Does Religion Have Any Good Side?

Noreen1

robindch wrote: »

There's a lot more to it alright -- I was going to mention Cardinal O'Connor's comment that atheists "are not fully human", but it seems that youtube has deleted the record on this.

Seriously?:eek:

Noreen

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

There's a lot more to it alright -- I was going to mention Cardinal O'Connor's comment that atheists "are not fully human", but it seems that youtube has deleted the record on this.

Well I think theres an obvious test we could do on atheists to show that this is rubbish:



So who's first?

robindch

Noreen1 wrote: »

Seriously?

Yes. He made the comments around a year ago, I think on BBC Radio 4, but as above, the recording has been yanked from youtube, no doubt to reduce embarrassment.

At the installation of his successor as the top catholic in the UK, O’Connor made a few more offensive, fairly similar remarks:

Cormac Murphy O'Connor wrote:

What is most crucial is the prayer that we express every day in the Our Father, when we say ‘deliver us from evil’. The evil we ask to be delivered from is not essentially the evil of sin, though that is clear, but in the mind of Jesus it is more importantly a loss of faith. For Jesus, the inability to believe in God and to live by faith is the greatest of evils. You see the things that result from this are an affront to human dignity, destruction of trust between peoples, the rule of egoism and the loss of peace. One can never have true justice, true peace, if God becomes meaningless to people.

ie, atheists are "the greatest of evils". A pretty offensive remark, I'd have said.

Zombrex

Noreen1 wrote: »

Such "Christians" are seriously misguided imo.
My own belief is that my faith motivates me to try to do what is good/right.

How do you tell what is good/right?

If that is learned from your religion (ie the Bible says X is good, Y is bad) then it becomes some what circular reasoning to say your faith motivates you to do good.

Your faith motivates you to do what your faith says and believe that is good?

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

So who's first?

I'll do that if you undergo the christian-approved Ordeal by Hot Water:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_ordeal#Ordeal_of_hot_water

You first

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

I'll do that if you undergo the christian-approved Ordeal by Hot Water:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_ordeal#Ordeal_of_hot_water

You first

yeah but no-ons saying Christians are not fully human, well maybe Zillah:)

mohawk

For me I don’t feel there is a need for faith in order to determine what is right and wrong it seems pretty obvious IMO. Why do some people feel that their religion gives them their sence of right and wrong? Is it not obvious that you don’t go around stealing from people and sleeping with someones partner. Is it not obvious that if there are people less fortunate then yourself then you should do your best to help whether that is to donate money or get involved in a charity yourself.
I personally feel that if the only reason you are charitable is because you feel it is a good act in the eyes of whatever religion it may be then it isn’t really a good act as its not coming from yourself. maybe I am being harsh and unfair to some but thats how i feel

Noreen1

Wicknight wrote: »

How do you tell what is good/right?

If that is learned from your religion (ie the Bible says X is good, Y is bad) then it becomes some what circular reasoning to say your faith motivates you to do good.

Your faith motivates you to do what your faith says and believe that is good?

I use a combination of faith and reason.

Zombrex

Noreen1 wrote: »

I use a combination of faith and reason.

Doesn't that make either your faith or your morals irrelevant then.

If God told you to torture your children and you didn't because of reason then what point is your faith?

If God told you to torture your children and you did because of faith then what point is your reason?

If your religion simply reflects the morals you already hold, and you shape what you believe around already preconceived moral positions, then your faith seems utterly unnecessary.

Noreen1

robindch wrote: »

Yes. He made the comments around a year ago, I think on BBC Radio 4, but as above, the recording has been yanked from youtube, no doubt to reduce embarrassment.

At the installation of his successor as the top catholic in the UK, O’Connor made a few more offensive, fairly similar remarks:ie, atheists are "the greatest of evils". A pretty offensive remark, I'd have said.

Hmm - based on what I read, I suspect that he was not referring to atheists as "the greatest of evils" - but rather seeking to defend the right of Catholics to express their faith, and live by it. I think it's fair to say that some atheists would happily see this right disintegrate, and fail to see it as anything other than good!:eek: I think this is what he was referring to, not that he was suggesting that all atheists are intrinsically evil.

Secularism in schools, for example, suits those who want it that way - but denies Christians the right to a Christian education. In my opinion, both systems of education should co-exist, with people being free to choose whichever system the want....
For anyone to advocate one system only is intolerant.

To suggest an atheist is intrinsically evil is inaccurate - many atheists are very good people, who don't believe in God. Being atheist doesn't mean they are incapable of living good, moral, lives. Without wishing to offend any atheist, the biblical reference that springs to mind is "I am the God of all Nations". The other, obvious one, is the tale of the good Samaritan.

