The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

J C

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Why should religion have influence over government, education, health etc?

... why should it not? ... what is so 'magical' about secularism that makes it have the 'wisdom of Solomon' on everything?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If people are free to practice their religion in a way that doesn't impinge on other people how is that religion being suppressed?

... What do you mean 'in a way that doesn't impinge on other people'?
... everything that people do 'impinges' on other people ... that's what being in society is all about.
In extremis, I could do practically nothing, if I strictly couldn't impinge on other people.
... even saying 'hello' to them could be construed as 'impinging' on them!!!

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

... why should it not? ... what is so 'magical' about secularism that makes it have the wisdom of Solomon on everything?

... What do you mean 'in a way that doesn't impinge on other people'?
... everything that people do 'impinges' on other people ... that's what being in society is all about.
In extremis, I could do practically nothing, if I strictly couldn't impinge on other people.
... even saying 'hello' to them could be construed as 'impinging' on them!!!

Because religious people should be given the same influence as atheists. A vote and nothing more.

I suppose you could compare people practicing religion to fans attending a match or gig. A minor inconvenience for others that is tolerated for the good of society.

J C

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Because religious people should be given the same influence as atheists. A vote and nothing more.

... but voting is only one way that people and groups of people have influence in society ... and get to do what they want to do.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I suppose you could compare people practicing religion to fans attending a match or gig. A minor inconvenience for others that is tolerated for the good of society.

... or something to tightly regulate to the point of effectively banning it ... on the basis that it shouldn't impinge in any way, on anybody else?

Gigs are already very tightly regulated and require planning permission and a whole host of other licences before they can proceed ... is this the bureaucratic nightmare that is envisaged for the practice of religion in future.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A minor inconvenience for others that is tolerated for the good of society.

... but who is to say that religion is 'for the good of society' ... I don't think that many on the A & A would concur ... and therein lies a further issue, once peoples absolute rights to practice their religion is compromised by a legally superior secular perogative.

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

... but voting is only one way that people and groups of people have influence in society ... and get to do what they want to do.

... or something to tightly regulate to the point of effectively banning it ... on the basis that it shouldn't impinge in any way, on anybody else?

Gigs are already very tightly regulated and require planning permission and whole host of other licences before they can proceed ... is this the bureaucratic nightmare that is envisaged for the practice of religion in future.

... but who is to say that religion is 'for the good of society' ... I don't think that many on the A & A would concur ... and therein lies a further issue, once peoples absolute rights to practice their religion is compromised by a legally superior secular perogative.

Yeah. In a democracy all citizens should have equal influence politically. Do you disagree?

You know, the Catholic Church's influence on Ireland has diminished almost to the point that I think we can begin to call it a secular state. It's not that oppressive is it?

smacl

J C wrote: »

... why should it not? ... what is so 'magical' about secularism that makes it have the 'wisdom of Solomon' on everything?

In case you hadn't noticed, society has moved on from the times of Solomon. We have notions such as human rights, and live in a society that includes many people with varied and often opposing beliefs. Unlike religion, there is absolutely nothing magical about secularism, it is merely a pragmatic approach where we can all get along on an even footing.

... What do you mean 'in a way that doesn't impinge on other people'?
... everything that people do 'impinges' on other people ... that's what being in society is all about.
In extremis, I could do practically nothing, if I strictly couldn't impinge on other people.
... even saying 'hello' to them could be construed as 'impinging' on them!!!

Whereas in fact religious interference does impinge on basic human rights across the world, and religious infringements on Irish human rights have been commented on by the UN on numerous occasions, as has been covered at length in many threads in this forum over the years.

J C

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah. In a democracy all citizens should have equal influence politically. Do you disagree?

In theory this is what a democracy should be ... but in practice, it never is.
People campaign on behalf of their representatives, lobby their representatives and engage in PR to influence everyone else. Other people couldn't care less about particuar issues, especially those that don't affect them.

