John Waters v Atheist Ireland

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Faith schools are fine as long as they're built, funded and run entirely by the churches. In Ireland right now I have very few choices if I don't want my child taught in a religious schools because the government is spending all of its money supporting them instead of secular schools as they should be.

That's fine, you don't want your child being taught in them. I don't think the Government has any place to deny religious parents the choice to bring their children to faith schools though. I'm not sure I'm in agreement about the funding, but I do think there should be alternatives.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

That's fine, you don't want your child being taught in them. I don't think the Government has any place to deny religious parents the choice to bring their children to faith schools though. I'm not sure I'm in agreement about the funding, but I do think there should be alternatives.

The government doesn't have to deny religious parents anything but nor does it have to fund them and provide staff to do it, especially when doing so is to the detriment of the type of school they should be providing and is denying the people they're supposed to be helping

Rev Hellfire

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If what you're strongly convicted to is true, how can you be bigoted?

It doesn't, but neither does having a erroneous conviction also make you a bigot.

If someone says something like "black people are lazy" that would be bigoted but if every black person in the world was actually lazy would it still be bigoted?

As above it wouldn't you'd either be right or be wrong, what makes you a bigot is how you act on the 'facts' as you have them. At least that's my take on it.

I mean what exactly is a bigot ? Is it simply holding an inaccurate opinion or does it require further action ?

Sam Vimes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It doesn't, but neither does having a erroneous conviction also make you a bigot.


As above it wouldn't you'd either be right or be wrong, what makes you a bigot is how you act on the 'facts' as you have them. At least that's my take on it.

I mean what exactly is a bigot ? Is it simply holding an inaccurate opinion or does it require further action ?

Here's a definition of a bigot from the interwebs:
Being a bigot; biased; strongly prejudiced; forming opinions without just cause

So you don't actually have to do anything to be a bigot, your opinions make you a bigot. You say that having an erroneous opinion does not make you a bigot and you're right. Not all erroneous opinions are bigoted but all bigoted opinions are erroneous.

If what you believe is true then it's not called being a bigot, it's called being correct :P

eightyfish

starbelgrade wrote: »

John Waters is, to me, a bad combover, useless vox pop D-list wannabe. Nothing he says interests me.

The following journalists give me a massive headache - Brenda Power, Shane Ross, Kevin Myres, Mary Kenny and of course John Waters. Nothing they say interests me. I keep reading them though.

(Well, some of them.)

bigeasyeah wrote: »

What is the aims of Atheist Ireland?

At the moment:

- opposition to the blasphemy law
- campaigning for the removal of religion from state education

I support these two aims, but am unsure how I feel about an atheist organisation in general. I hope they don't go the same route as the humanist association.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The government doesn't have to deny religious parents anything but nor does it have to fund them and provide staff to do it, especially when doing so is to the detriment of the type of school they should be providing and is denying the people they're supposed to be helping

I wonder if the CC is so deeply integrated into the primary and secondary school systems that it's impossible to remove completely?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The government doesn't have to deny religious parents anything but nor does it have to fund them and provide staff to do it, especially when doing so is to the detriment of the type of school they should be providing and is denying the people they're supposed to be helping

How is it to the detriment of a community to build a school with a religious ethos if there are adequate alternatives for those who seek secular education?

That's what I am discussing.

Sam Vimes wrote:

If what you believe is true then it's not called being a bigot, it's called being correct

That's a jolly big if though

The same justification could be used by believers. As someone who believes that atheism is a falsehood, I wouldn't consider it "bigotry" rather disagreement. People are incapable of understanding this in respect to belief systems though. I believe in Christianity, that does not mean that I am bigoted towards Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Judaism, Hinduism etc. It means that I think they are mistaken, and I disagree with their conclusions.

I'd see it as being similar for the case of atheism. They are not for the most part bigoted against Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and so on, they merely disagree with their conclusions.

Rev Hellfire

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If what you believe is true then it's not called being a bigot, it's called being correct :P

Not exactly, you can be correct in your facts, but still have a strong prejudice against a group based on them.

For example you may decide to not hire women of child bearing age due to the fact that they may leave and avail of maternity leave forcing an unnecessary financial burden on your company.
Its accurate, but still a bigoted position to take.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Expecting everyone to have the same beliefs is homogenising.

It's not about expecting everyone to have the same beliefs, it's about wanting everyone to embrace reality. There are innumerable ways to assert one's humanity through arts, culture, altruism etc. Your statement implies that without 'religion' humanity merges into one, which suggests to me you need a little more 'faith' in individuality.