Where the propensity for evil comes in, is when people decide that there are no moral absolutes, save what they themselves decide. Obviously, society needs moral absolutes.
In their absence, there is nothing to prevent some powerful person/group saying something like "There are too many people on the planet. It is necessary, even logical, to eliminate some of them........ etc.
Not a pretty thought, irrespective of your belief system - hence the need for moral absolutes.

This is what the Church seeks to condemn - not any individuals choice to be an atheist.

Noreen

sonicthebadger*

Yeah, and puffs obviously. Condemn them too.

Noreen1

Wicknight wrote: »

Doesn't that make either your faith or your morals irrelevant then.

If God told you to torture your children and you didn't because of reason then what point is your faith?

If God told you to torture your children and you did because of faith then what point is your reason?

If your religion simply reflects the morals you already hold, and you shape what you believe around already preconceived moral positions, then your faith seems utterly unnecessary.

Why do you assume they are mutually exclusive?

Noreen

mohawk

Noreen1 wrote: »

Secularism in schools, for example, suits those who want it that way - but denies Christians the right to a Christian education. In my opinion, both systems of education should co-exist, with people being free to choose whichever system the want....
For anyone to advocate one system only is intolerant.


Noreen

I disagree. Even if both systems did exist many people would still not have access to the type of school they want be it secular or otherwise. Especially in rural areas where there is only one school.
Christians do have the right to a christian education and I believe it is up to the parents and not the state to provide this.

deise go deo

mohawk wrote: »

For me I don’t feel there is a need for faith in order to determine what is right and wrong it seems pretty obvious IMO. Why do some people feel that their religion gives them their sence of right and wrong? Is it not obvious that you don’t go around stealing from people and sleeping with someones partner. Is it not obvious that if there are people less fortunate then yourself then you should do your best to help whether that is to donate money or get involved in a charity yourself.
I personally feel that if the only reason you are charitable is because you feel it is a good act in the eyes of whatever religion it may be then it isn’t really a good act as its not coming from yourself. maybe I am being harsh and unfair to some but thats how i feel

Christainaty has always promoated the principle of charity and as a result of this, charity is now part of western morality.
To say however that charity is a natural part of any Society is hard to prove. If we look at a society who were not influenced by Christainity then we can see that there can exist a society to whom the concept of charity did not exist in any organised form. The society I am refering to is Japan.
When Europeans 'Found' Japan in the 15 centuary the Jesuits founded a mission there. They started careing for the lepers there as they did else where. The Japanese could not understand why they would want to associate with these lowly people and as a result the Jesuits came to be held in low regard by the Japanese people as a result of their charity work.

Im not haveing a go at the Japanese, I am just showing that charity is not nessarily going to be held to be a good thing in every society even if we may see it to be obviously good.

sonicthebadger*

deise go deo wrote: »

Christainaty has always promoated the principle of charity and as a result of this, charity is now part of western morality.
To say however that charity is a natural part of any Society is hard to prove. If we look at a society who were not influenced by Christainity then we can see that there can exist a society to whom the concept of charity did not exist in any organised form. The society I am refering to is Japan.
When Europeans 'Found' Japan in the 15 centuary the Jesuits founded a mission there. They started careing for the lepers there as they did else where. The Japanese could not understand why they would want to associate with these lowly people and as a result the Jesuits came to be held in low regard by the Japanese people as a result of their charity work.

Im not haveing a go at the Japanese, I am just showing that charity is not nessarily going to be held to be a good thing in every society even if we may see it to be obviously good.

Any chance of a linky? I'm having a hard time digging up info on the charity work performed by the Jesuit Order in Japan.

deise go deo

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Any chance of a linky? I'm having a hard time digging up info on the charity work performed by the Jesuit Order in Japan.

Try looking for a book called ''Samurai William, The adventurer Who Unlocked Japan'' by Giles Milton. Or The Japanese and the Jesuits, by J.F. Moran, Published by Routledge in 1993.:)

Noreen1

mohawk wrote: »

I disagree. Even if both systems did exist many people would still not have access to the type of school they want be it secular or otherwise. Especially in rural areas where there is only one school.
Christians do have the right to a christian education and I believe it is up to the parents and not the state to provide this.

Why? Do Christians not pay taxes?
For that matter, it could be argued that a lot of schools were built by the Church (as in, using donations from the congregation), to give a Christian education to children.

That being the case, surely atheists should have a quarrel with the Government, and not Christians?

Noreen

mohawk

Noreen1 wrote: »

Why? Do Christians not pay taxes?
For that matter, it could be argued that a lot of schools were built by the Church (as in, using donations from the congregation), to give a Christian education to children.