... and to balance democracy, people should also have individual rights that nobody else can take away, irrespective of how populist the taking away of such rights might be ... that is where law is there to balance democratic action ... which could descend into little more than 'mob rule' in extremis.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You know, the Catholic Church's influence on Ireland has diminished almost to the point that I think we can begin to call it a secular state. It's not that oppressive is it?

It becomes oppressive when I hear talk about taking over church property ... and forcing Roman Catholic parents to send their children to secular schools.

It becomes oppressive when I hear talk about banning religion and religious pastors from schools.

Secularism has a place ... but you can have too much of a good thing ... and secularism is no exception.

J C

smacl wrote: »

In case you hadn't noticed, society has moved on from the times of Solomon. We have notions such as human rights, and live in a society that includes many people with varied and often opposing beliefs. Unlike religion, there is absolutely nothing magical about secularism, it is merely a pragmatic approach where we can all get along on an even footing.

... Secularism should confine itself to matters within its competence ... and religion isn't one of them.
... doubly so, when many secularists have clearly expressed biases against religion.

smacl wrote: »

Whereas in fact religious interference does impinge on basic human rights across the world, and religious infringements on Irish human rights have been commented on by the UN on numerous occasions, as has been covered at length in many threads in this forum over the years.

... and religion also supports Human freedom and good socially-responsible living.

... so the UN, or any other secularist quango, doesn't have a monopoly of wisdom on how to live our lives - or indeed on how society should function.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

... Secularism should confine itself to matters within its competence ... and religion isn't one of them.

We've finally reached the twilight zone.

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

In theory this is what a democracy should be ... but in practice, it never is.
People campaign on behalf of their representatives, lobby their representatives and engage in PR to influence everyone else. Other people couldn't care less about particuar issues, especially those that don't affect them.

... and to balance democracy, people should also have individual rights that nobody else can take away, irrespective of how populist the taking away of such rights might be ... that is where law is there to balance democratic action ... which could descend into little more than 'mob rule' in extremis.

It becomes oppressive when I hear talk about taking over church property ... and forcing Roman Catholic parents to send their children to secular schools.

It becomes oppressive when I hear talk about banning religion and religious pastors from schools.

Secularism has a place ... but you can have too much of a good thing ... and secularism is no exception.

Well, why doesn't the Catholic church set up its own political party? That'll fix your lobbying problem.

If I were the new Stalin (seeing as you brought his regime up) religion would indeed be kept out of schools. Parents can teach their kids any kind of faith they want outside of state property.

Religion is not presently being oppressed in Ireland. That's just a fact. Comparisons with Uncle Joe's Russia is both farcical and disingenuous. Catholicism's influence on Irish society was deeply malign and Ireland is a better place now that secularisation is taking hold. You're still free to practice your religion. There are many countries where you would not be free to do so. Rejoice! Everyone's a winner.

smacl

Pherekydes wrote: »

We've finally reached the twilight zone.

The specious nonsense thread is certainly living up to its name. To misquote Dante 'Abandon rationality all ye who enter here'.

J C

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, why doesn't the Catholic church set up its own political party? That'll fix your lobbying problem.

If I were the new Stalin (seeing as you brought his regime up) religion would indeed be kept out of schools. Parents can teach their kids any kind of faith they want outside of state property.

... you're making the assumption that all primary schools are state property ... when over 90% aren't.
... and if children can't be taught religion on state property ... then not many schools will be volunteered to the state.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Religion is not presently being oppressed in Ireland. That's just a fact. Comparisons with Uncle Joe's Russia is both farcical and disingenuous. Catholicism's influence on Irish society was deeply malign and Ireland is a better place now that secularisation is taking hold. You're still free to practice your religion. There are many countries where you would not be free to do so. Rejoice! Everyone's a winner.

... You are correct that religion is not presently being oppressed in Ireland ... and I think that this is how the vast majority of people want it to remain.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

We've finally reached the twilight zone.

