Should areligious have a "role" in society.

Coriolanus · 09-11-2009 11:48PM #1

So, I was listening to the radio on the way home this evening and whoever was on was doing a piece on the various interest groups that as usual will be submitting papers to the Government in advance of the budget. There was a Small Farmers Association rep on (something like that... Rural Somethings... He made some good points actually! Whole other thread though...) and a couple of others aswell.
So they all made their points, got mildly grilled by the interviewer and that was that.

Anyway, I'd been waiting to hear from the Church, or something along those lines, but maybe they don't have their stuff together yet, but when they never showed, it got me thinking about whether or not the likes of Atheist Ireland or some other representative body would have any call to be submitting papers or advisements.

Now, my understanding is that while these are usually ideological, they needn't be. Plenty of religious charities submit advisements that mention nary a whiff of sacrament and brimstone, but instead concentrate on whatever their area of charity is.

So I wouldn't necessarily envisage any submissions being of the LOL religion suxxoorz Mr Cowen. Slap it with a tax stick prz, actually, I'm not sure what kind of thing I see happening.

eoin5 · 10-11-2009 01:45AM

Its hard to see a non-ideological reason to do this. I could see it as a bit of a soap-box opportunity though. It might not really make a difference to the budget but if Atheist Ireland or similar did submit some ideas like taxing religions or removing funding then theres a chance it might gain traction in the media.

Turtwig · 10-11-2009 02:10AM

Soulwinner wrote:

Let's have Bible burning day.

.:pac:

PDN · 10-11-2009 08:31AM

Should we expect a similar role in society for those whose only common bond is what they don't do?

The Non-Farmers Union?

The Association of Those Who aren't Professional Footballers?

The Non-Stamp Collecting Association of Ireland?

The Society for Those Who Don't Work in the Construction Industry?

A Fan Club for Those Who Actually Aren't Very Keen on Spiceburgers?

eoin5 · 10-11-2009 09:03AM

PDN wrote: »

Should we expect a similar role in society for those whose only common bond is what they don't do?

The Non-Farmers Union?

The Association of Those Who aren't Professional Footballers?

The Non-Stamp Collecting Association of Ireland?

The Society for Those Who Don't Work in the Construction Industry?

A Fan Club for Those Who Actually Aren't Very Keen on Spiceburgers?

Or the Pioneers?

Sam Vimes · 10-11-2009 09:24AM

PDN wrote: »

Should we expect a similar role in society for those whose only common bond is what they don't do?

The Non-Farmers Union?

The Association of Those Who aren't Professional Footballers?

The Non-Stamp Collecting Association of Ireland?

The Society for Those Who Don't Work in the Construction Industry?

A Fan Club for Those Who Actually Aren't Very Keen on Spiceburgers?

Are there any, for example, schools where people are dropped to the bottom of the enrolment list because they don't collect stamps?

The only reason there's even a word for atheism is there are so many believers that you have to define yourself as not being a part of that group.

Xluna · 10-11-2009 09:30AM

I'm all for it. Tax their business enterprise masquerading as religion.

PDN · 10-11-2009 09:50AM

eoin5 wrote: »

Or the Pioneers?

Thank you. Great way to reinforce my point. The Pioneers admit that they are a religious group.

Sam Vimes · 10-11-2009 09:56AM

PDN wrote: »

Thank you. Great way to reinforce my point. The Pioneers admit that they are a religious group.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Is it that a group should only come together to represent the interests of people who don't do something that the vast majority of people do if the basis is religious?

Dades · 10-11-2009 10:20AM

PDN wrote: »

Thank you. Great way to reinforce my point. The Pioneers admit that they are a religious group.

Please tell me this comparison isn't a suggestion that atheists are a religious group?

OP - don't the HAI frequently submit their ideas to the government? I'd rather they did than Atheist Ireland, tbh. Their secular motives are less likely to invoke images of baby-eating than their AI breathern.

PDN · 10-11-2009 10:26AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Is it that a group should only come together to represent the interests of people who don't do something that the vast majority of people do if the basis is religious?

No, it isn't. I'm poking a bit of gentle fun at the shifting way in which atheists present themselves.

When it suits you, then atheism can't take responsibility for anything because atheism doesn't actually exist as an ideology. If an atheist does something a bit off (like killing a few million people) then they are a dictator 'who just happens to be an atheist'. That's when we get the 'not collecting stamps' argument.