That being the case, surely atheists should have a quarrel with the Government, and not Christians?

Noreen

Yes christians pay taxes as do everybody else and yes I know christians are the majority. But I thought we were a democracy who dont discriminate. Or do we?

the point is the majority of schools were set up in the country at a time where the church had a very powerful say in the running of the state. Yes there were donations used by the congregation because the state wasn't able to foot the bill. They were giving towards the education of the children this does not have to include religion for children to get a well rounded education. This is why we are left with the current system. I was not being anti-christian in my post. I was pointing out that as a parent you are the most important teacher they will ever have and if you are religious why can't you teach them about it. Instead we have a system with over 90% of primary schools being under the patronage of the catholic church and yet the state pays the teacher salaries.
I have choosen not to give into the pressure and baptise my son who is 1. The chances of me getting him into educate together are looking grim as the waiting list is huge.

goingpostal

deise go deo wrote: »

Christainaty has always promoated the principle of charity and as a result of this, charity is now part of western morality.
To say however that charity is a natural part of any Society is hard to prove. If we look at a society who were not influenced by Christainity then we can see that there can exist a society to whom the concept of charity did not exist in any organised form. The society I am refering to is Japan.
When Europeans 'Found' Japan in the 15 centuary the Jesuits founded a mission there. They started careing for the lepers there as they did else where. The Japanese could not understand why they would want to associate with these lowly people and as a result the Jesuits came to be held in low regard by the Japanese people as a result of their charity work.

Im not haveing a go at the Japanese, I am just showing that charity is not nessarily going to be held to be a good thing in every society even if we may see it to be obviously good.

And in the fifteenth century, Christian Europeans, who were without a shadow of a doubt motivated by the free licence to commit genocide given to them by their book of fairytales(The Old Testament), were wiping out an entire race of people in the Americas.

People do what is right because they intuitively know what is right. We don't need bronze age mythology to tell us that X is right and Y is wrong.

robindch

goingpostal wrote: »

We don't need bronze age mythology to tell us that X is right and Y is wrong.

The strange thing is that not only do many people think that they do need these stories to tell them what's right and wrong, but the same stories are almost invariably ethically assways.

Zillah

Noreen1 wrote: »

Why? Do Christians not pay taxes?

So do Muslims and atheists. Should we spend money exactly in proportion to the taxes that a particular group paid? If Christians paid 90% of the taxes then 90% of the schools are Christian. 8% taxes from atheists so 8% of schools are secular. 2% from Muslims so 2% of schools are Islamic.

It doesn't work. The only fair way to do it is to say that no institution that is publically funded can discriminate.

And yes I just made those numbers up.

scientific1982

The only good side of religion would be the comfort it brings to people in helpless situations.

magicbastarder

goingpostal wrote: »

And in the fifteenth century, Christian Europeans, who were without a shadow of a doubt motivated by the free licence to commit genocide given to them by their book of fairytales(The Old Testament), were wiping out an entire race of people in the Americas.

to be fair (i can't believe i'm defending them on this) most damage was unintentional, afaik - down to introduced diseases the indigenous populations had no immunity to.

pH

I have a fundamental problem with the question, it's similar to the (false) claim that even though Mussolini was a fascist dictator, at least he made the trains run on time - does this mean that Fascism has a "good side"?

As has been pointed out, most things if you look at them hard enough seem to have a silver lining, it's like arguing that a mass slaughter of children would have a "good side" - cheaper dog food. In fact, it's almost impossible to find anything, no matter how terrible or evil, that through some clever thinking someone couldn't contrive some upside to it.

Was cheap cotton really an upside to slavery? If you trick, coerce, force or blackmail someone into doing something "good" can you really claim that as an upside?

robindch

Noreen1 wrote: »

Hmm - based on what I read, I suspect that he was not referring to atheists as "the greatest of evils" - but rather seeking to defend the right of Catholics to express their faith, and live by it.

Not at all. O'Connor is quite clear about his views:

O'Connor wrote:

The evil we ask to be delivered from is not essentially the evil of sin, though that is clear, but in the mind of Jesus it is more importantly a loss of faith. For Jesus, the inability to believe in God and to live by faith is the greatest of evils.

Assuming that O'Connor believes that his views and those of Jesus coincide (hardly unreasonable for an ex-cardinal), O'Connor is explicitly stating that rejecting religious belief is the "greatest of evils." and consequently that atheists are the embodiment of the greatest of evils too.

