Sick of the "schism"

condra

Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this whole kerfuffle in the "atheist community" in the last year or two.

I used to really enjoy discussions with both theists and atheists here on boards, and elsewhere online, but more recently there seems to be a lot of trolling and back-patting, and finger pointing.

Seems like more recently, people are getting deeply entrenched in different views on what atheism should be, if anything other than the lack of belief in any deity.

On YouTube and some Facebook groups such as "Atheist Ireland", there seems to always be someone waiting to put a feminist slant, or politically correct slant, on just about any conversation.

I've no probem with people believing all atheists should be feminists, even though I don't share that sentiment (and I consider myself a feminist in many ways) ..

What I do have a problem with, is being labelled a misogynist if I disagree with anything uttered by a proud, vocal feminist, or being casually labelled as "privilaged" for any reason.

It seems there's an increasing number of people who have bought into a politically correct twist on atheism, who are determined to chastize and castigate as many people as possible, who hold differing viewpoints, not despite them being atheists, but especially if they are also atheists.

This forum, thankfully, remains for the most part, an oasis of calm yet rigorous discussion. But it has gotten crazy "out there"

Pete M.

To be honest,as an agnostic as opposed to an atheist, I couldn't give a fig about what other people believe.

However, I do care about what I believe, and it's difficult enough trying to sort it out for myself, without going out and trying to convince others that I am right.

I could be wrong...

biko

I've seen and heard some bits about atheism being "hijacked" by feminism but tbh I haven't noticed myself. Then again I'm just a hobby atheist and by no means follow any particular foras/groups (except this from time to time).

actuallylike

The whole Matt Dilahunty vs Thunderf00t thing going on is really sad. Matt's done amazing things for the recognition of atheism over the years but that seems to be clouded now because of his involvement in feminist groups and atheist+. I liked it when everyone just didn't believe in god. But I guess this is to be expected. If the only thing linking people is a lack of belief in god, then surely it's expected that views on other subjects won't neccesarily have to match?

Zombrex

Sick of it all TBH, both sides the Skepchick side and the Slympit side.

It has become more about arguing on the Internet than anything else. Reminds me of the Troubles up North (bare with me :P), where both sides though they were justified in their actions because of what the other side did, not realising that they had both lost all perspective.

So you have Skepchick bloggers trying to get people removed from boards, and you get bloggers like Thunderf00t threatening to release private emails, and Greg Laden posting addresses and employment details of other bloggers, you have the nonsense that is AtheismPlus.

It has all got ridiculous, but each side is steadfast convinced they are justified in their behaviour because of what the other side did. Some where along the line the meme that if you are really upset and feel justified in being really upset (which frankly everyone who is really upset normally does) that means all bets are off and you are free to act like an asshole no matter what, and if anyone complains that you are acting like an asshole that is because they are biased and bigoted against you (you are a misogynist or a misandist)

My time on Skepchick was horrible, my time on AtheismPlus was horrible, my time on Thunderf00t's blog was horrible. Reading the back and forth on Twitter is horrible. Seeing the comments about this stuff on Facebook is horrible.

So pretty much done with all of them.

I'm pretty sure, or would at least hope, that there is a neutral majority of atheists/sceptics who, what ever their particular views on feminism, scepticism, politics etc are just done with the petty bickering. It is just self aggrandising performance art.

As my mum likes to say, heaven forbid these people actually had real problems.

sink

I've more or less ignored it shortly after it sparked off with elevator gate. This is my only regular portal into the atheism community and seems to have more or less kept it's head.

In some ways it even pleases me, I found many of the loudest atheists to be little too high and mighty for their own good. Looking down on believers with an barely hidden contempt, when in reality we're all liable to suffer from the same biases and group think that are so often thrown at believers. I really shows that it doesn't matter a jot whether one believes or not, it contributes nothing to the content of ones character.

Ickle Magoo

Zombrex wrote: »

As my mum likes to say, heaven forbid these people actually had real problems.

A genuine case of "check your privilege" if ever there was one!

fitz0

actuallylike wrote: »

The whole Matt Dilahunty vs Thunderf00t thing going on is really sad.

Is that still going on? You'd think two eminently sensible people would be more, well... sensible.