But, when it suits you to present atheism as having the right to have its voice heard, then suddenly the goalposts move.

I think you just want to have your cake an eat it.

Xluna · 10-11-2009 10:41AM

PDN wrote: »

No, it isn't. I'm poking a bit of gentle fun at the shifting way in which atheists present themselves.

When it suits you, then atheism can't take responsibility for anything because atheism doesn't actually exist as an ideology. If an atheist does something a bit off (like killing a few million people) then they are a dictator 'who just happens to be an atheist'. That's when we get the 'not collecting stamps' argument.

But, when it suits you to present atheism as having the right to have its voice heard, then suddenly the goalposts move.

I think you just want to have your cake an eat it.

All atheism denotes is a lack of belief in God(s). All atheists want is the right to be free of religion interfering in our lives in what is supposed to be a secular nation. It's pretty simple really.

Sam Vimes · 10-11-2009 10:43AM

PDN wrote: »

No, it isn't. I'm poking a bit of gentle fun at the shifting way in which atheists present themselves.

When it suits you, then atheism can't take responsibility for anything because atheism doesn't actually exist as an ideology. If an atheist does something a bit off (like killing a few million people) then they are a dictator 'who just happens to be an atheist'. That's when we get the 'not collecting stamps' argument.

But, when it suits you to present atheism as having the right to have its voice heard, then suddenly the goalposts move.

I think you just want to have your cake an eat it.

Atheism is not an ideology, it's the position of not believing in your ideology. The reason atheists sometimes have to unite is because our right to freedom from your ideology is being threatened. In the example of Irish schools, we are in the same boat as every religious person who is not a catholic, it's not just an atheist issue.

To everyone except believers who are engaging in straw men, the examples from history of killing a few million people were communist dictator madmen who replaced the philosophy of love of god with love of state. Atheism does not prescribe love of state and the fact the Stalin may have been an atheist is no more relevant than the fact that he had a moustache

This is in comparison to religious atrocities where the primary motivation for the atrocity was love of whatever divine being the people happened to believe in

PDN · 10-11-2009 10:47AM

Xluna wrote: »

All atheism denotes is a lack of belief in God(s). All atheists want is the right to be free of religion interfering in our lives in what is supposed to be a secular nation. It's pretty simple really.

I think you are confusing 'secularist' with 'atheist'. I want the right to be free of religion interfering in my life in what is supposed to be a secular nation, but I'm not an atheist.

Sam Vimes · 10-11-2009 10:54AM

PDN wrote: »

I think you are confusing 'secularist' with 'atheist'. I want the right to be free of religion interfering in my life in what is supposed to be a secular nation, but I'm not an atheist.

I think you're confusing secularist with atheist. When atheists come together it's generally for secularist purposes because atheists also tend to be secularists. Those aren't atheist goals, they're secularist goals that tend to be shared by atheists. Atheism doesn't have goals

PDN · 10-11-2009 10:57AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think you're confusing secularist with atheist. When atheists come together it's generally for secularist purposes because atheists also tend to be secularists. Those aren't atheist goals, they're secularist goals that tend to be shared by atheists. Atheism doesn't have goals

So what you're saying is that secularists (rather than atheists) should have a voice.

So why not try working with other secularists?

For example, the campaign against the silly Blasphemy Laws deliberately alienated other secularists from participating. It failed, whereas a broader based campaign could well have succeeded.

Dades · 10-11-2009 11:03AM

PDN wrote: »

So what you're saying is that secularists (rather than atheists) should have a voice.

So why not try working with other secularists?

For example, the campaign against the silly Blasphemy Laws deliberately alienated other secularists from participating. It failed, whereas a broader based campaign could well have succeeded.

Well I did mention the Humanists as probably a better outlet for atheists to speak on such matters (for the reasons you mentioned regarding cake, and the eating of it.

)

Sam Vimes · 10-11-2009 11:05AM

PDN wrote: »

So what you're saying is that secularists (rather than atheists) should have a voice.

So why not try working with other secularists?

For example, the campaign against the silly Blasphemy Laws deliberately alienated other secularists from participating. It failed, whereas a broader based campaign could well have succeeded.

