is a step too far for me. I was never fond of the idea of dress codes and that kind of nonsense, and to start picking on headscarfs, crucifixes and the like strikes me as just as bad as forcing them on people. It's just a no-no. Theres absolutely nothing to be gained by it.

I'm not fond of them eithe but lets put the religious horse hocky aside for a second and try a different, no less applicable metaphor.

Crips and Bloods. This lot dispise one another and take shots at any opportunity over the most minor of things (:P). To reduce the number of gang-related incidents the wearing of the colours (red for bloods, blue for crips) has been banned in schools and other public offices.

To a gang member their membership in their chosen outfit is as potent a force on their personal philosophy and outlook as any religion. No one cared a jot when their particular talismans were removed from view.

I say again, this is not an excuse to discriminate against the religious but an issue of what is appropriate. If they desire that strongly to wear their chosen superstitious trinket then by all means go someplace that it's appropriate to do so i.e. a school that is not funded by public money.

Personally I dont give a monkeys what people wear so long as it doesnt require that they get special treatment for having a personal superstition.

I think we are about as far from the point as we could get though.

With relation to the OP

I just heard the benediction at the inauguration and while I still dislike the presence of any - and I do mean any - religious mumbo jumbo being involved I rather liked the last part. A nice piece of humour after a dreary poem and what will undoubtably be remembered as one of the finest speeches in US presidential history.

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I'm not fond of them eithe but lets put the religious horse hocky aside for a second and try a different, no less applicable metaphor..

Of course it's less applicable it's concerning illegal gang activity instead of legal, freedom of conscience.

Nobody has a right to impose restrictions on peoples rights, and this is only an attempt of discrimination.

Religions from their teachings promote positive characteristics within a society, and from some of the comments on the atheist forum there are some people who are saying that they still hold some of the values they learned from Christianity.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course it's less applicable it's concerning illegal gang activity instead of legal, freedom of conscience.

Nobody has a right to impose restrictions on peoples rights, and this is only an attempt of discrimination.

Religions from their teachings promote positive characteristics within a society, and from some of the comments on the atheist forum there are some people who are saying that they still hold some of the values they learned from Christianity.

Thats incredibly dishonest.

Every major religion has been involved in criminality of some form and the christians probably more than most (at least they get caught more often).

As for imposing restrictions ... why are these things considered "rights" in the first place? Are they not priviledges to ignore a dictum that everyone else has to follow? Hoasca tea? Helmet laws?

As for religion promoting positive characterisitics in society, that is a hugely debatable matter. Same sex marriage, abortion, divorce ... these things are points of debate and ones that religion is reasonably uniform about. It doesnt make the religious position correct or positive.

Nodin

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I'm not fond of them eithe but lets put the religious horse hocky aside for a second and try a different, no less applicable metaphor.

Crips and Bloods. This lot dispise one another and take shots at any opportunity over the most minor of things (:P). To reduce the number of gang-related incidents the wearing of the colours (red for bloods, blue for crips) has been banned in schools and other public offices.

To a gang member their membership in their chosen outfit is as potent a force on their personal philosophy and outlook as any religion. No one cared a jot when their particular talismans were removed from view.

Nope, bad example. We put up with their crap, they put up with ours. Only fair. Thats truly being liberal. Otherwise its as bad as following around motorhead t-shirts and your sig.