Freedom of religion

[mikeymikec]

Another thread got me thinking about this topic a bit more thoroughly, and it's somewhat more thorny than I had previously considered. I used to believe that problems such as religions trying to undermine the freedoms of others were on one hand undesirable but on the other hand their power to do so was waning so therefore an increasingly civilised and evolving society would steadily cast off those shackles (possibly the reason for me not giving this topic more consideration until now), but the last ten years or so (or perhaps me having more life experience) makes me agree with a friend who believes that elements such as this or the far right's grip on society is subject to a pendulum effect in the long term.

My view on freedom of religion always has been "one person's rights ends where another's begins", e.g. a religious person has no right to insist that the laws of the country they live in must conform to their religious whims, and that others must conform to their beliefs.

The initial examples that I felt my view applied to perfectly well was say that religion X insists that abortion should be illegal for all, or that religion Y insists that women must cover up.

I'm perfectly fine with the concept of freedom of religion provided that the religious believer wishes to adhere to certain principles in how they live their own life, so I'm perfectly happy with say a Christian female deciding that they will never have an abortion, or say a follower of Islam choosing to wear clothing that their religion says is proper for a woman, but I feel the line is being crossed for example if a Christian tells a female that they cannot have an abortion because that offends the Christian's beliefs, or say a follower of Islam tells another follower of Islam (or anyone else for that matter) that they must dress in accordance with Islamic principles in all aspects of their life.

Furthermore, I'd be happy with the idea of state services available to say re-home any minor who is being indoctrinated/forced against their will to adopt religious principles, and that it should be a crime to force one's religious views on to others. It would help give people a way out of situations involving more extremist religious followers.

IMO for such principles to be in a society's rule of law, it's got to scale elegantly as well, and that's when I think things get tricky for my opinion to be scaled. For example, followers of a religion lobbying/campaigning hard for abortion to be illegal *is* foisting their religious views on those who don't follow their religion. How does one stop this? On one hand I think the principle of "you cannot obey two masters" when applied to religion and state seems reasonably sound, and a basic idea of law being that you either serve a religion or you serve the people, and on the other hand I think that isn't any advocacy of moral values being enshrined in law similar to that of a religious believer doing the same? Just like lobbyists and 'undeclared interests' eating away at democracy like a canker, a politician doesn't necessarily have to declare themselves as religious in order to do the bidding of a given religion. However, I think many pious types have egos that must also be catered for and so would have difficulty not declaring their religion because the label and that religion's following is part of the power wielded by religion. I could pick away at this paragraph for hours and still not be happy that my views here are reasonably sound and not full of holes, yet on the other hand I think of the 'paradox of tolerance' and that my expectation for a 'sufficiently elegant' solution is not simply an unintentional pursuit of absolutism.

Thoughts?

- edit - pmv made some interesting points that have made me reconsider some of my position.

 

[cytg111]

Unsolveable.
If the majority of a population is against abortion... I mean, I can disagree and not be part of the majority, but it is what it is. What I understand what you want is for religious parties reach concensus for all to adhere to a principle... larger than god. I guess that will happen when god can create a stone so heavy even god itself* cant lift it...
Anyway, I used to be a freedom from religion kind of guy. My views have shifted a little bit in recent times. The mere reason we can have this debate objectively about religion and how its just another institution just another level of power, power over people .. and there will always be people who seeks power over people.. Yes this informed society that we wield now is indeed standing on the shoulders of religion, this pack, this idea, this consensus we call democracy and individual freedom, stands on the shoulders of that which came before us... And when the nukes begins flying and society must rebuild from scratch, who, what, do you think is going to do the lifting?
/random thoughts

 

[mikeymikec]

If the majority of a population is against abortion... I mean, I can disagree and not be part of the majority, but it is what it is.

I agree that if a democracy chooses to make something illegal, then being a proponent of democracy myself I'm hardly in a position to oppose that. I suppose my only potential argument to oppose it would be if the democratic decision was made in a dishonest manner (e.g. people were duped into voting for something based on false information). But that's beside the point I was making.