I have nothing against working with other secularists if their goals are the same. It depends on the issue though, not every goal of someone who doesn't believe in any gods is going to be the same as those of someone who just doesn't believe in the mainstream god in that country. And not every goal of people who don't believe in any gods is going to be the same as other people who don't believe in any gods for that matter but the chances are better

PDN · 10-11-2009 11:10AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I have nothing against working with other secularists if their goals are the same. It depends on the issue though, not every goal of someone who doesn't believe in any gods is going to be the same as those of someone who just doesn't believe in the mainstream god in that country. And not every goal of people who don't believe in any gods is going to be the same as other people who don't believe in any gods for that matter but the chances are better

Now I think you're quibbling over details. Every goal of one atheist is not going to be the same as every goal of another atheist.

Btw, secularism is not just about not believing in 'the mainstream god'. I believe in secularism irrespective of my religious views. I support secularism in Tehran, in Poland, and in Texas.

ShooterSF · 10-11-2009 11:11AM

PDN wrote: »

So what you're saying is that secularists (rather than atheists) should have a voice.

So why not try working with other secularists?

For example, the campaign against the silly Blasphemy Laws deliberately alienated other secularists from participating. It failed, whereas a broader based campaign could well have succeeded.

If that could work I would be all for it. If a friend of mine who believes in god and such agreed that any mention of god should removed from our constitution, the church should be given no special rights (including tax) and should be considered a club and all public schools should be secular then fantastic!

A few problems do arise though in levels of secularism atleast from personal experience.

Out of curiosity what part of Atheist Ireland's campaign do you feel deliberately alienated others? (I didn't keep up with their entire campaign)

Coriolanus · 10-11-2009 11:24AM

Dades wrote: »

OP - don't the HAI frequently submit their ideas to the government?

I wasn't aware of that, thanks!

PDN · 10-11-2009 11:43AM

ShooterSF wrote: »

If that could work I would be all for it. If a friend of mine who believes in god and such agreed that any mention of god should removed from our constitution, the church should be given no special rights (including tax) and should be considered a club and all public schools should be secular then fantastic!

I would go with that with the proviso that all non-profit organisations, not just churches, should be stripped of their tax advantages. What's good for the goose must be good for the gander under secularism.

Out of curiosity what part of Atheist Ireland's campaign do you feel deliberately alienated others? (I didn't keep up with their entire campaign)

What they did was link to a whole litany of comedians etc. mocking God and religion with the warning, "This will become illegal under the Act".

Let me use a simple analogy. Let's say we were campaigning against a proposed law to ban pornography in Ireland. A great many of us, on purely libertarian grounds, would be opposed to such a move. After all, if the State starts censoring one lot of 'literature' then how soon before other forms of literature get censored? Indeed, I would think that the majority of the people who would oppose such an Act would not themselves be users of pornography. But what would happen if you ran a campaign consisting of photographs and video clips showing every imaginable genre of pornography? You would alienate anyone except the dirty mac brigade.

And that's what happened with the Blasphemy Act. Atheism Ireland chose to alienate those with whom they could have forged a broad coalition, and instead they had a lot of fun showing that they were the theological dirty mac brigade who were capable of using the campaign as an excuse to stick two fingers up at everybody else. Some of us could have, and were willing to, mobilise thousands of church members against the Blasphemy Act, but the virulent anti-religious nature of the campaign scuppered that from the word go.

Sam Vimes · 10-11-2009 11:54AM

PDN wrote: »

Now I think you're quibbling over details. Every goal of one atheist is not going to be the same as every goal of another atheist.

They're important details though. Atheists often share similar goals and so it is valid to have an atheist group, it's not the same as a group of non-stamp collectors although it would be very similar if non-stamp collectors were a small minority who were discriminated against for not collecting stamps.

PDN wrote: »

Btw, secularism is not just about not believing in 'the mainstream god'. I believe in secularism irrespective of my religious views. I support secularism in Tehran, in Poland, and in Texas.

Ah yeah but for example the goal of ending the catholic monopoly in our schools is both a secular and a non-mainstream religious goal. Their interests often overlap.

Sam Vimes · 10-11-2009 11:58AM

PDN wrote: »

And that's what happened with the Blasphemy Act. Atheism Ireland chose to alienate those with whom they could have forged a broad coalition, and instead they had a lot of fun showing that they were the theological dirty mac brigade who were capable of using the campaign as an excuse to stick two fingers up at everybody else. Some of us could have, and were willing to, mobilise thousands of church members against the Blasphemy Act, but the virulent anti-religious nature of the campaign scuppered that from the word go.

