The incompatability of faith ...

Hivemind187

I've been wondering of late (and recent discussion in the Christianity forum has made me wonder all the more) about whether the idea that the intellectual positions of theism and atheism coexisting in harmony is valid at all.

What I mean is, where you have the existance of faith or belief and the presence of non-belief you are presenting a situation under which one side must be preferred by society above the other.

The teaching of religious "values" in schools for example. If you do not have a religion class teaching the Catholic/Muslim/Hindu/Protestant/Jewish dogma's etc when people within a society whose tax money pays for the education of the masses the argument can be made that you are disenfranchising them. So too with legislation (specifically where issues such as divorce, abortion, same-sex-marriage and stem-cell research are concerned) where the religious sentiment of the population is not taken into account (hypothetically).

While it may seem that not catering to anyones specific creed or dogmas is the logical and rational approach to such things because of the difficulty representing the wishes of all those who have invested financially in the state, it does mean that it disenfranchises those individuals who wish to see their tax money used in a way that promotes what they feel are the correct values (i.e. specific religious ones).

I have myself tied up in knots with this one because, my personal position aside on the various issues, if one is to take atheism as a point of view and theism as a point of view who have invested equally per head then it becomes impossible for a situation to arrise wherein there is a consensus - where neither side is discontented or disenfranchised.

This also raises other issues, notably those of "civil rights".

It is often said that people should have (and do) have equal rights. There is often statements made which approach the issue of civil rights which make X demand or Y demand on soceity to be tolerant or accepting of various things from the adoption of Sharia law in certain parts of Britain to the right to impose arranged marriages on daughters or for a husband to clatter his wife around the place or to wear a specific talisman. However, in a lot of these cases it is not "equal rights" that are being sought but "special treatment" or "priviledge".

Take the issue of Sikh police officers. Rather than having to wear the appropriate head dress (which may or may not contain a protective cap) they are permitted to have their turban. Ditto for the motorcycle helmet laws. Hoasca tea being permitted for use by particular religious sects when it is banned for use amongst the general population. This is not equality, its inequality, its the granting of priviledges, by society (by mechanism of the aparatus of government) based on fanciful, unverfiable claims.

What I'm getting at in this, admitedly, long winded post is that I am confused as to whether it is possible for theism and atheism to co-exist at all without one group being subordinate in their freedoms to another?

Húrin

There is no such thing as a value-free education or state. There must be secular values and I think that these can be derived from the views of the people, whether or not those views are motivated by religion or atheism.

pH

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I've been wondering of late (and recent discussion in the Christianity forum has made me wonder all the more)

Your posts don't look quite right until they have "Last edited by [mod of Christianity forum]" at the bottom" - And this one too - what the hell do you keep posting?

So too with legislation (specifically where issues such as divorce, abortion, same-sex-marriage and stem-cell research are concerned) where the religious sentiment of the population is not taken into account (hypothetically).

To me this is not just a religious phenomenon, people seem to want others to live by their own morals. This includes the set of "consensual/victimless crimes"; when for instance drugs, prostitution and pornography have come up, atheists on this forum have argued for them as crimes.

Take the issue of Sikh police officers. Rather than having to wear the appropriate head dress (which may or may not contain a protective cap) they are permitted to have their turban.

You're dead right, much of what is euphemistically called "equality" is as you say a form of special treatment and inequality. Still, some of these examples are a small price to pay for peace and quiet, let them play their childish dress up games (and suffer the head trauma) I say.

Hivemind187

pH wrote: »

Your posts don't look quite right until they have "Last edited by [mod of Christianity forum]" at the bottom" - And this one too - what the hell do you keep posting?

In Christianity its supposedly the banner that upsets the locals (so much for tolerant widely read christians eh?). In here? I havent the faintest!

pH wrote: »

To me this is not just a religious phenomenon, people seem to want others to live by their own morals. This includes the set of "consensual/victimless crimes"; when for instance drugs, prostitution and pornography have come up, atheists on this forum have argued for them as crimes.