Now, O'Connor might sincerely believe that it's brave or useful to say this, or that by doing so he's "seeking to defend the right of Catholics to express their faith", but he's still rejecting the assumption of personal integrity, honesty and decency of atheists and by doing so, is directly insulting us.

Noreen1 wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that some atheists would happily see this right disintegrate, and fail to see it as anything other than good!

I don't know any atheists who want to stop religious people believing what they want to. There is a separate debate to be had about whether people can say and do whatever they like, and then excuse themselves simply because it's their religious beliefs (all those stories about babies dying because their parents believe in the "power of prayer" spring to mind). But that is a separate debate.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Where the propensity for evil comes in, is when people decide that there are no moral absolutes, save what they themselves decide.

This moral relativism is an intrinsic and important part of catholicism, though it's not one that you'll hear about very much for obvious reasons. Check out article 1800 of the catholic cathechism on the Vatican's website which states this "Primacy of Conscience" explicitly:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

By asserting that individuals are free to do what they want to, under the sole condition that they themselves alone think it's the right thing to do, they are asserting the very moral relativism that they're continually, and inaccurately, accusing atheists of sticking to.

.

Zombrex

Noreen1 wrote: »

Why do you assume they are mutually exclusive?

Noreen

Because you define them as such.

deise go deo

pH wrote: »

I have a fundamental problem with the question, it's similar to the (false) claim that even though Mussolini was a fascist dictator, at least he made the trains run on time - does this mean that Fascism has a "good side"?

As has been pointed out, most things if you look at them hard enough seem to have a silver lining, it's like arguing that a mass slaughter of children would have a "good side" - cheaper dog food. In fact, it's almost impossible to find anything, no matter how terrible or evil, that through some clever thinking someone couldn't contrive some upside to it.

Was cheap cotton really an upside to slavery? If you trick, coerce, force or blackmail someone into doing something "good" can you really claim that as an upside?

Whats your point? The examples you have given have an obvious reason to be concidered bad, You equate religion with this without showing that it has an obvious reason to be concidered bad. So what puts Religion in the same catagory as slavery or The mass slaughter of children?

Blackhorse Slim

deise go deo wrote: »

So what puts Religion in the same catagory as slavery or The mass slaughter of children?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_Early_Modern_Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_priests%27_sex_abuse_scandal


to name but three...

deise go deo

goingpostal wrote: »

And in the fifteenth century, Christian Europeans, who were without a shadow of a doubt motivated by the free licence to commit genocide given to them by their book of fairytales(The Old Testament), were wiping out an entire race of people in the Americas.

People do what is right because they intuitively know what is right. We don't need bronze age mythology to tell us that X is right and Y is wrong.

You beleive they were motivated by the desire to comit genocide

Where did you read that?
They were motivated by the same thing most people today are, Money.

I have just shown peoples perception of what is right can vary widely from culture to culture.

Your sence of morality is based on the teachings of that Iron age mythology.:rolleyes:

pH

deise go deo wrote: »

Whats your point? The examples you have given have an obvious reason to be concidered bad, You equate religion with this without showing that it has an obvious reason to be concidered bad. So what puts Religion in the same catagory as slavery or The mass slaughter of children?

Religion (which this thread is about, as opposed to spirituality or mere 'belief' in God) is about the systematic control and suppression of a population, for the benefit of a ruling class or religious elite. Be it the Pharaohs, Romans, Catholics or Buddhists religion is all about giving power and status to those with very little real talent in a community.

The fact that religions almost always schism, and a selection process works on them means that the ones we have left today are the successful ones, many have been tried and failed, but through the huge numbers of attempts to invent them and the whittling of them down means that the ones currently running are very good at what they do.

As to your missing of my point, I'm merely pointing out that you can pretty much find a good side to anything, so I'm sure people can find a good side to religion if they try, but only in the same way you can find a good side to national socialism etc. , making the exercise of finding this good side and going on about it rather pointless.

Zombrex

deise go deo wrote: »

Whats your point? The examples you have given have an obvious reason to be concidered bad, You equate religion with this without showing that it has an obvious reason to be concidered bad. So what puts Religion in the same catagory as slavery or The mass slaughter of children?

Er, religion has been responsible for both slavery and the mass slaughter of children

And that is just the first few chapters of the Bible

robindch

deise go deo wrote: »

You beleive they were motivated by the desire to comit genocide

No, they were motivated to do "God's work". Which unfortunately involved killing lots of people.

deise go deo

robindch wrote: »

No, they were motivated to do "God's work". Which unfortunately involved killing lots of people.

Christopher columbus was looking for a new trade route to India, A new way to make money.
The concuistadors were looking for gold.

They may have claimed to be doing gods work from time to time but they were trying to get rich.

robindch

deise go deo wrote: »

The concuistadors were looking for gold.