The whole conflation of non belief with other causes mystifies me. I get peoples' desires to help out a good cause but the way it's been done in the most public example is just a poor way of doing it. One of the biggest problems I (and many others I'm sure) had with religion is its divisiveness and to see it happen in a religious vacuum is terribly disappointing.

Still, they're free to do as they like. They don't represent me and they likely never will.

robindch

condra wrote: »

What I do have a problem with, is being labelled a misogynist if I disagree with anything uttered by a proud, vocal feminist, or being casually labelled as "privilaged" for any reason. It seems there's an increasing number of people who have bought into a politically correct twist on atheism, who are determined to chastize and castigate as many people as possible [...]

Can't say I disagree with either that, the majority of Tunderf00t's recent video or Paula Kirby's Sisterhood of the Oppressed to pick but a few comments.

Discourse in many places has been poisoned by a small number of unpleasant, self-promoting twats who indulge in what I find indistinguishable from mid-level political thuggery -- using and abusing the decency and trust of many people to dominate and direct discussions. And it's disappointing to see a lot of clever, well-meaning people who should know bollocks(*) when they see it, buying into that abuse of trust.


(*) Not white, privileged, male bollocks, of course.

condra

I think there should be a new movement, which is inclusive and welcomes all atheists regardless of their broad ranging political views on womens issues, abortion, gay marriage, best flavour of ice cream etc etc etc..

It could be called soemthing like ..

Atheism

expectationlost

condra wrote: »

I think there should be a new movement, which is inclusive and welcomes all atheists regardless of their broad ranging political views on womens issues, abortion, gay marriage, best flavour of ice cream etc etc etc..

It could be called soemthing like ..

Atheism

except that atheism isn't a movement

condra

expectationlost wrote: »

except that atheism isn't a movement

Well it should be, and I'm offended by your post. What are we if we're not feminists? Why don't we just call ourselves nothing?
Why don't you just admit you hate women??
CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!

:pac:

Hotblack Desiato

My privilege level is 'user'

> su - PrivilegedWhiteGuy
Password: ********
su: incorrect password
> _

Standman

Zombrex wrote: »

So you have Skepchick bloggers trying to get people removed from boards..

They tried to have people removed from boards.ie?

Hotblack Desiato

Boards is not the only boards.

pauldla

ninja900 wrote: »

Boards is not the only boards.

How can you deny the evidence of your own eyes! Unbeliever, we shall grind you into the dust for your heresy!

Sorry, just had a relapse...don't know what came over me...

legspin

Speaking of schisms within atheism, how long before there is an acrimonious split within this lot.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/uks-first-atheist-church-set-to-open-tomorrow/

the_syco

condra wrote: »

It seems there's an increasing number of people who have bought into a politically correct twist on atheism, who are determined to chastize and castigate as many people as possible, who hold differing viewpoints, not despite them being atheists, but especially if they are also atheists.

Being an atheist seems to be the new "cool" thing for some people. I'm hoping this bullsh|t will die down after a while, and atheists can get back to being atheists as per what they believe, and not atheists as per some famous atheist.

Zillah

I'm quite glad that I don't know any of these people.

Zombrex

sink wrote: »

Looking down on believers with an barely hidden contempt, when in reality we're all liable to suffer from the same biases and group think that are so often thrown at believers.

For me I think that has been the biggest, and most disappointing, eye opener out of all of this. I really expected better from the, some what self appointed, "leaders" of the sceptical community, be they Waton, Myers, Thunderf00t, Vacula, even Dawkins (who sensibly seems to have removed himself from the debate)

Then again as someone else pointed out a while ago, these people have always been assholes you just didn't notice as much when they were directing their assholeness towards Creationists. :P

PopePalpatine

I can't believe no-one's mentioned the Allied Atheist Alliance, the United Atheist Alliance or the United Atheist League yet.

Hotblack Desiato

Atheist Front of Judea?

TheChizler

Splitters.

Cavehill Red

I'm a religious atheist - ie a Buddhist who does not believe in divinities. I don't fit the new 'radical' definitions of atheism espoused by these armchair issue-jockeys. Atheism has been hijacked by them to their ends, thereby excluding people like me who simply do not believe in Gods.
My conclusions are a) that this will repel many people from atheism and b) there's no good thing that can't be rendered annoying and repulsive by militant feminists.