What I understand what you want is for religious parties reach concensus for all to adhere to a principle... larger than god.

This isn't even vaguely plausible, at least for the major religions I'm aware of, for reasons along the lines of "one cannot serve two masters" that I previously mentioned. The Catholic church for example has conclusively proven that it cannot possibly be trusted with the well-being of the people before its own beliefs.

Anyway, I used to be a freedom from religion kind of guy. My views have shifted a little bit in recent times. The mere reason we can have this debate objectively about religion and how its just another institution just another level of power, power over people .. and there will always be people who seeks power over people..

Yup.

Yes this informed society that we wield now is indeed standing on the shoulders of religion, this pack, this idea, this consensus we call democracy and individual freedom, stands on the shoulders of that which came before us... And when the nukes begins flying and society must rebuild from scratch, who, what, do you think is going to do the lifting?
/random thoughts

I think only if society devolves into needing religion as its crutch again.

---

I was thinking about the content of the problematic paragraph in my OP, and I wonder whether I'd address that aspect of the problem with politicians taking a legally binding vow to serve the people free of bias in favour of particular commercial or theocratic interests, and sufficient legal sticks to hit them with should they be found to be accepting anything from such entities or be serving such entities over the interests of the people.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think only if society devolves into needing religion as its crutch again.

What crutch will you endorse? There will be others, and others are in effect. I would argue that politics is the new opiate of the masses in many ways because people "believe" in their parties. Have a look around the forum. The flaws which exist because of our species, the tendencies to form associations and defend "Us" against "Them" abounds. It doesn't matter that one understands a subject, everyone is an expert or at least objectively knowledgable to argue for or against things and they line up with political ideology at least as often as with religion. Take health care which I limit discussing here. I won't argue law or other subjects I know I don't know, but the reverse? Oh yeah.

Bottom line- The elimination of religion will mean faith in something else, a Hillary, a Trump, Republicans, Democrats and on and on. "Both sides" will be a go-to, as if the "wrongness" of someone else is proof against accusation or concern. As a concrete example of a society which crushes religion we see China, and what a lovely totalitarian place it is.

It is not religion, nor "isms" which are the problems as much as our inability follow a principle stated in many religions which is to treat others as you would be treated. Anyone religious or not can embrace that but that is rarer than a Christian supporting Trump, Christian defined by following what Christ embraced. See "the Good Samaritan"

 

[mikeymikec]

@Hayabusa Rider

I agree with almost everything you said, but At no point did I suggest trying to eliminate religion. I think the TLDR version of my opinion at present is that I would seek a greater separation of religion and state.

I don't see the crutch argument as being particularly relevant to the topic unless people seriously believe that the end of our civilisation and descent into anarchy is absolutely inevitable. I would rather believe that Western civilisation will survive and flourish , but if it doesn't, those of the next era will deal with whatever problems they have, and no amount of pondering that scenario will help their situation.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

At this point, I'm leaning towards likely extinction of at least the magnitude of the Great Dying. Any anarchy would likely end in the span of a human life once we see overt symptoms, and we're not sure what those are. I'm concerned about shifts in oceanic migration patterns and an apparently ever-increasing rate of permafrost melt. Assuming it's not too late, we must defeat the oldest "religions" of all, ignorance and greed.

 

[soulcougher73]

Another thread got me thinking about this topic a bit more thoroughly, and it's somewhat more thorny than I had previously considered. I used to believe that problems such as religions trying to undermine the freedoms of others were on one hand undesirable but on the other hand their power to do so was waning so therefore an increasingly civilised and evolving society would steadily cast off those shackles (possibly the reason for me not giving this topic more consideration until now), but the last ten years or so (or perhaps me having more life experience) makes me agree with a friend who believes that elements such as this or the far right's grip on society is subject to a pendulum effect in the long term.

My view on freedom of religion always has been "one person's rights ends where another's begins", e.g. a religious person has no right to insist that the laws of the country they live in must conform to their religious whims, and that others must conform to their beliefs.

The initial examples that I felt my view applied to perfectly well was say that religion X insists that abortion should be illegal for all, or that religion Y insists that women must cover up.