Have a read of Jared Diamond's excellent "Guns, Germs and Steel" which quotes at length an account by one of the conquistadors which is -- basically -- a distinctly psychotic rant about how the guy was doing god's work and how every person on the expedition viewed themselves in this way. Gold appears, at best, to have been a secondary motivation, at least according to this item of documentary evidence (though I'm sure it was sold to the sponsors as a gold-retrieving expedition; for the guys on the front line, it was different).

The current pope, btw, got himself (again) into hot water a few years back when he said that South America was "silently longing" for christianity to arrive there, suggesting that wasn't all that unhappy with the annihilation of most of the non-christian civilizations in the region, and indeed, most of the population.

Noreen1

mohawk wrote: »

Yes christians pay taxes as do everybody else and yes I know christians are the majority. But I thought we were a democracy who dont discriminate. Or do we?

the point is the majority of schools were set up in the country at a time where the church had a very powerful say in the running of the state. Yes there were donations used by the congregation because the state wasn't able to foot the bill. They were giving towards the education of the children this does not have to include religion for children to get a well rounded education. This is why we are left with the current system. I was not being anti-christian in my post. I was pointing out that as a parent you are the most important teacher they will ever have and if you are religious why can't you teach them about it. Instead we have a system with over 90% of primary schools being under the patronage of the catholic church and yet the state pays the teacher salaries.
I have choosen not to give into the pressure and baptise my son who is 1. The chances of me getting him into educate together are looking grim as the waiting list is huge.

Firstly, I sincerely sympathise with your plight with regard to your sons education. In this day and age, it is scandalous that you should be placed in such a position.
In short - I am of the opinion that people have a right to have a choice about their childrens education. To my way of thinking, I have no right (obviously) to decide what your child should or should not believe. (assuming that those beliefs do not harm anyone). Now, I'm pretty sure you would agree with that.
Conversely, the same is also true. You have no right to decide what my child should or should not believe.

Here is where we disagree. You believe that my child, who is in the majority, democratically, should be denied the right to be taught his/her religion at school. In this way, your child would not be exposed to what you consider to be a false set of beliefs - but my wish for my child to express and live his/her Christian faith in all aspects of life would be severely curtailed......

The obvious solution is that the state should recognise both belief systems - and provide educational establishments accordingly. All paid for by the taxpayer.
In this manner, you will not infringe on my rights, and I will not infringe on yours. Hence, mutual respect = win/win.

I wasn't suggesting that you personally, were being anti-Christian - apologies if it came across that way. I was making the point that some atheists (who post on Boards, rather than this thread in particular) - do not seem to acknowledge that when they rant about Christianity in schools, they are unconsciously seeking to deny the rights of Christians, in the same way that the Government currently denies the right of non-Christians, by failing to provide an education system that suits their particular beliefs.

In a truly tolerant society, there is room for everyone, without denying the rights of any one group, to favour another.

Noreen

Noreen1

robindch wrote: »

Not at all. O'Connor is quite clear about his views:Assuming that O'Connor believes that his views and those of Jesus coincide (hardly unreasonable for an ex-cardinal), O'Connor is explicitly stating that rejecting religious belief is the "greatest of evils." and consequently that atheists are the embodiment of the greatest of evils too.

Now, O'Connor might sincerely believe that it's brave or useful to say this, or that by doing so he's "seeking to defend the right of Catholics to express their faith", but he's still rejecting the assumption of personal integrity, honesty and decency of atheists and by doing so, is directly insulting us.I don't know any atheists who want to stop religious people believing what they want to. There is a separate debate to be had about whether people can say and do whatever they like, and then excuse themselves simply because it's their religious beliefs (all those stories about babies dying because their parents believe in the "power of prayer" spring to mind). But that is a separate debate.This moral relativism is an intrinsic and important part of catholicism, though it's not one that you'll hear about very much for obvious reasons. Check out article 1800 of the catholic cathechism on the Vatican's website which states this "Primacy of Conscience" explicitly:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

By asserting that individuals are free to do what they want to, under the sole condition that they themselves alone think it's the right thing to do, they are asserting the very moral relativism that they're continually, and inaccurately, accusing atheists of sticking to.

.

I can understand why you're insulted, and I would suggest that Cardinal O'Connor might judiciously have inserted the word "militant" before atheism.
I don't believe it was his intention to offend atheists, though. He was addressing Catholics, so I presume he would have expected them to take the same meaning as I did from what he said - I'm pretty sure they did, too.

With regard to your interpretation of "Primacy of Conscience" - I'm genuinely puzzled.