Bannasidhe

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm a religious atheist - ie a Buddhist who does not believe in divinities. I don't fit the new 'radical' definitions of atheism espoused by these armchair issue-jockeys. Atheism has been hijacked by them to their ends, thereby excluding people like me who simply do not believe in Gods.
My conclusions are a) that this will repel many people from atheism and b) there's no good thing that can't be rendered annoying and repulsive by militant feminists.

'Militant' Feminist always makes me think of how people here complain about being called 'militant' Atheists.

What makes either 'militant' apart from the fact that the person using the term doesn't agree with them?

Personally, I prefer the term 'pains in the hole' and find one meets them in all walks of life among all types of people. My brother, for example, is a 'militant' golfer - no OT prophet could match him when he gets started on one of his golf rants :pac:

Cavehill Red

They're militant in the sense that they feel they're fighting a war, and must bring their issues into every area in a combative manner.
There's nothing in my understanding of atheism (a-theism, meaning without theism) that requires a feminist perspective.
Some people (Dawkins) do seek to promote atheism in a similarly combative and militant manner. I don't warm to them either.

Bannasidhe

Cavehill Red wrote: »

They're militant in the sense that they feel they're fighting a war, and must bring their issues into every area in a combative manner.
There's nothing in my understanding of atheism (a-theism, meaning without theism) that requires a feminist perspective.
Some people (Dawkins) do seek to promote atheism in a similarly combative and militant manner. I don't warm to them either.

While I don't always see eye to eye with my more vocal sisters (to put it mildly) I do think a Feminist perspective can add to debates as it provides a new way of looking at things, just as a Marxist perspective can, or a non-Euro centric perspective or any other 'minority' perspective. It encourages us to leave our comfort zone and try and see things as others see them. That is not to say these perspectives should become the discussion but that we are all conditioned by our environment/education/socio-economic background etc to see things in a certain way often without even realising it. It's good to have this challenged even if, eventually, we decide that we still hold those views at least they will have been tested.

I do hate the way the term 'militant' is bandied about and the way it is employed suggests those termed 'militant' should be dismissed as extremists. I think it is intellectually lazy and stifles debate.

Cavehill Red

I wasn't bandying anything about. I explained my use of the term. It doesn't require you to fetishise it or seek to misinterpret it.
Also, whatever about feminist or marxist perspectives, as far as I am concerned while there may be room for feminist atheists or marxist atheists, fundamentally their 'perspectives' aren't required here because atheism, simply, is a lack of belief in gods. I'm sick of people with agendas, like feminists or marxists, seeking to hijack and redefine things like atheism to their own ends. It results in them ruling that people like me cannot be atheist, because I don't adhere to THEIR narrow, exclusionary definition.

Bannasidhe

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I wasn't bandying anything about. I explained my use of the term. It doesn't require you to fetishise it or seek to misinterpret it.
Also, whatever about feminist or marxist perspectives, as far as I am concerned while there may be room for feminist atheists or marxist atheists, fundamentally their 'perspectives' aren't required here because atheism, simply, is a lack of belief in gods. I'm sick of people with agendas, like feminists or marxists, seeking to hijack and redefine things like atheism to their own ends. It results in them ruling that people like me cannot be atheist, because I don't adhere to THEIR narrow, exclusionary definition.

Steady on.

I simply pointed out that when Theists complain about calls for secularisation they like to refer to 'militant' Atheists and people here, rightly so, complain.
So it strikes me when people here attach the word 'militant' to those they do not agree with.

In this instance it is Feminism. One of the big bogey(wo)men of our times. I would not say the people you are referring to are feminists in the true sense of the word - they are people who have hijacked feminism and twisted it to suit their own agenda and to term them 'militant Feminists' is as incorrect as saying most of the posters here are 'militant Atheists'.

Cavehill Red

It looks like we need to consult the dictionary, so. Militant means to be warlike or bellicose, especially in the pursuit of a political cause. When people seek to insist rather than persuade, they are being militant about their politics. Such people, of whatever political origin, are militants and ideologues.
When atheists seek to 'bring the war' to the religious by insisting on an aggressive campaign of secularisation that does not carry popular support among the mass of people, then they too are being militant.
When feminists seek to redefine atheism to their own ends so that it excludes me and anyone else who does not meekly concur with their 'radical' redefinition, they too are being militant.
I hope this is now clear for you. I can't really simplify it beyond there.

PopePalpatine

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Some people (Dawkins) do seek to promote atheism in a similarly combative and militant manner. I don't warm to them either.