I'm perfectly fine with the concept of freedom of religion provided that the religious believer wishes to adhere to certain principles in how they live their own life, so I'm perfectly happy with say a Christian female deciding that they will never have an abortion, or say a follower of Islam choosing to wear clothing that their religion says is proper for a woman, but I feel the line is being crossed for example if a Christian tells a female that they cannot have an abortion because that offends the Christian's beliefs, or say a follower of Islam tells another follower of Islam (or anyone else for that matter) that they must dress in accordance with Islamic principles in all aspects of their life.

Furthermore, I'd be happy with the idea of state services available to say re-home any minor who is being indoctrinated/forced against their will to adopt religious principles, and that it should be a crime to force one's religious views on to others. It would help give people a way out of situations involving more extremist religious followers.

IMO for such principles to be in a society's rule of law, it's got to scale elegantly as well, and that's when I think things get tricky for my opinion to be scaled. For example, followers of a religion lobbying/campaigning hard for abortion to be illegal *is* foisting their religious views on those who don't follow their religion. How does one stop this? On one hand I think the principle of "you cannot obey two masters" when applied to religion and state seems reasonably sound, and a basic idea of law being that you either serve a religion or you serve the people, and on the other hand I think that isn't any advocacy of moral values being enshrined in law similar to that of a religious believer doing the same? Just like lobbyists and 'undeclared interests' eating away at democracy like a canker, a politician doesn't necessarily have to declare themselves as religious in order to do the bidding of a given religion. However, I think many pious types have egos that must also be catered for and so would have difficulty not declaring their religion because the label and that religion's following is part of the power wielded by religion. I could pick away at this paragraph for hours and still not be happy that my views here are reasonably sound and not full of holes, yet on the other hand I think of the 'paradox of tolerance' and that my expectation for a 'sufficiently elegant' solution is not simply an unintentional pursuit of absolutism.

Thoughts?

We just need to show religious people that their beliefs are their own and nobody elses. I 100% agree with what you said in the first 5 paragraphs. That is my view on religious freedom as well. Societies laws are not "for" them, its for everyone. If you dont agree with abortion. Fine. Dont have one. Problem solved. But dont tell others who dont have a problem with it that they must adhere to your religious beliefs.

 

[Atreus21]

Another thread got me thinking about this topic a bit more thoroughly, and it's somewhat more thorny than I had previously considered. I used to believe that problems such as religions trying to undermine the freedoms of others were on one hand undesirable but on the other hand their power to do so was waning so therefore an increasingly civilised and evolving society would steadily cast off those shackles (possibly the reason for me not giving this topic more consideration until now), but the last ten years or so (or perhaps me having more life experience) makes me agree with a friend who believes that elements such as this or the far right's grip on society is subject to a pendulum effect in the long term.

My view on freedom of religion always has been "one person's rights ends where another's begins", e.g. a religious person has no right to insist that the laws of the country they live in must conform to their religious whims, and that others must conform to their beliefs.

The initial examples that I felt my view applied to perfectly well was say that religion X insists that abortion should be illegal for all, or that religion Y insists that women must cover up.

I'm perfectly fine with the concept of freedom of religion provided that the religious believer wishes to adhere to certain principles in how they live their own life, so I'm perfectly happy with say a Christian female deciding that they will never have an abortion, or say a follower of Islam choosing to wear clothing that their religion says is proper for a woman, but I feel the line is being crossed for example if a Christian tells a female that they cannot have an abortion because that offends the Christian's beliefs, or say a follower of Islam tells another follower of Islam (or anyone else for that matter) that they must dress in accordance with Islamic principles in all aspects of their life.

Furthermore, I'd be happy with the idea of state services available to say re-home any minor who is being indoctrinated/forced against their will to adopt religious principles, and that it should be a crime to force one's religious views on to others. It would help give people a way out of situations involving more extremist religious followers.