So you and thousands of church members were totally against the blasphemy act and were willing to mobilise against it but you didn't bother doing anything because another group who had the same goal as you didn't use methods you approve of

That's like giving up christianity because of creationists

robindch · 10-11-2009 12:06PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's like giving up christianity because of creationists

Not a bad idea, I have to say.

ShooterSF · 10-11-2009 12:10PM

PDN wrote: »

I would go with that with the proviso that all non-profit organisations, not just churches, should be stripped of their tax advantages. What's good for the goose must be good for the gander under secularism.

I could agree with that. I suppose some exemption for money put to secular charity work done it this country by all NPOs including the church would be acceptable too by secular I simply mean no discrimination based on membership of the organisation.

What they did was link to a whole litany of comedians etc. mocking God and religion with the warning, "This will become illegal under the Act".

Let me use a simple analogy. Let's say we were campaigning against a proposed law to ban pornography in Ireland. A great many of us, on purely libertarian grounds, would be opposed to such a move. After all, if the State starts censoring one lot of 'literature' then how soon before other forms of literature get censored? Indeed, I would think that the majority of the people who would oppose such an Act would not themselves be users of pornography. But what would happen if you ran a campaign consisting of photographs and video clips showing every imaginable genre of pornography? You would alienate anyone except the dirty mac brigade.

And that's what happened with the Blasphemy Act. Atheism Ireland chose to alienate those with whom they could have forged a broad coalition, and instead they had a lot of fun showing that they were the theological dirty mac brigade who were capable of using the campaign as an excuse to stick two fingers up at everybody else. Some of us could have, and were willing to, mobilise thousands of church members against the Blasphemy Act, but the virulent anti-religious nature of the campaign scuppered that from the word go.

While I see your point maybe it's too awkward a coalition to bridge. After all I see the comic point as a relative one (if not the only one) and while I agree from simply a libertarian point I guess this is where my reference to "levels" comes to mind. I would find it hard to compromise my views of the blasphemy bill to find a common ground with a religious person unfortunately. I don't think AI are the only group that do this btw.

Take your example of pornography. Could a libertarian with slight prudish beliefs work with a member of the porn industry? Either the member of the porn industry has to limit his approach or the libertarian has to overlook the points they don't share. The phrase uncomfortable alliance comes to mind.

However I think the church has to take some responsibilty here too. If they came out regardless of AI's approach and fought the blasphemy laws vocally they may have changed AI's opinion and attitude a bit! I know individual members who were against it but didn't see or hear of any organisation by the church. If they can be put off their beliefs on the issue by another group who had the same core beliefs but acted in a way they couldn't agree with then I would question the strenght of said beliefs...

PDN · 10-11-2009 12:12PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you and thousands of church members were totally against the blasphemy act and were willing to mobilise against it but you didn't bother doing anything because another group who had the same goal as you didn't use methods you approve of

That's like giving up christianity because of creationists

No, but it would be like refusing to get involved in a campaign because the campaign was specifically geared towards creationists, and where the campaign deliberately used copious amounts of material from Kent Hovind and Answers in Genesis.

I spoke with other religious leaders, and all of us were to a man (including the women) opposed the Blasphemy Act. However, we are not dictators. To sell this to our members, many of whom would not have thought as deeply about these things we do, we needed them to grasp our arguments and reasons for doing so. This would have been possible with a broad-based coalition of religious leaders, atheists, and escularists of every stripe. However, the media attention on Atheist Ireland's antics made this impossible. As soon as I tried to raise theissue with church members (as opposed to church leaders) I kept getting asked, "Why should we throw in our lot with a bunch of half-wits who just want to use this as an opportunity to mock us and everything we believe in?"

They're important details though. Atheists often share similar goals and so it is valid to have an atheist group, it's not the same as a group of non-stamp collectors although it would be very similar if non-stamp collectors were a small minority who were discriminated against for not collecting stamps.

The reason you are discriminated against is because you don't collect the same kind of stamps as most people, not because you refuse to collect stamps at all. Far more Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims are on the receiving end of the educational discrimination than are atheists. I have had to go into schools and quote the Constitution to teachers and principals because they were threatening non-Catholic children with violence unless they participated in religious rituals.

My point is that secularism is a vital issue and one that deserves to be heard, not hijacked by a small minority of secularists.