I'll try explaining it using a hypothetical situation.

Suppose a stranger approaches you, and appears drunk.
Said person says they have been severely beaten, and need money to pay for medical help. You refuse on the basis that they want money for drink.
Later, you find that this person died from head injuries.
Are you guilty of failing to help someone in need?

It depends! If you didn't bother to try and ascertain the facts - then, yes, you are guilty.
If you did try to ascertain the facts, and made a genuine error in judgement, then you are not responsible to the same degree. You are responsible only to the degree that you could reasonably have made a judgement, based on your own knowledge and attitude.

Not even remotely similar to moral relativism - though I can see how someone not very familiar with Catholic beliefs could interpret it as such.

Noreen

Zombrex

Noreen1 wrote: »

Firstly, I sincerely sympathise with your plight with regard to your sons education. In this day and age, it is scandalous that you should be placed in such a position.
In short - I am of the opinion that people have a right to have a choice about their childrens education. To my way of thinking, I have no right (obviously) to decide what your child should or should not believe. (assuming that those beliefs do not harm anyone). Now, I'm pretty sure you would agree with that.
Conversely, the same is also true. You have no right to decide what my child should or should not believe.

Here is where we disagree. You believe that my child, who is in the majority, democratically, should be denied the right to be taught his/her religion at school. In this way, your child would not be exposed to what you consider to be a false set of beliefs - but my wish for my child to express and live his/her Christian faith in all aspects of life would be severely curtailed......

The obvious solution is that the state should recognise both belief systems - and provide educational establishments accordingly. All paid for by the taxpayer.
In this manner, you will not infringe on my rights, and I will not infringe on yours. Hence, mutual respect = win/win.

I wasn't suggesting that you personally, were being anti-Christian - apologies if it came across that way. I was making the point that some atheists (who post on Boards, rather than this thread in particular) - do not seem to acknowledge that when they rant about Christianity in schools, they are unconsciously seeking to deny the rights of Christians, in the same way that the Government currently denies the right of non-Christians, by failing to provide an education system that suits their particular beliefs.

In a truly tolerant society, there is room for everyone, without denying the rights of any one group, to favour another.

Noreen

Firstly it is not your child's religion, it is your religion. That is an important distinction.

Secondly if you want to force your religion onto your child you should do so in a private school. The state has not responsibility to help you do that.

The responsibility of the state is to educate, not indoctrinate. Teach about religion by all means, but no state school should teach children that one religion is correct just because their parents say it is. The State is in no position to make that judgment.

The State has a responsibility to your child, not to you.

goingpostal

deise go deo wrote: »

You beleive they were motivated by the desire to comit genocide

Where did you read that?
They were motivated by the same thing most people today are, Money.

I have just shown peoples perception of what is right can vary widely from culture to culture.

Your sence of morality is based on the teachings of that Iron age mythology.:rolleyes:

So you believe that people can only be motivated by ONE thing? Would it not be possible that they were motivated by a desire for money AND because their crazy book gave them license to kill and rape any non-believer? The priests that went along on those expeditions were there to put a papal and biblical imprimatur on the mass slaughter of what were considered subhuman heathens who had forfeited the right to life because of their lack of belief in The Purportedly Magic Jew. Introduced disease had a big part to play but once again, we can't just isolate one factor. We need to see it within the context of the genocide that was occurring within the native american civilizations. If the Christian europeans hadn't been totally destroying entire societies and civilizations and had been treating the native americans humanely, the level of annihilation would have been much lower. Anyway, regardless of how large a role introduced disease had in the decimation of the the native americans, that doesn't take away from the copiously documented barbarity of the Christian Europeans towards all and sundry who didn't succumb to disease. Most of this documentation was produced by the Christian murderers themselves, who were proud of their work for the Pope and their God.

Noreen1

Wicknight wrote: »

Firstly it is not your child's religion, it is your religion. That is an important distinction.

Secondly if you want to force your religion onto your child you should do so in a private school. The state has not responsibility to help you do that.

The responsibility of the state is to educate, not indoctrinate. Teach about religion by all means, but no state school should teach children that one religion is correct just because their parents say it is. The State is in no position to make that judgment.

The State has a responsibility to your child, not to you.

You are making rather a lot of assumptions about my children, for someone who knows nothing about them - eg. Age range etc.

I would further argue that allowing a couple of minutes for prayer during the day (Angelus, for example) is not indoctrination, but allowing a child to express their faith. However, I'm pretty sure that if the system of education you advocate were introduced, this would be disallowed......

We'll just have to agree to disagree, because time doesn't permit me to spend as much time on this thread as I have been spending.