IMO for such principles to be in a society's rule of law, it's got to scale elegantly as well, and that's when I think things get tricky for my opinion to be scaled. For example, followers of a religion lobbying/campaigning hard for abortion to be illegal *is* foisting their religious views on those who don't follow their religion. How does one stop this? On one hand I think the principle of "you cannot obey two masters" when applied to religion and state seems reasonably sound, and a basic idea of law being that you either serve a religion or you serve the people, and on the other hand I think that isn't any advocacy of moral values being enshrined in law similar to that of a religious believer doing the same? Just like lobbyists and 'undeclared interests' eating away at democracy like a canker, a politician doesn't necessarily have to declare themselves as religious in order to do the bidding of a given religion. However, I think many pious types have egos that must also be catered for and so would have difficulty not declaring their religion because the label and that religion's following is part of the power wielded by religion. I could pick away at this paragraph for hours and still not be happy that my views here are reasonably sound and not full of holes, yet on the other hand I think of the 'paradox of tolerance' and that my expectation for a 'sufficiently elegant' solution is not simply an unintentional pursuit of absolutism.

Thoughts?

One need not be religious to believe that abortion should be severely restricted. One only needs to believe that it's wrong to deliberately kill innocent human beings.

Secondly, define indoctrination. Parents should generally not be subject to oversight regarding what they teach and inculcate in their children. Are we going to establish the standard that anything that violates a child's will is justification enough to take him or her from the parents? Have you ever tried to get a child up in the morning to go to school?

 

[Paratus]

I think it’s high time we got the government involved in religion.

I think everyone should register their religion and which church (if any) they attend with the federal government.

Then I want the government to enforce the individual religious tenets on those who choose to believe them.

I want Catholics prosecuted for attempting to purchase contraception, morning after pills or abortions. If catholic guys in college think they can bang using contraceptives or morning after pills so they don’t have to be responsible they would have another thing coming.

I want Southern Baptist’s who are arrested for DUI also charged with alcohol consumption and dancing it it was at country line dancing bar.

I want Mormons arrested for buying Starbucks.

I want religious cake shop owners who’s religion does not allow them to serve gays to lose their business license for serving gays along with the secular law taking their license if they don’t.

I want the ministers to be able to use the IRS to garnish wages for tithes. Those gulfstream G6’s that are so important to spread gods word aren’t going to buy themselves.

If you didn’t like living under the rules of your religion then you would just have to re-register with a different church that better fit your lifestyle or declare as atheist.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Religion is obsolete, it just takes the religious a few generations to realize that.

 

[mikeymikec]

One need not be religious to believe that abortion should be severely restricted.

Whoop-de-do.

Secondly, define indoctrination. Parents should generally not be subject to oversight regarding what they teach and inculcate in their children. Are we going to establish the standard that anything that violates a child's will is justification enough to take him or her from the parents? Have you ever tried to get a child up in the morning to go to school?

It's interesting that you used the word "generally". It's also interesting that I didn't use the word "generally". Yet somehow I guess you don't agree with my general opinion.

 

[mikeymikec]

nvm

 

[dawp]

freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Talk about a loaded subject on these forums....all the more power to you!!

 

[mikeymikec]

We just need to show religious people that their beliefs are their own and nobody elses.

How would you suggest doing that?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Another thread got me thinking about this topic a bit more thoroughly, and it's somewhat more thorny than I had previously considered. I used to believe that problems such as non religious trying to undermine the freedoms of others were on one hand undesirable but on the other hand their power to do so was waning so therefore an increasingly civilised and evolving society would steadily cast off those shackles (possibly the reason for me not giving this topic more consideration until now), but the last ten years or so (or perhaps me having more life experience) makes me agree with a friend who believes that elements such as this or the far right's grip on society is subject to a pendulum effect in the long term. - a lot of unsubstantiated enuendo...

My view on freedom of religion always has been "one person's rights ends where another's begins", e.g. a religious person has no right to insist that the laws of the country they live in must conform to their religious whims, and that others must conform to their beliefs. - as well as the opposite is true -- a non religious person has no right to insist that the laws of the country they live in must conform to their personal non religious whims, and that the religious must conform to that persons non religious beliefs.