Húrin wrote: »

I'm for diversity; most atheists appear to be against diversity.

The funny thing is, would you not be happy if the entire planet were to embrace Christianity? Or would you rather there were other religions too? So what if four billion non-Christians don't get to heaven - at least there's some religious diversity, right?!

Sam Vimes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Not exactly, you can be correct in your facts, but still have a strong prejudice against a group based on them.

For example you may decide to not hire women of child bearing age due to the fact that they may leave and avail of maternity leave forcing an unnecessary financial burden on your company.
Its accurate, but still a bigoted position to take.

That would be a bigoted position to take but that position would also be erroneous because it doesn't take account of fairness. Women are designed to have babies so being prejudiced against them for it is bigoted but, to use my previous example, if every black person was actually lazy then you'd be perfectly justified in not hiring them

philologos

Dades wrote: »

The funny thing is, would you not be happy if the entire planet were to embrace Christianity? Or would you rather there were other religions too? So what if four billion non-Christians don't get to heaven - at least there's some religious diversity, right?!

1.6 billion have never heard the Gospel. Condemnation generally comes as a direct result of rejecting Christianity after hearing of it. So we don't know about their case.

As for religious diversity. Christians generally do encourage diversity and freedom of thought even within their own ranks. For example, a Messianic Jew is going to practice their Christianity in a radically different way than I would. I personally think that it is possible to be both a Jew and a Christian, I don't think this could be the case for any other religion though.

I'd be happy if everyone became a Christian (although the Biblical text says not everyone will become a Christian), but I would not be happy if people lost their individuality through it.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd be happy if everyone became a Christian (although the Biblical text says not everyone will become a Christian), but I would not be happy if people lost their individuality through it.

I'd be happy if everyone embraced reality, but I would not be happy if people lost their individuality through it.

Contrary to what Hurin said, wanting people to embrace reality over religion is not being "against diversity" any more than being happy if everyone accepted what you think is the truth

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'd be happy if everyone embraced reality, but I would not be happy if people lost their individuality through it.

Contrary to what Hurin said, wanting people to embrace reality over religion is not being "against diversity" any more than being happy if everyone accepted what you think is the truth

Sam, I'd like people to embrace reality too. However, I consider Christianity to be reality and by extension I think God's existence is reality. Using terms like "reality" isn't going to make any headway in a discussion with someone who believes that their beliefs are reality.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, I'd like people to embrace reality too. However, I consider Christianity to be reality and by extension I think God's existence is reality. Using terms like "reality" isn't going to make any headway in a discussion with someone who believes that their beliefs are reality.

My point here is that Hurin talks about atheists as being "against diversity" because we would prefer if people rejected religion but then you come here and say you'd be happy if everyone became a christian.

You are doing exactly the same thing that makes Hurin accuse us of being against diversity. We would both be happy if everyone accepted what we think is reality

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't want to suppress religion. I'd rather people didn't teach their children these things but as the old saying goes, I'll defend to the death their right to do it. Then if I get the opportunity I'll teach try to teach them the importance of evidence and not accepting something as true just because it's a nice idea. I don't want to suppress their religion, I want to explain to them the flaws in it in the hopes that they'll see the light

Or are you talking about religion in schools? It doesn't belong in schools in a secular state

Are your arguments against religion or are the freedom of parents to bring up their children as part of their own religion.If they do that via school so what.

I have seen one post here with historical doubletalk about schools and the Catholic Church going back to 1830 or something. The point being that the Church didnt want state schools which was pure historical nonsense and has to be viewed in that context.THe disestablishment of the Church of Ireland etc but that was also pre-famine era and Ireland was a colony.

I am all for non religious schools options and think initiatives are long overdue.

My point being yes you should be free to have secular schools but no it shouldnt be at the expense of removing my freedom to have religous schools. Is that your stance and do you want to protect that?

Rev Hellfire

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That would be a bigoted position to take but that position would also be erroneous because it doesn't take account of fairness.

Fairness, now thats a bit fluffy isn't it. At a minimum the idea of fairness is an artificial construct based on the norms of a given society. Hardly sometime that can be applied universally.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Women are designed to have babies so being prejudiced against them for it is bigoted but, to use my previous example, if every black person was actually lazy then you'd be perfectly justified in not hiring them

And why would it be different in one case and not the other ? When is one ok and not the other ?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Are your arguments against religion or are the freedom of parents to bring up their children as part of their own religion.If they do that via school so what.