Well, Dawkins is up against people who wouldn't hesitate to burn him if this was 1713 rather than 2013.

Cavehill Red

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Well, Dawkins is up against people who wouldn't hesitate to burn him if this was 1713 rather than 2013.

But it isn't. And it isn't Saudi or Somalia either. His argumentative stance is not a case of life and death. For me, it's inappropriately militant and serves his cause ill compared to, say, the more persuasive mechanics of someone like Raymond Tallis.

Bannasidhe

Cavehill Red wrote: »

But it isn't. And it isn't Saudi or Somalia either. His argumentative stance is not a case of life and death. For me, it's inappropriately militant and serves his cause ill compared to, say, the more persuasive mechanics of someone like Raymond Tallis.

I think Dawkins has a right to say what he thinks as forcibly as he thinks he needs to say it. As does everyone else. If I disagree, I will say so. But how many times have we heard Theist's say 'Well, Dawkins says....' - so bloody what! Regardless of how some seek to portray him, he is not the atheist Pope.

Dawkins speaks for Dawkins - he speaks as an atheist not on behalf of atheism as if there was some kind of hive mind. The same goes for individual feminists - they speak as feminists not on behalf of - like Atheists, Feminists are a diverse lot and there is no agreed Feminist consensus bar women are equal to men and should be treated as such.

There are extremists in all walks of life but in the case of atheists and feminists their radicalism is usually expressed via the word - rarely, if ever, by violent action.

What Atheists or Feminists are engaging in 'warlike' actions? Have we had people who identify themselves as either or both of these advocate killing, or blowing places up?

Or is it more a case of mouthing off and trying to lay down some rules of their own devising that are not shared by all?

Are the women in India who have formed the Pink Saris and are currently patrolling the streets with clubs to demonstrate that Indian women have had enough 'Militant' or are they acting out of a sense of self-protection?

Cavehill Red

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are the women in India who have formed the Pink Saris and are currently patrolling the streets with clubs to demonstrate that Indian women have had enough 'Militant' or are they acting out of a sense of self-protection?

Both, actually. But I really don't think that's an apt comparison.

Bannasidhe

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Both, actually. But I really don't think that's an apt comparison.

Women who have been calling for decades for something to be done about the treatment of women in India were dismissed as 'militant' for simply speaking out. In the same was people calling for proper separation of church and State are termed 'militant' atheists.

When people start to employ violence - regardless of their motivation and whether I, personally agree with them or not, - I would say they are 'militant'. When they are simply talking, writing, arguing, setting agendas etc then no - I don't believe the word 'militant' applies - as I said 'pain in the hole' is a better of what is happening in the Atheist context.

Cavehill Red

I won't have you foist your definitions upon me. They are no more accurate than the feminist 'radical' redefining of atheism is.
Militant has a clear meaning, which I already provided, supported by any dictionary you care to consult on the matter. I used the term in exactly the meaning defined in the dictionary. You don't like it, fine. Don't use it. But you don't have the right to singlehandedly redefine it, any more than the scepchicks have the right to redefine atheism so as to exclude me.

Bannasidhe

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I won't have you foist your definitions upon me. They are no more accurate than the feminist 'radical' redefining of atheism is.
Militant has a clear meaning, which I already provided, supported by any dictionary you care to consult on the matter. I used the term in exactly the meaning defined in the dictionary. You don't like it, fine. Don't use it. But you don't have the right to singlehandedly redefine it, any more than the scepchicks have the right to redefine atheism so as to exclude me.

Neither will I have you foist yours on me.

You have chosen a word that is akin to fanatic and implies - as you said yourself - 'warlike' connotations.

I deny there is any 'warlike' aspects on display by skepchicks et al or Dawkins. Mouthy - yes. Verbally aggressive - yes. Exclusive rather than inclusive - yes. But warlike/aggressive/combatant in the physical meaning usually implied to the term 'militant' - no.

'militant' is too often employed as a handy way to paint those who say things one does not agree with as extremist and/or fundamentalist aggressors to the Status Quo.

Hotblack Desiato

Cavehill Red wrote: »

When atheists seek to 'bring the war' to the religious by insisting on an aggressive campaign of secularisation that does not carry popular support among the mass of people, then they too are being militant.

This is nonsense.