The initial examples that I felt my view applied to perfectly well was say that religion X insists that abortion should be illegal for all, or that religion Y insists that women must cover up. -- as usual those are not good examples -- because even amongst religious people quite a few have no problems with people getting abortions regardless of what their religion teaches or for that matter....the same goes for women covering up!!

I'm perfectly fine with the concept of freedom of religion provided that the religious believer wishes to adhere to certain principles in how they live their own life, so I'm perfectly happy with say a Christian female deciding that they will never have an abortion, or say a follower of Islam choosing to wear clothing that their religion says is proper for a woman, but I feel the line is being crossed for example if a Christian tells a female that they cannot have an abortion because that offends the Christian's beliefs, or say a follower of Islam tells another follower of Islam (or anyone else for that matter) that they must dress in accordance with Islamic principles in all aspects of their life. - the whole paragraph above is cow manure and a lot of smoke being blowed by the OP!! The OP tries to be grandious by stating or shall we say lying that he is perfectly fine with the concept of religious freedom! The OP needs to let well enough alone and just worry about how he lives his life and quit trying to rationalize regulating the religious.....
it is not the OP`s job to regulate how a religious person lives their life!

Furthermore, I'd be happy with the idea of state services available to say re-home any minor who is being indoctrinated/forced against their will to adopt religious principles, and that it should be a crime to force one's religious views on to others. It would help give people a way out of situations involving more extremist religious followers. <--- The OP is full of caca if he actually believes what he just wrote. Raising children is to be blunt indoctrination! You indoctrinate them to be safe. You indoctrinate them to be able to fend for themselves when they grow up. Hell you even indoctrinate them to want to go to college or trade school or in some way earn a living!


IMO for such principles to be in a society's rule of law, it's got to scale elegantly as well, and that's when I think things get tricky for my opinion to be scaled. For example, followers of a religion lobbying/campaigning hard for abortion to be illegal *is* foisting their religious views on those who don't follow their religion. How does one stop this? On one hand I think the principle of "you cannot obey two masters" when applied to religion and state seems reasonably sound, and a basic idea of law being that you either serve a religion or you serve the people, and on the other hand I think that isn't any advocacy of moral values being enshrined in law similar to that of a religious believer doing the same? Just like lobbyists and 'undeclared interests' eating away at democracy like a canker, a politician doesn't necessarily have to declare themselves as religious in order to do the bidding of a given religion. However, I think many pious types have egos that must also be catered for and so would have difficulty not declaring their religion because the label and that religion's following is part of the power wielded by religion. I could pick away at this paragraph for hours and still not be happy that my views here are reasonably sound and not full of holes, yet on the other hand I think of the 'paradox of tolerance' and that my expectation for a 'sufficiently elegant' solution is not simply an unintentional pursuit of absolutism. ,-- It only gets tricky because what you propose is total BS!! You want a perfect world that is perfect by your standards! -- Does that sound familiar.....with your BS statement that you are fine with religious freedom -- as long as it conforms to your belief? Which could be argues that perhaps people who think like you think about taking religious liberties away should perhaps be locked up??

Thoughts?

Just amazing!

 

[pmv]

This story seems directly relevant

(not the best source, since it's paywalled, but it gives the gist, and didn't want to link to a source with a hard-line anti-islam political agenda, and at least the Economist is a respectable publication with a degree of bias that falls into the 'sane' range...)

https://www.economist.com/britain/2...parents-oppose-lgbt-lessons-in-primary-school


ah, or there's Newsweek


https://www.newsweek.com/muslim-par...ting-lgbt-lessons-shame-andrew-moffat-1358079


I agree that working around religion is a tricky thing, but I don't agree that it's defacto wrong for religious groups to lobby politically. The fact is if you have moral principles you are going to want others to abide by them as well. Ideology is never a purely private matter. And that applies to everyone, not just the religious.

The problem of course is when the religious believers do that (push their beliefs politically) while simultaneously claiming their beliefs are somehow special and to be given an excessive 'respect' that is not accorded to all other political beliefs.