I have seen one post here with historical doubletalk about schools and the Catholic Church going back to 1830 or something. The point being that the Church didnt want state schools which was pure historical nonsense and has to be viewed in that context.THe disestablishment of the Church of Ireland etc but that was also pre-famine era and Ireland was a colony.

I am all for non religious schools options and think initiatives are long overdue.

My point being yes you should be free to have secular schools but no it shouldnt be at the expense of removing my freedom to have religous schools. Is that your stance and do you want to protect that?

As I said above, you have every right to have a religious school as long as its built, funded and run entirely by the church. The point I made to Jakkass is just as good here:

The government doesn't have to deny religious parents anything but nor does it have to fund them and provide staff to do it, especially when doing so is to the detriment of the type of school they should be providing and is denying the people they're supposed to be helping

eightyfish

Sam Vimes wrote: »

My point here is that Hurin talks about atheists as being "against diversity" because we would prefer if people rejected religion

It's possible to be pro diversity but still anti-religion. Many cultures blending with ours is a positive thing. Religion is a negative thing. It's no more complicated than that.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

My point here is that Hurin talks about atheists as being "against diversity" because we would prefer if people rejected religion but then you come here and say you'd be happy if everyone became a christian.

You are doing exactly the same thing that makes Hurin accuse us of being against diversity. We would both be happy if everyone accepted what we think is reality

I'm not sure if wanting people to know what is true is being bigoted, or that if knowing the truth discourages diversity.

I mean knowing the truth about physics isn't going to stop people being different from eachother.

My brain isn't locked to Hurín's, I have independent thought

Sam Vimes wrote:

The government doesn't have to deny religious parents anything but nor does it have to fund them and provide staff to do it, especially when doing so is to the detriment of the type of school they should be providing and is denying the people they're supposed to be helping

It doesn't have to, but it should if it wants to provide choice for parents. I don't think atheists or agnostics should impose their own agenda on the education systems as much as I don't think that any religious group should impose their own agenda on the education system. Freedom of choice should be key.

Sam Vimes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Fairness, now thats a bit fluffy isn't it. At a minimum the idea of fairness is an artificial construct based on the norms of a given society. Hardly sometime that can be applied universally.


And why would it be different in one case and not the other ? When is one ok and not the other ?

Societal rules change but the rule in the 21st century is its discrimination if you are "prejudiced" against someone for something that isn't their fault. It's why disabled people are helped as much as possible but smokers are left outside in the cold. It's why the guy with the heart attack gets looked at in a hospital before the guy with an alcohol related injury.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not sure if wanting people to know what is true is being bigoted, or that if knowing the truth discourages diversity.

I mean knowing the truth about physics isn't going to stop people being different from eachother.

My brain isn't locked to Hurín's, I have independent thought

Right, so could you tell him that us wanting people to accept what we consider to be the truth is not being against diversity any more than you wanting people to accept what you consider to be the truth?

Rev Hellfire

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Societal rules change but the rule in the 21st century is its discrimination if you are "prejudiced" against someone for something that isn't their fault. It's why disabled people are helped as much as possible but smokers are left outside in the cold. It's why the guy with the heart attack gets looked at in a hospital before the guy with an alcohol related injury.

No that's western society in the 21st century, you'll find elsewhere in less affluent societies that their idea of fairness will be quite different. That's why your premise that bigotry is linked to truth (an absolute) is incompatible with some notion of fairness which is totally subjective.

Sam Vimes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

No that's western society in the 21st century, you'll find elsewhere in less affluent societies that their idea of fairness will be quite different. That's why your premise that bigotry is linked to truth (an absolute) is incompatible with some notion of fairness which is totally subjective.

So do you think that Muslim men who treat women badly are not bigoted? And do you think it was not bigoted to deny women and black people the vote for so long because that's how society was at the time?

philologos

Sam: I effectively have in my last post. I disagree with Hurín on this one. Culture in most cases goes beyond religious belief and religious tradition.

I do think that Atheist Ireland's aims are inappropriate in a pluralistic society however. The view of eradicating religious belief, or what they consider to be "superstition" has no place in political activism. It would be the same as if I set up a group called Christian Ireland which said that it's aim was to purge everything apart from Christianity out of the island of Ireland. I think if Michael Nugents dreams became a reality I'd seek to emigrate.

I'm not sure if all atheists do believe that all other religious beliefs should just end. I've met quite a few who are quite happy with the existence of other religious viewpoints, but they just opt out.