Agreed. The trouble as far as I am concerned comes when it is a large vested interest like organised religion which tries to make their moral position the norm. Africa is a good example of this with the attempts to outlaw homosexuality and even here where the church still holds a lot of power and can influence things like referendums.

There is no denying that atheists have argued that the examples above are crimes, there is equall no denying that there are far fewer of them doing so than from the religious side and those that do are doing so either from a conservative moral position or drawing conclusions which are not supported by facts.

pH wrote: »

You're dead right, much of what is euphemistically called "equality" is as you say a form of special treatment and inequality. Still, some of these examples are a small price to pay for peace and quiet, let them play their childish dress up games (and suffer the head trauma) I say.

Head trauma!

Trouble is they arent peaceful or even quiet.

Goduznt Xzst

what you are describing is the fundamental flaw in the democratic system, it tends to usually end up devolving into a form of either Oligarchy or Ochlocracy.

What you need is a republicanism form of government, which will do away with the chances of mob rule or for the power to shift into the hands of an elite. In this sense, with a separation of Church and State, Atheists and Theists could co-exist. There would be no room for the state to muscle in its own brand of indoctrination on the people.

Hivemind187

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

what you are describing is the fundamental flaw in the democratic system, it tends to usually end up devolving into a form of either Oligarchy or Ochlocracy.

What you need is a republicanism form of government, which will do away with the chances of mob rule or for the power to shift into the hands of an elite. In this sense, with a separation of Church and State, Atheists and Theists could co-exist. There would be no room for the state to muscle in its own brand of indoctrination on the people.

Yeah they have that in the US constitution, its supposed to prevent the Tyranny of Majority. The idea is that any group in a democracy who has the majority will instinctively try to reduce the power and influence of the minority in order to stay in power or to see their will imposed.

The Trouble is it doesnt seem to work that well when it can't be enforced. When one group gets the privilege to do something that is otherwise illegal for everyone else due to dint of their "belief" in something with no evidential basis it creates a two tier system in which a privileged class are granted leave to do things that others would serve a prison term for.

While a republic should be making efforts to ensure that no privilege exists, only the rights and liberties applicable to everyone this is not currently the case and I wonder, with the kind of pressure we see exerted by the religious side whether it is possible at all?

I wonder if, and admitedly this is based almost entirely on conversations with religious types to gauge their attitudes, the theist section of society would not feel as though it is the imposition of some kind of "state atheism"? The removal of all privilege for religions may be viewed as a prejudicial act (and we all know how religions delight in painting themselves as the persecuted) and since the privilege has been long established it may be viewed by many as a "right"?

Goduznt Xzst

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I wonder if, and admitedly this is based almost entirely on conversations with religious types to gauge their attitudes, the theist section of society would not feel as though it is the imposition of some kind of "state atheism"? The removal of all privilege for religions may be viewed as a prejudicial act (and we all know how religions delight in painting themselves as the persecuted) and since the privilege has been long established it may be viewed by many as a "right"?

Let them view it however they want. If their God thinks they are being unfairly persecuted by their voice being removed from the state then let it step in on their behalf and fix it for them. Religion and Government should have nothing to do with each other.

The American political system is a mess, it's currently on the slippery slope into an Oligarchy, if it isn't already. The founders of America realized that one religion would not be good enough for the people which is why the constitution tried to implement a Republic. This has since been changed into a Democracy, allowing Church and State to merge, giving rise to mob rule of the religious and sentimental and allowing for an elite to exist above the law.

pH

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Let them view it however they want. If their God thinks they are being unfairly persecuted by their voice being removed from the state then let it step in on their behalf and fix it for them. Religion and Government should have nothing to do with each other.

Interestingly, they have always had a way around this, the idea that this all powerful God somehow can't just punish the blasphemers and Do-badders, but instead visits his wrath on the entire community. That's why we can't have homosexuals or pornographers living among us, cos we risk the wrath of God on all of us. Typified by the "God hates Fags" church in the US, but even normally tolerant and liberal Anglican bishops (compared to GHF) are not adverse to using it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1556131/Floods-are-judgment-on-society%2C-say-bishops.html