I think there is a fundamental (ahem) tension in the idea of 'secularism'. I think it's based to some degree on a contradiction. Most ideologies can't really be confined to 'the private sphere' because they are totalising by their very nature. And yet we don't seem to have any choice but to try and live with that tension, in perpetuity.


Edit - with the Muslim community vs LGBT tolerance, I have the impression that at least some of the row is based on a wild misapprension that the school is teaching outre sexual techniques ('now, children, today we are covering 'fisting'), rather than simply explaining that some children might have 'two daddies' or 'two mummies' and that families can be different but still love each other. But it's probably the case that even that reality is going to enrage some religious believers.

 

[mikeymikec]

@JEDIYoda

Your post is unreadable, please fix.

- edit - Thanks for fixing it.

"unsubstantiated innuendo" - what exactly do you want from me here?

"as well as the opposite is true" - theoretically correct but irrelevant.

those are not good examples" - why are those not good examples, and just because some religious people don't have a problem with say abortion is not relevant. The view of their religion in many cases does have a problem with abortion, and my argument is about people who use their religious beliefs as a means to take rights (or ensure that others don't get rights) from others.

"the whole paragraph above is cow manure..." - If you are unable to converse in a civilised manner, this will be my last response to you on this topic. I cannot find a single correct point in that paragraph of response (I previously explicitly stated that in my view one person's rights end where another begins yet you're asserting that I'm telling religious people how to live their own lives) so I'll simply move on.

"Raising children is to be blunt indoctrination! You indoctrinate them to be safe. You indoctrinate them to be able to fend for themselves when they grow up. Hell you even indoctrinate them to want to go to college or trade school or in some way earn a living!" -

Interesting argument. I googled the definition of indoctrination: the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
How do you feel that factors into your argument on this point?

"You want a perfect world that is perfect by your standards!" - Who doesn't? It's the pinnacle that any civilisation should aim for, surely?

"Which could be argues that perhaps people who think like you think about taking religious liberties away should perhaps be locked up??" - do you want to argue that as your own position? I have no idea why you said this, but may I ask you a question that should hopefully enlighten me as to what your position is:

Do you think that freedom of religion should extend to the religious being allowed to foist their beliefs on to other people? Do you think there should be any limit on that?

 

[pmv]

One need not be religious to believe that abortion should be severely restricted. One only needs to believe that it's wrong to deliberately kill innocent human beings.

And yet it's fine to start firing drones and dropping bombs on foreigners despite knowing it's an absolute certainty that some innocent human beings will die as a result?

(And don't start playing semantic games with the word 'deliberate')

It's what always strikes me about the ban on abortion in Northern Ireland. Where parties with paramilitary wings and a history of violence all agree that abortion is worng.

Blow up a toddler in the course of making a political point? Unfortunate but unavoidable in the course of achieving a legitimate political aim. Abort a foetus to save the mother's mental health? Never justifiable, ever.

If only abortion could be carried out with semtex and a telephoned warning to the foetus, eh?

 

[dawp]

One need not be religious to believe that abortion should be severely restricted. One only needs to believe that it's wrong to deliberately kill innocent human beings.

Secondly, define indoctrination. Parents should generally not be subject to oversight regarding what they teach and inculcate in their children. Are we going to establish the standard that anything that violates a child's will is justification enough to take him or her from the parents? Have you ever tried to get a child up in the morning to go to school?

except I don't view it through your rose colored glasses.

an embryo is not human, can not exist outside the body without advanced medical technics, can abort spontaneously(miscarriage), and has no rights that supersedes those of the woman.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Religion can, selectively degrade critical thinking skills.

Prime example: http://deadstate.org/christian-tv-h...yll-put-conservatives-in-concentration-camps/

Religious fundamentalist are most likely, mentally ill. They are not of sound mind. There is something wrong with their wiring. Many of them seem to be railing against themselves for being they very thing they claim to hate

 

[mikeymikec]

I agree that working around religion is a tricky thing, but I don't agree that it's defacto wrong for religious groups to lobby politically. The fact is if you have moral principles you are going to want others to abide by them as well. Ideology is never a purely private matter. And that applies to everyone, not just the religious.