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

How is it to the detriment of a community to build a school with a religious ethos if there are adequate alternatives for those who seek secular education?

That's what I am discussing.

I wouldn't have a problem with religious organisations running schools with a religious ethos. But the state funded schools shouldn't have a religious ethos and the state should provide adequate schools for all of the students in the state.

I think that the only burden that the state should impose on religious schools is that they provide education to a sufficient standard.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It doesn't have to, but it should if it wants to provide choice for parents.

There are lots of clubs in the country with people of similar opinions. Should the government support them all? Should the government fund atheist Ireland?

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think atheists or agnostics should impose their own agenda on the education systems as much as I don't think that any religious group should impose their own agenda on the education system. Freedom of choice should be key.

I'm not imposing an atheist agenda, I'm imposing a secular agenda because I live in a secular country.

philologos

dvpower wrote: »

I wouldn't have a problem with religious organisations running schools with a religious ethos. But the state funded schools shouldn't have a religious ethos and the state should provide adequate schools for all of the students in the state.

I think that the only burden that the state should impose on religious schools is that they provide education to a sufficient standard.

I disagree with you on the funding part. If I am funding schools from my taxes I'd expect that schools of varying ethos be funded rather than just secular schools as I would be a believer in freedom of choice.

All the funding should be distributed to all schools which teach the State cirriculum that aren't fee paying. I don't particularly care whether they are Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Jewish or secular particularly but that's what I expect if the Constitution endows freedom of choice.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There are lots of clubs in the country with people of similar opinions. Should the government support them all? Should the government fund atheist Ireland?

Schools aren't clubs.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not imposing an atheist agenda, I'm imposing a secular agenda because I live in a secular country.

I disagree with you on this one. I think that Christians should have the choice to have their children educated in a school with a Christian ethos without being financially penalised for it. Likewise I believe that atheists should have the choice to have their children educated in a secular school without being financially penalised for it.

As long as there are a majority of people with belief in this country, this is the way it should be done IMO.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam: I effectively have in my last post. I disagree with Hurín on this one. Culture in most cases goes beyond religious belief and religious tradition.

I do think that Atheist Ireland's aims are inappropriate in a pluralistic society however. The view of eradicating religious belief, or what they consider to be "superstition" has no place in political activism. It would be the same as if I set up a group called Christian Ireland which said that it's aim was to purge everything apart from Christianity out of the island of Ireland. I think if Michael Nugents dreams became a reality I'd seek to emigrate.

I'm not sure if all atheists do believe that all other religious beliefs should just end. I've met quite a few who are quite happy with the existence of other religious viewpoints, but they just opt out.

You disagree that atheists wanting people to embrace what they see as reality is being against diversity but you think that a group that aims to do it has no place in a pluralistic society

If they were using heavy handed methods to force people to reject religion I'd agree with you but that's not what they're doing. All they're doing is putting their case forward the same way you do

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think atheists or agnostics should impose their own agenda on the education systems as much as I don't think that any religious group should impose their own agenda on the education system. Freedom of choice should be key.

But we've sucessfully imposed our agenda on the police service, the social welfare service and the motor tax office to name but a few. These state services work out ok without a religious ethos.

Rev Hellfire

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So do you think that Muslim men who treat women badly are not bigoted? And do you think it was not bigoted to deny women and black people the vote for so long because that's how society was at the time?

No don't misunderstand me, my sole gripe here is the idea that somehow the 'truth' can't be bigoted. Clearly those are bigoted actions (by our social norms).

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you on the funding part. If I am funding schools from my taxes I'd expect that schools of varying ethos be funded rather than just secular schools as I would be a believer in freedom of choice.

All the funding should be distributed to all schools which teach the State cirriculum that aren't fee paying. I don't particularly care whether they are Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Jewish or secular particularly but that's what I expect if the Constitution endows freedom of choice.



Schools aren't clubs.



I disagree with you on this one. I think that Christians should have the choice to have their children educated in a school with a Christian ethos without being financially penalised for it. Likewise I believe that atheists should have the choice to have their children educated in a secular school without being financially penalised for it.

As long as there are a majority of people with belief in this country, this is the way it should be done IMO.

This idea goes against the concept of the separation of church and state, ie it goes against the idea of a secular state. If the state is funding religion, they're not separate

Freedom of choice does not mean providing government funding for every political, religious, social and ethnic group in the country, it just means not preventing them from doing it. And keeping the children separate only encourages sectarianism.