Why?
... do you think that secularism has expertise in religious matters ?

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

.

.. you're making the assumption that all primary schools are state property ... when over 90% aren't.
... and if children can't be taught religion on state property ... then not many schools will be volunteered to the state.

Yeah, but the infrastructure within the Catholic church required to manage and maintain the system and its building no longer exists. Witness the demise of the teaching orders. So what is left of the infrastructure is rightly handing matters over to the state.

... You are correct that religion is not presently being oppressed in Ireland ... and I think that this is how the vast majority of people want it to remain.

We have consensual reality! Yay!

smacl

J C wrote: »

Why?
... do you think that secularism has expertise in religious matters ?

Perhaps you could define secularism in a way that doesn't reference religion?

looksee

Secularism does not have and does not need an expertise in religious matters. It is only concerned with the absence of religious influence in state and public affairs.

J C

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps you could define secularism in a way that doesn't reference religion?

... or perhaps you could define secularism in a way that doesn't set out to exclude religious POVs from the public space.

J C

looksee wrote: »

Secularism does not have and does not need an expertise in religious matters. It is only concerned with the absence of religious influence in state and public affairs.

If secular POVs are to be taken account of in framing state and public policy ... why shouldn't religious POVs also be taken account of?
Why should public policy be solely driven by secular concerns?

looksee

A secular point of view is not an active thing, it is simply an absence of religion.

For example if you go into, say, the planning office in your local town, you discuss planning. You do not say a prayer before your discussion, you do not see holy pictures on the wall, the planner does not say to you 'oh we can't let you build a house there, you would be more than 10 miles away from a church'. If you want to say a quiet prayer before going to speak to someone, well that's fine, go ahead. But it is not necessary or relevant to the business of the planning office.

If you go into a hospital however there is every chance you will see holy pictures and statues, depending on the hospital. You may be given to understand that this is a religious hospital, even though you have simply been sent there for a check up and had no need nor desire to be engaged in any religious implications. You will be asked what is your religion, and in a religious hospital be told 'it isn't possible to put your religion down as 'none'' (that happened to me in the last couple of years). So I lied just to get on with the procedure. It isn't in my nature to lie, but had a choice of that or not be admitted (presumably). I was not in the humour to play silly beggers with their bureaucracy.

In the past in a public, state hospital all patients would be told to get into their beds and the nurses would tidy the bed round you so you looked respectable while the host was carried round with all ceremony, whether you wished to partake or not. Now it is much more relaxed and private to the individual - that is a secular approach coming in and better for it. No one is preventing the individual taking communion, or disrespecting them or the host. If you don't want it you can ignore it, if you do want it you are free to take it. These are very minor concerns, they don't begin to deal with the much more significant matters of religious teaching directly affecting patients' health. Nowhere though is there any suggestion that the secular approach is imposing anything on religious people, simply that religion doesn't come into day to day events where it is not relevant.

Absolam

J C wrote: »

It seems that many Atheists not only don't believe that God (or gods) exist ... but if the God of the Bible does exist, they would reject Him and would have nothing to do with Him ... citing numerous negatives supposedly associated with Him. They're also deeply anti-religion and especially anti-christian, as a result of their views on the God of the Bible. I'm not sure whether this anti-God/Christian position is a new phenomenon amongst some Atheists ... or whether it has always existed. I'd be interested in getting the views of Atheists on this.

My own experience is that most atheists hold an agnostic view of religion; any religion. I've noticed that those (whom I've met and discussed with) who are active anti-theists, particularly anti-Catholic (generally an Irish thing to be fair) tend to be either teenagers being teenagers or people who had unusually troubled relationships with authority figures when younger and use religion/ the Church as a substitute for that adversary as they've grown up. I'd say it's far from many atheists; I reckon it's a very small minority indeed, since the majority of people I know take no interest in religious matters at all.