I consider that I have been reasonable and respectful of your rights - but you don't seem to have the same respect for my rights, and those of my children, unfortunately.

Noreen

mewso

Whats wrong with a school teaching about all religions. Their history, what their members believe and so on. As opposed to dictating a specific religion. Then on Sunday your children can go to Sunday school to read the Bible (well maybe the version for kids with all the killing of children omitted) and when at home you can teach them your Christian morals. This idea that children need some kind of 7 days a week indoctrination in certain beliefs is crazy to me.

Pay specific heed to your moral absolutes like "Thou shalt not Kill" and make them aware that this is adjustable if you see non-existence evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Avoiding the whole evolution and morals side of things I got my morals from my parents and other influential figures I saw in my life. The example they set in the way they live was worth far more to me than a book where you pick the best parts or supposedly religious political leaders who tell bare faced lies so they can drop hellfire on innocent people.

mewso

Noreen1 wrote: »

You are making rather a lot of assumptions about my children, for someone who knows nothing about them - eg. Age range etc.

Just as the state would have to do. Ensure that all children not just yours got the best education without any of them being exposed to a religion their parents might not adhere to.

Noreen1 wrote: »

I would further argue that allowing a couple of minutes for prayer during the day (Angelus, for example) is not indoctrination, but allowing a child to express their faith. However, I'm pretty sure that if the system of education you advocate were introduced, this would be disallowed......

I would expect it would be allowed for all religions away from the classrooms. It's about live and let live not take away for all except my kind.

Noreen1 wrote: »

I consider that I have been reasonable and respectful of your rights - but you don't seem to have the same respect for my rights, and those of my children, unfortunately.

Noreen

No just respect for the rights of everybody's children not just yours.

goingpostal

Noreen1 wrote: »

You are making rather a lot of assumptions about my children, for someone who knows nothing about them - eg. Age range etc.

I would further argue that allowing a couple of minutes for prayer during the day (Angelus, for example) is not indoctrination, but allowing a child to express their faith. However, I'm pretty sure that if the system of education you advocate were introduced, this would be disallowed......

We'll just have to agree to disagree, because time doesn't permit me to spend as much time on this thread as I have been spending.

I consider that I have been reasonable and respectful of your rights - but you don't seem to have the same respect for my rights, and those of my children, unfortunately.

Noreen

What if their was one kid of muslim parents in the class? Should all the kids have to face towards Mecca and praise Allah a couple of times a day? In the interests of fairness and inclusiveness and tolerance? Or if a kid whose parents are atheist was in the class, should all the kids be forced to listen to a reading from The God Delusion by Dawkins? Just so that no child feels their parents beliefs are being left out? You can see where this is going. The only sane solution is for all religious indoctrination and all religious practices to be taken out of publicly-funded schools, and for the state to favour no religion and for the state to abstain from promoting any religion. And BTW, no child or no childs parents has the right to expect publicly funded schools to promote their religion, even if that religion happens to have had a monopoly in this country for centuries.

Noreen1

mewso wrote: »

Just as the state would have to do. Ensure that all children not just yours got the best education without any of them being exposed to a religion their parents might not adhere to.



I would expect it would be allowed for all religions away from the classrooms. It's about live and let live not take away for all except my kind.



No just respect for the rights of everybody's children not just yours.[/QUOte


I just did advocate the rights of every child - both my children and yours. Try reading my post again!!!

Noreen

Noreen

Zombrex

Noreen1 wrote: »

You are making rather a lot of assumptions about my children, for someone who knows nothing about them - eg. Age range etc.

The age of your children are now is irrelevant. If they are children (and they were at some point) they did not have the ability to decide rationally for themselves which religion to follow. This is unfortunately around the time that parents and religions start telling them what religion to follow. Children at that age are like sponges, they being to accept what they are told.

I nor the State can stop you doing this to your children, but the State has no responsibility to help you or any parent force one particular religion by teaching them that this is the correct religion and others are wrong.

Noreen1 wrote: »

I would further argue that allowing a couple of minutes for prayer during the day (Angelus, for example) is not indoctrination, but allowing a child to express their faith.

Again it is not their faith. It is yours. You seem to be ignoring that point.

You may wish to raise them as Christians or Muslims or what ever. But the State is not in a position to tell your children that this is the correct religion.

If you want to tell your children they have to take a certain amount of time out from class to pray then you do that on your own, the State is not going to validate that choice.

Noreen1 wrote: »

I consider that I have been reasonable and respectful of your rights - but you don't seem to have the same respect for my rights, and those of my children, unfortunately.

I don't care about your rights. I care about your children's rights, and the States role in protecting those rights.