PDN · 10-11-2009 12:16PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Take your example of pornography. Could a libertarian with slight prudish beliefs work with a member of the porn industry? Either the member of the porn industry has to limit his approach or the libertarian has to overlook the points they don't share. The phrase uncomfortable alliance comes to mind.

That's how change is implemented in the real world. Both William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King had to hold their noses and work alongside people who had very different views and agendas in order to overturn the slave trade and racial segregation.

Atheist Ireland, IMHO, were not really that interested in fighting the blasphemy laws at all. They were much more concerned in waving their arms and saying, "Wow! Look at us. We're atheists and we're in the news!"

Sam Vimes · 10-11-2009 12:21PM

PDN wrote: »

No, but it would be like refusing to get involved in a campaign because the campaign was specifically geared towards creationists, and where the campaign deliberately used copious amounts of material from Kent Hovind and Answers in Genesis.

I spoke with other religious leaders, and all of us were to a man (including the women) opposed the Blasphemy Act. However, we are not dictators. To sell this to our members, many of whom would not have thought as deeply about these things we do, we needed them to grasp our arguments and reasons for doing so. This would have been possible with a broad-based coalition of religious leaders, atheists, and escularists of every stripe. However, the media attention on Atheist Ireland's antics made this impossible. As soon as I tried to raise theissue with church members (as opposed to church leaders) I kept getting asked, "Why should we throw in our lot with a bunch of half-wits who just want to use this as an opportunity to mock us and everything we believe in?"

And your answer to that question should have been that you both shared the same goal, just as both you and creationists worship the same god. The existence of someone you disapprove of who shares the same goal as you does not mean that you should give up that goal. A blasphemy law is wrong and the fact that some people mock your religion does not change that

PDN · 10-11-2009 12:21PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

If they can be put off their beliefs on the issue by another group who had the same core beliefs but acted in a way they couldn't agree with then I would question the strenght of said beliefs...

That's my point. The majority of Christians didn't have strong beliefs about the blasphemy laws. The majority of them were probably unaware that such a bill was even being considered.

Change is initiated by those with strong beliefs, but it comes about by bringing to the table those with a much weaker commitment to the cause. That takes a broad-based coalition, not deliberate alienation of everyone except those who already support our cause.

Xluna · 10-11-2009 12:21PM

PDN wrote: »

Atheist Ireland, IMHO, were not really that interested in fighting the blasphemy laws at all. They were much more concerned in waving their arms and saying, "Wow! Look at us. We're atheists and we're in the news!"

What are you basing that on?

PDN · 10-11-2009 12:23PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And your answer to that question should have been that you both shared the same goal, just as both you and creationists worship the same god. The existence of someone you disapprove of who shares the same goal as you does not mean that you should give up that goal. A blasphemy law is wrong and the fact that some people mock your religion does not change that

Come on Sam, you and I both know that will never work. In the real world you effect change by cooperating with other people, and that works through give and take. Deliberately getting up other peoples' noses only ever isolates you and your causes.

Sam Vimes · 10-11-2009 12:23PM

Xluna wrote: »

What are you basing that on?

His frequently mooted low opinion of atheists imo

PDN · 10-11-2009 12:24PM

Xluna wrote: »

What are you basing that on?

Er, maybe you should read the previous posts in this thread?

PDN · 10-11-2009 12:25PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

His frequently mooted low opinion of atheists imo

OK, have it your own way. Be on your own.

Sam Vimes · 10-11-2009 12:26PM

PDN wrote: »

Come on Sam, you and I both know that will never work. In the real world you effect change by cooperating with other people, and that works through give and take. Deliberately getting up other peoples' noses only ever isolates you and your causes.

That's true but fighting the blasphemy law was not my cause, it was our cause. There was a guy at the atheist Ireland AGM who was very rude and abrasive and annoying and no one there approved of his methods, one of which was desecrating a host every day until the law was repealed.....but it didn't change my opinion that the law was wrong

Sam Vimes · 10-11-2009 12:46PM

PDN wrote: »

OK, have it your own way. Be on your own.

In fairness, you're on this thread to talk about how deliberately mocking people alienates them and is not a way to make your case and one of the methods you have used to get across that point is to mock Atheist Ireland.....

PDN · 10-11-2009 01:06PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fairness, you're on this thread to talk about how deliberately mocking people alienates them and is not a way to make your case and one of the methods you have used to get across that point is to mock Atheist Ireland.....