That's not to say there aren't genuine crusaders on either side, dedicated to the promulgation or suppression of religion, true believers in the righteousness of their cause which they feel more than justifies the specious nonsense they come up with.

AllForIt

J C wrote: »

It seems that many Atheists not only don't believe that God (or gods) exist ... but if the God of the Bible does exist, they would reject Him and would have nothing to do with Him ... citing numerous negatives supposedly associated with Him.

The person who believes without a shadow of a doubt that God exists can only conclude that the atheist has rejected God.

What you seem to be saying is that if God stood in front of an atheist they would still reject him.

That's nonsense. The issue for the Atheist is ONLY whether there is a God or not. Nothing more.

They're also deeply anti-religion and especially anti-christian, as a result of their views on the God of the Bible.

It would be a hypocritical position to take that one doesn't believe in God but at the same time be pro religion. I'd be quite happy to leave religious ppl alone if they would pay me the same courtesy.

Absolam

AllForIt wrote: »

What you seem to be saying is that if God stood in front of an atheist they would still reject him. That's nonsense. The issue for the Atheist is ONLY whether there is a God or not. Nothing more..

I would have said for an atheist that's not an issue at all; an atheist already knows there are no gods hence the name.

AllForIt wrote: »

It would be a hypocritical position to take that one doesn't believe in God but at the same time be pro religion. I'd be quite happy to leave religious ppl alone if they would pay me the same courtesy.

That smacks of you're either of us or against us. I think there's a world of opinion in between; it's perfectly possible to acknowledge pros and cons of anything without believing in, or even endorsing it.

Professor Moriarty

Absolam wrote: »

My own experience is that most atheists hold an agnostic view of religion; any religion. I've noticed that those (whom I've met and discussed with) who are active anti-theists, particularly anti-Catholic (generally an Irish thing to be fair) tend to be either teenagers being teenagers or people who had unusually troubled relationships with authority figures when younger and use religion/ the Church as a substitute for that adversary as they've grown up. I'd say it's far from many atheists; I reckon it's a very small minority indeed, since the majority of people I know take no interest in religious matters at all.

That's not to say there aren't genuine crusaders on either side, dedicated to the promulgation or suppression of religion, true believers in the righteousness of their cause which they feel more than justifies the specious nonsense they come up with.

Most people aren't anti-Catholic anymore since it has begun to clean up its act and taken its rightful position in society which is to have no influence over how society is governed.

Based on personal experience and the experiences of almost everyone of my generation, authority figures within Catholicism, usually the teaching orders, physically and mentally abused most children. It would be wrong to blame those children for having a biased view of the Catholic church when they are adults. The onus is on the Catholic church to repair that reputational damage rather than imputing blame on the children and adults for any residual negative views on Catholicism.

However, I do agree with you that most atheists have no interest whatsoever in the Catholic church. In fact, many of those atheists who were historically mentally and physically abused by Catholic clergy do have no interest in the Catholic church these days because it rarely impinges on their lives today. They have moved on.

Absolam

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Most people aren't anti-Catholic anymore since it has begun to clean up its act and taken its rightful position in society which is to have no influence over how society is governed.

Well, I can't speak for most people in general myself, but I can say that that's simply not true of most people in my experience. My observation is not that the changes in the Church have caused them to lose interest, but they were simply never interested. If anything, regardless of your opinion of the Church's rightful position, it would seem its changes garner it more interest rather than less, certainly if A&A is anything to go by.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Based on personal experience and the experiences of almost everyone of my generation, authority figures within Catholicism, usually the teaching orders, physically and mentally abused most children. It would be wrong to blame those children for having a biased view of the Catholic church when they are adults. The onus is on the Catholic church to repair that reputational damage rather than imputing blame on the children and adults for any residual negative views on Catholicism.