Discrimination in favour of supporters of a religion, or against non-followers, is wrong. Even if the majority of people in a country support it.

Secularism seeks equal treatment of members of all religions and none.

Cavehill Red

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Neither will I have you foist yours on me.

Fine, but your definition is wrong.

The Free Dictionary: mil·i·tant (ml-tnt)
adj.
1. Fighting or warring.
2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.

Merriam-Webster: Definition of MILITANT
1: engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2: aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists> <a militant attitude>

Oxford: Definition of militant
adjective
favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause

Cavehill Red

ninja900 wrote: »

This is nonsense.

Discrimination in favour of supporters of a religion, or against non-followers, is wrong. Even if the majority of people in a country support it.

Secularism seeks equal treatment of members of all religions and none.

As a religious atheist, I'm not so interested in secularism as some. I also don't think you can define something as wrong for a society without carrying the majority of that society with you in seeking social change, but that's another argument entirely, in which no doubt you or others will seek to argue ideologically that, because you are right by your own standards and definitions, you have the right to pursue the infliction of your views on society whether widely supported or not. All revolutionaries suffer such fervour. None of them endear themselves to me. As I said earlier, there are much more persuasive methods and inclusionary definitions of atheism elsewhere.

Bannasidhe

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Fine, but your definition is wrong.

The Free Dictionary: mil·i·tant (ml-tnt)
adj.
1. Fighting or warring.
2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.

Merriam-Webster: Definition of MILITANT
1: engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2: aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists> <a militant attitude>

Oxford: Definition of militant
adjective
favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause

I have no issue with these definitions, why should I - they demonstrate my point of how the word 'militant' is increasingly applied to exaggerate and demonise people who are simply talking/writing - the only 'warfare or combat' they are engaging in is verbal and to attempt to align them with the violence committed by extremists is hyperbole.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

As a religious atheist, I'm not so interested in secularism as some. I also don't think you can define something as wrong for a society without carrying the majority of that society with you in seeking social change, but that's another argument entirely, in which no doubt you or others will seek to argue ideologically that, because you are right by your own standards and definitions, you have the right to pursue the infliction of your views on society whether widely supported or not. All revolutionaries suffer such fervour. None of them endear themselves to me. As I said earlier, there are much more persuasive methods and inclusionary definitions of atheism elsewhere.

You seem to be assuming that all atheists are secularists (even though you yourself are not) and that all secularists are atheists - which is certainly not true.

As for ' I also don't think you can define something as wrong for a society without carrying the majority of that society with you in seeking social change' - by that token Slavery is ok as long as the majority agree with it.

Zombrex

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It looks like we need to consult the dictionary, so. Militant means to be warlike or bellicose, especially in the pursuit of a political cause. When people seek to insist rather than persuade, they are being militant about their politics. Such people, of whatever political origin, are militants and ideologues.

You just quoted why that isn't the case. Militant means to be warlike or aggressive. As in actually aggressive, actually warlike.

Not "Tesco's are waging a war on higher priced roaming charges" warlike.

If you are not actually being physically aggressive in the pursuit of your goal you are not being militant. If you are not contemplating physical aggression in the pursuit of your goal, you are not being militant.

No one sits in a Richard Dawkins lecture thinking "Man, I better get out of here, it is all about to kick off"

Cavehill Red

Zombrex wrote: »

If you are not actually being physically aggressive in the pursuit of your goal you are not being militant. If you are not contemplating physical aggression in the pursuit of your goal, you are not being militant.
]

This is definitively incorrect. I suggest you reread those definitions.

Cavehill Red

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have no issue with these definitions, why should I - they demonstrate my point of how the word 'militant' is increasingly applied to exaggerate and demonise people who are simply talking/writing - the only 'warfare or combat' they are engaging in is verbal and to attempt to align them with the violence committed by extremists is hyperbole.

It is you and not I who is seeking (incorrectly) to redefine militancy as requiring a physical threat element. That is not the definition of the word, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. Therefore, any such alignment as you suggest exists primarily in your head.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You seem to be assuming that all atheists are secularists (even though you yourself are not) and that all secularists are atheists - which is certainly not true.

By contrast, I'm seeking to defend the right to be an atheist and not give a crap about secularisation, or feminism, or marxism, or any other pet ideologies that are not directly related to the concept of not believing in gods.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for ' I also don't think you can define something as wrong for a society without carrying the majority of that society with you in seeking social change' - by that token Slavery is ok as long as the majority agree with it.