Noreen1

Wicknight wrote: »

The age of your children are now is irrelevant. If they are children (and they were at some point) they did not have the ability to decide rationally for themselves which religion to follow. This is unfortunately around the time that parents and religions start telling them what religion to follow. Children at that age are like sponges, they being to accept what they are told.

I nor the State can stop you doing this to your children, but the State has no responsibility to help you or any parent force one particular religion by teaching them that this is the correct religion and others are wrong.


Again it is not their faith. It is yours. You seem to be ignoring that point.

You may wish to raise them as Christians or Muslims or what ever. But the State is not in a position to tell your children that this is the correct religion.

If you want to tell your children they have to take a certain amount of time out from class to pray then you do that on your own, the State is not going to validate that choice.



I don't care about your rights. I care about your children's rights, and the States role in protecting those rights.

Actually - you have demonstrated pretty clearly that the only thing you care about is achieving your goals, and that you perceive yourself as having some superior position.

I advocate the right of Catholics to a Catholic education, Protestants to a Protestant education, and likewise for each religious denomination, and those who have no affiliation with any Religion. I advocate an equal standard of education for all children.

Therefore, I advocate the rights of all parents, equally, to enable them to be the moral guardians of their children. I accept that this would place a heavier burden of taxation on people - because I regard tolerance and Human rights as being more important than economic considerations.

You clearly do not share these ideals - believing that you have a right to trample on the wishes of the majority of people, in a Democratic country, even when those people are supporting your rights.

I see no point in debating further with someone who holds that viewpoint.

Noreen

ColmDawson

Noreen1 wrote: »

Actually - you have demonstrated pretty clearly that the only thing you care about is achieving your goals, and that you perceive yourself as having some superior position.

I advocate the right of Catholics to a Catholic education, Protestants to a Protestant education, and likewise for each religious denomination, and those who have no affiliation with any Religion. I advocate an equal standard of education for all children.

Therefore, I advocate the rights of all parents, equally, to enable them to be the moral guardians of their children. I accept that this would place a heavier burden of taxation on people - because I regard tolerance and Human rights as being more important than economic considerations.

You clearly do not share these ideals - believing that you have a right to trample on the wishes of the majority of people, in a Democratic country, even when those people are supporting your rights.

I see no point in debating further with someone who holds that viewpoint.

Noreen

Children of Catholic parents are not Catholic children. They do not and cannot understand the differences between, say, Catholicism and Lutheranism. Their brains are sponges, and if their school teaches Catholicism as truth and fact, they will accept that.

The child has not made a choice regarding the claims various religions make about the nature of the universe, because the child can not.

magicbastarder

a definitive answer to the thread topic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10822923

liamw

magicbastarder wrote: »

a definitive answer to the thread topic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10822923

Giving robbers everywhere a bad name...

strobe

ColmDawson wrote: »

Children of Catholic parents are not Catholic children. They do not and cannot understand the differences between, say, Catholicism and Lutheranism. Their brains are sponges, and if their school teaches Catholicism as truth and fact, they will accept that.

The child has not made a choice regarding the claims various religions make about the nature of the universe, because the child can not.

This is a particularly pertinent point.

I remember when I was 7 or 8 and my teacher used to teach us that 12X12 was 144. Then half an hour later would teach us that the Irish for "I went to the shops" was "Chuaigh me go dti an siopa". Then half an hour after that, in the exact same way, without missing a step, would teach us that the first humans were called Adam and Eve and they lived in a garden until the devil tricked Eve into eating from a tree and thats why bad things happen......

12X12 was 144. That was the correct translation from Irish to English. It all checked out. Obviously she was just as right about the origin and nature of mankind. I took it all at face value because she was my teacher and I knew it was her job to teach me the right stuff. To teach me the correct answers to my questions. There was a very real trust relationship in place. She told me the capital of France was Paris, then ten minutes later she told me, to look for the common demoninator when I wanted to add fractions, then ten minutes later in the exact same manner she told me there was this guy called Noah that lived to be hundreds of years old and stuffed two of every animal on a boat.......


These things should not ever be thought in the same environment, in the same way, by the same person. It's unprofessional at the very least and almost certainly unethical. If I was at my most cynical I would say the fact that this happens was very very deliberate.

ColmDawson

Well said.

With religion, what frustrates me most is not the outrageous/sickening/scandalous stuff that we see in the papers. Rather, it's the fact that ideas and concepts that ought to be scorned and emphatically rejected, are normalised and allowed to cloud the air in children's classrooms.

As to the OP, your poll doesn't have a "The good things in religion are merely good things thought up by people and hijacked by religion" option, so I didn't vote.