Oh, I think we can confidently say that the way most adults behaved towards children back then would be construed as physical and mental abuse these days, they didn't need to be 'within Catholicism' to do it. Though it seems a bit of a non sequitur to harp about blaming children for it.... it doesnt really seem to follow from the idea that atheists aren't interested in the Church. Trying to slide in a bit of an agenda item there?

smacl

J C wrote: »

... or perhaps you could define secularism in a way that doesn't set out to exclude religious POVs from the public space.

Here's the short definition as given by the National Secular Society;

Secularism is a principle that involves two basic propositions. The first is the strict separation of the state from religious institutions. The second is that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law.

If you follow the link you'll get further details. Secularism doesn't seek to exclude religious views from the public space, it seeks to remove religious influence from the running of the state. From the same site;

Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, and protect the right to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge disproportionately on the rights and freedoms of others. Secularism ensures that the right of individuals to freedom of religion is always balanced by the right to be free from religion.

As I've said previously, secularism is largely about removing any right of religious people to impose their beliefs on others, or force them to act in accordance with their belief system.

frostyjacks

So why should secularists get to impose their beliefs in Catholic schools and hospitals? This is not a secular country as per our constitution.

J C

wrote:

Secularism is a principle that involves two basic propositions. The first is the strict separation of the state from religious institutions. The second is that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law.

A great self-serving definition of how the world should be run ... if you're an atheist.

What exactly is meant by 'strict separation' of state from religious institiutions ?
Shouldn't religious institutions have the very same rights of access to government that all other institiutions have ?
Why are people of different religions only equal before the law? ... which will be devised by secularists alone (if the state operates a strict separation from people of faith).
Why are religious people not to be given equal rights ... including the freedom of religious expression ... in the 'brave new' secularist world?

Rephrasing your definition of secularism to remove its gross religious discriminatory aspects it would read ...
The first is the strict separation of the state from all institutions. The second is that all people are equal before the law.

Why is it never phrased like this ... but instead is focussed on separting out religious people and institiutions for special mention?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

A grest self-serving definition of how the world should be run ... if you're an atheist.

What exactly is meant by 'strict separation' of state from religious institiutions ?
Shouldn't religious institutions have the very same rights of access to government that all other institiutions have ?
Why are people of different religions only equal before the law? ... which will be devised by secularists alone (if the state operates a strict separation from people of faith).
Why are religious people not to be given equal rights ... including the freedom of religious expression ?

If you're arguing for all religions to be equal before the law, you're pro-secularism

J C

frostyjacks wrote: »

So why should secularists get to impose their beliefs in Catholic schools and hospitals? This is not a secular country as per our constitution.

They want to change that ... that's what most of the anti-catholic rhetoric was all about over the past 20 years.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

If you're arguing for all religions to be equal before the law, you're pro-secularism

I'm not arguing that ... why should religious people be singled out to be 'equal before the law' ... why shouldn't it simply be everyone.
... and why should religious institutions (it used be churches) be singled out to be 'strictly separated' from the state?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

They want to change that ... that's what most of the anti-catholic rhetoric was all about over the past 20 years.

Imagine wanting to change things that are unfair to not only atheists, but members of any religion outside of Catholicism. You can try to spin it any way you like, but the Catholic opposition to secularism is nothing more than people throwing their toys out of the pram because their religion doesn't get to be the big dog anymore.

I'm seeing a lot of talk about Catholics being denied the right to send their children to Catholic schools, but I've yet to see any convincing evidence that this will negatively impact their children in any way. What about the atheist, jewish, muslim, hindu, or protestant, etc., parents who just want to see their children educated without having someone else's religious views forced upon them? Less school time being dedicated to religious activities means more time to, you know, actually educate children.

Same goes for the hospital argument. Does having a Catholic ethos in a hospital actually improve the standard of care in any way? If not, what exactly is the point in having it?

The Catholic Church wants to hold on to power, that's the sole reason for the opposition to secularism. Any other argument put forward is merely spin.