True indeed. The tyranny of the majority as revolutionaries like to call it. Preferable in my experience to the tyranny of minorities.

Zombrex

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is definitively incorrect. I suggest you reread those definitions.

"Militant means to be warlike or bellicose"

Warlike - Disposed toward or threatening war
Bellicose - favoring or inclined to start quarrels or wars

Can you give examples of modern day atheists who have shown a willingness or encouraged violent struggle?

Once again the type of thing you are talking about ("Tesco's aggressively fights price legislation", "Social services starts a war on tax dodgers") don't count, they are hyperbole.

Hotblack Desiato

Cavehill Red wrote: »

As a religious atheist, I'm not so interested in secularism as some. I also don't think you can define something as wrong for a society without carrying the majority of that society with you in seeking social change, but that's another argument entirely, in which no doubt you or others will seek to argue ideologically that, because you are right by your own standards and definitions, you have the right to pursue the infliction of your views on society whether widely supported or not. All revolutionaries suffer such fervour. None of them endear themselves to me. As I said earlier, there are much more persuasive methods and inclusionary definitions of atheism elsewhere.

Human rights are inalienable, they do not require the agreement of the majority of any particular society to exist. Freedom of religion is a human right as defined by the United Nations. The state must not discriminate against citizens on the basis of their religion or non-religion - yet this happens in Ireland every day an atheist sends their child to school where they are force-fed religion.

If Ireland had a referendum and decided to introduce a Buddhist Tax of, say, €1000 per annum, would you be OK with that? After all if we voted for it it must be 'right for our society'

A buddhist tax might seem fanciful, but it's not all that long ago that 'what was right for our society' included amazing levels of intrusion into the private life of the citizen (e.g. heavy censorship, ban on contraception), discriminating against non-catholics in state employment, incarcerating and raping the children of the poor, placing single mothers into slavery and selling their babies to wealthy catholic Americans.

Cavehill Red

Germany and other countries have religious taxes. One is free to opt out of them, but then one cannot engage in the facilities and services provided by those religions. I don't see a particular problem with that myself.

Hotblack Desiato

Those taxes don't go to the state though. Try again.

Cavehill Red

ninja900 wrote: »

Those taxes don't go to the state though. Try again.

What would the rationale for states taxing belief systems be?

Hotblack Desiato

You seem to think that secularists shouldn't complain about discrimination on the basis of religion provided a majority of people in that society agree with it.
Tax is just a hypothetical example. The fact that a majority of people may support a policy or would vote for it does not make that policy right or fair.

A real-life example is the domination of our education system by religious-ethos schools and the so-called integration of religion throughout the primary education syllabus. Atheists must pay taxes to help fund these schools, and we must send our children to them, so we are paying for our kids to be brainwashed against our wishes, and in violation of the Irish Constitution

Article 42.4 wrote:

The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

Article 44.2.4 wrote:

Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

It is right and proper that atheists and secularists should campaign for the separation of church and state and the provision of non-religious education. Even if public opinion in Ireland were 99% opposed to them, they'd still be in the right, because human rights are universal and inalienable and cannot be extinguished by a popular vote.

Cavehill Red

Ninja, I'm not arguing the issue of whether atheists generally are militant or not. Most as far as I can see are not. Of those that are, to my mind they fall into those who are militant about atheism, such as Dawkins on occasion, and those who are militant about other ideologies and seek to promote them in a false-flag manner under the guise of atheism.

I don't have a problem with Dawkins' militant approach, but I do suspect that it alienates as many as it encourages. I do have a problem with people using the banner of atheism to promote other ideologies that have at best only a tangential attachment to the simple notion of not believing in divinities. That's the extent of it for me, because that latter cohort are seeking in some circumstances to redefine what atheism is to their own ends, and to exclude me from it, which I object to.

I've no doubt we've discussed the religious education issue on this board many, many times. It is, like many things, a legacy issue. It is a responsibility of the state to live up to its constitution and take over the field of education. Historically, it has not been able to afford to do so, and the will has not been there to do so.

Finally, I'd point out that what you or anyone else seek to define as inalienable rights amounts to nothing more than your own ideological perspective on the matter. There is no empiricism in this area.