You don't seem to understand that you can disagree with someone without mocking them - which, come to think of it, explains quite a lot.

My point is that Atheist Ireland would have achieved their stated aim better by being conciliatory and working with other interested or sypathetic parties. I would like to see us all work together to achieve a genuinely secular society - so I was offering suggestions about how that could be done.

Your response to my suggestions, as with Atheist Ireland's campaign decisions, makes me more pessimistic that such an aim can be achieved. To be honest, after talking to you, I feel pretty much like I do when I get dressed down by those in my own camp for not being sufficiently hard-line.

talkingdog · 10-11-2009 01:25PM

PDN wrote: »

When it suits you, then atheism can't take responsibility for anything because atheism doesn't actually exist as an ideology.

But, when it suits you to present atheism as having the right to have its voice heard, then suddenly the goalposts move.

I think you just want to have your cake an eat it.

Usual rubbish from the high priest. You are an expert in fairytales, your opinion is worthless.

The idea that a delusional theist can be asked to any panel to offer an opinion on anything is nonsense.

PDN wrote: »

For example, the campaign against the silly Blasphemy Laws deliberately alienated other secularists from participating. It failed, whereas a broader based campaign could well have succeeded.

Blasphemy cannot be proven.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think you're confusing secularist with atheist. When atheists come together it's generally for secularist purposes because atheists also tend to be secularists. Those aren't atheist goals, they're secularist goals that tend to be shared by atheists. Atheism doesn't have goals

We do. To live in a world where reiligion does not exist.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

His frequently mooted low opinion of atheists imo

Amazing how well he can post here but 1st sign of any real argument on the C forum and you're out along with your post

PDN wrote: »

You don't seem to understand that you can disagree with someone without mocking them

No point conversing with someone who is delusional

Sam Vimes · 10-11-2009 01:27PM

PDN wrote: »

You don't seem to understand that you can disagree with someone without mocking them

I can disagree with someone without mocking them but a valid form of protest against a blasphemy law is to commit blasphemy.

PDN wrote: »

- which, come to think of it, explains quite a lot.

Again we have the frequently mooted low opinion of atheists. I really wish you wouldn't make comments like that, as you point out yourself all it does it get people's back up.

PDN wrote: »

My point is that Atheist Ireland would have achieved their stated aim better by being conciliatory and working with other interested or sypathetic parties. I would like to see us all work together to achieve a genuinely secular society - so I was offering suggestions about how that could be done.

Your response to my suggestions, as with Atheist Ireland's campaign decisions, makes me more pessimistic that such an aim can be achieved. To be honest, after talking to you, I feel pretty much like I do when I get dressed down by those in my own camp for not being sufficiently hard-line.

I have taken your point that being conciliatory is more likely to get people on your side. It was made at great length by someone during the campaign itself. My point at the time that we'd effectively be censoring ourselves to help in the fight against a law that threatens to censor us. If someone supports free speech in general but changes their mind when someone says something they don't like well then they don't really support free speech, in a way we'd be tricking people into supporting a cause for free speech by deliberately avoiding specifying the things that we want to be free to say.

Having said that, the entire campaign didn't consist of atheists taking the piss, they also engaged in debates and conciliatory gestures etc. There is a place for both, cooperation is needed but not to the extent that everyone who likes to label themselves an atheist needs to keep their opinions to themselves lest someone get offended.

Turtwig · 10-11-2009 01:31PM

talkingdog wrote: »

The idea that a delusional theist can be asked to any panel to offer an opinion on anything is nonsense.

Oh so your not delusional about anything then??:rolleyes:

Tell me if this priest sounds idiotic to you:

Is this catholic guy discussing science nonsense :

He's one of the best defenders of evolution out there.

10-11-2009 01:39PM

The Conference of Religious in Ireland used to make submissions on stuff like this. They recently re-branded their campaigning element as Social Justice Ireland it seems.

I heard them talking about NAMA and had to look them up.

They definitely have an opinion on the budget:
www.breakingnews.ie social-justice-ireland-calls-for-tax-take-to-be-increased

Their spokesman seems to have been re-branded from Fr Sean Healy to Dr Sean Healy at the same time.

I agree that the Humanists are probably best to ask - they could question the efficiency of continuing to fund both non denominational and denominational schools in the same area for example.

I'd worry the answer would be to merge the schools into one local catholic one.

ShooterSF · 10-11-2009 01:52PM

PDN wrote: »

That's my point. The majority of Christians didn't have strong beliefs about the blasphemy laws. The majority of them were probably unaware that such a bill was even being considered.

Change is initiated by those with strong beliefs, but it comes about by bringing to the table those with a much weaker commitment to the cause. That takes a broad-based coalition, not deliberate alienation of everyone except those who already support our cause.

And again my issue is that IF (and the if is in question) the catholic church itself was against the blasphemy laws it's hierarchy and hell even the vatican should have come out bashing said laws. That is the way to help your followers gain a strong opinion on the issue. It should not be AI's job to convert Christianity's followers to secularism, Christianity and in this country the leaders of the Catholic church should. IF they feel strongly enough about it.

PDN · 10-11-2009 02:29PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

And again my issue is that IF (and the if is in question) the catholic church itself was against the blasphemy laws it's hierarchy and hell even the vatican should have come out bashing said laws. That is the way to help your followers gain a strong opinion on the issue. It should not be AI's job to convert Christianity's followers to secularism, Christianity and in this country the leaders of the Catholic church should. IF they feel strongly enough about it.

Who mentioned the Catholic Church being against the blaspemy laws?

PDN wrote:

- which, come to think of it, explains quite a lot.

Sam Vimes wrote:

Again we have the frequently mooted low opinion of atheists. I really wish you wouldn't make comments like that, as you point out yourself all it does it get people's back up.

Come on Sam, there's a world of difference between my opinion of you and my opinion of atheists in general.

And, I hope, you wouldn't base your views of Christians in general on the low opinion you have of me.

Dades · 10-11-2009 02:40PM

talkingdog on a short holiday.
That is all.

ShooterSF · 10-11-2009 02:55PM

PDN wrote: »

Who mentioned the Catholic Church being against the blaspemy laws?

If not the church and not "the majority of christians" who are you suggesting was available for AI to forge an alliance with?

Sam Vimes · 10-11-2009 03:26PM

PDN wrote: »

Come on Sam, there's a world of difference between my opinion of you and my opinion of atheists in general.

And, I hope, you wouldn't base your views of Christians in general on the low opinion you have of me.

I can't really respond to that without breaking the rule about talking about your forum here

PDN · 10-11-2009 03:32PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

If not the church and not "the majority of christians" who are you suggesting was available for AI to forge an alliance with?

Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Church of Ireland, Methodists, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, and a bunch of a la carte Catholics.

ShooterSF · 10-11-2009 03:38PM

PDN wrote: »

Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Church of Ireland, Methodists, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, and a bunch of a la carte Catholics.

Did any of these groups attack the blasphemy laws themselves though? Or any society made up of these groups?

Or are you asking Atheist Ireland to actually convince these people to oppose blasphemy laws?

PDN · 10-11-2009 03:55PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Did any of these groups attack the blasphemy laws themselves though? Or any society made up of these groups?

Or are you asking Atheist Ireland to actually convince these people to oppose blasphemy laws?

I know of a number of evangelical pastors who warned their congregations of the dangers of the Blasphemy Bill and encouraged their members to write to their TDs to oppose it.

The Church of Ireland Gazette lamented the passing of the Bill, stating that a constitutional referendum should have been taken to remove the requirement for such a bill.

Most Christians, as I've said were probably unaware of the bill. It would have made sense to rope them into a broader based campaign, and that could have been done by pointing out why it would be in their interests to do so, but Atheist Ireland chose instead to go for 'Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime' - making clear that it was a campaign for atheists alone and nobody else.

Turtwig · 10-11-2009 03:56PM

PDN wrote: »

I know of a number of evangelical pastors who warned their congregations of the dangers of the Blasphemy Bill and encouraged their members to write to their TDs to oppose it.

The Church of Ireland Gazette lamented the passing of the Bill, stating that a constitutional referendum should have been taken to remove the requirement for such a bill.

Most Christians, as I've said were probably unaware of the bill. It would have made sense to rope them into a broader based campaign, and that could have been done by pointing out why it would be in their interests to do so, but Atheist Ireland chose instead to go for 'Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime' - making clear that it was a campaign for atheists alone and nobody else.

Have to agree here,

Sometimes compromises with the enemy have to be made for a greater good.:)
Atheist Ireland, could very easily have damaged the stereotypical image society has of atheists by cooperation instead of isolation.

Should areligious have a "role" in society.

Comments