You've hit the nail on and put into words some points that were nagging away at me since starting the thread but I couldn't quite put my finger on them.

I agree that a religious person should have as much right to have their say in how a civilisation works as anyone else does. To some extent, one person saying they're a Christian and another person saying they're a feminist and they both have opinions on a particular point of how their civilisation should work, and they're both completely valid IMO.

I think when a group or individual claims to represent a religion, it constitutes an appeal to authority fallacy which is downright dangerous because of the paradoxical nature of most religions in a modern setting resulting in the cherry-picking of beliefs from ancient texts combined with the largely emotive nature of religious belief, but I think I agree with you in that a counter to this isn't something that can be enshrined in law. My initial feeling is that the best opposition to this is a counter-movement to religious organisations that attempt to:

The problem of course is when the religious believers do that (push their beliefs politically) while simultaneously claiming their beliefs are somehow special and to be given an excessive 'respect' that is not accorded to all other political beliefs.

Agreed, this was basically the reason for the OP.

re: counter-movement - that for example, the counter-movement would point out the hypocrisies of the people in those organisations and demolish the rest of their position with substantive arguments.

I think there is a fundamental (ahem) tension in the idea of 'secularism'. I think it's based to some degree on a contradiction. Most ideologies can't really be confined to 'the private sphere' because they are totalising by their very nature. And yet we don't seem to have any choice but to try and live with that tension, in perpetuity.

This is kind of like the paradox of tolerance again, it only seems like a paradox until one looks a the bigger picture being the improvement and advancement of civilisation; I think part of my original position was that a religious person can of course campaign for a civilisation to improve in a way that benefits its citizens in general rather than just in the interests of a particular religion.

 

[soulcougher73]

How would you suggest doing that?

You dont let them enact any laws based on their core beliefs that are derived from their religion.

 

[pmv]

This is kind of like the paradox of tolerance again, it only seems like a paradox until one looks a the bigger picture being the improvement and advancement of civilisation; I think part of my original position was that a religious person can of course campaign for a civilisation to improve in a way that benefits its citizens in general rather than just in the interests of a particular religion.

I don't see that that is a meaningful distinction, though. You seem to be assuming that there's an objective measure of 'improvement and advancement of civilisation' that everyone can agree on. But what one means by 'improvement' depends on one's value system and ideology. If you are deeply immersed in 'a particular relgion' you simply aren't going to see a distinction between the two kinds of 'improvement' to which you refer.

I'm not an atheist because I think religion is a bad thing, I'm an atheist because I just think it's factually incorrect and I can't force myself to believe things that don't seem to me to be true.

Actually I'm increasingly thinking that there's not really a huge distinction between many 'secular' experts and professionals and the priesthood (with which they often share cultural roots). An awful lot of 'professsions' are not nearly as 'evidence based' as they have convinced themselves - and others - that they are. They share the same mixed-motives of a clergy - their own power and status and income-stream being a major unconcious driver of belief.

 

[mikeymikec]

You dont let them enact any laws based on their core beliefs that are derived from their religion.

How would you prove that it's derived from their religion? If you make legislation along these lines, then they'll simply word things so that it appears to be more like their own standpoint (even if it's as disingenous as fuck, e.g. the name of their group being say "Christians for pro-life", then claiming that their position isn't based on their religion), and just because their position has a basis in religion it doesn't strictly speaking make it less valid (though in reality it probably does because substantial arguments and religious belief rarely make compatible bedfellows).

As pmv already said though, to all intents and purposes, is there much meaningful difference (from a legislation standpoint) between ideology derived from religious belief and ideology not derived from religious belief. Most knowledge/wisdom is borrowed and recycled. I was raised a Catholic and while I don't consider myself to be one, I'm sure that some of what I consider to be true in life probably has its roots in my Catholic upbringing. Furthermore, with such legislation, could a politician with a similar background be dismissed based on the insinuation that they're "batting for that team"?

I don't see that that is a meaningful distinction, though. You seem to be assuming that there's an objective measure of 'improvement and advancement of civilisation' that everyone can agree on.

No, of course not (from a legislative standpoint), I'm pretty much conceded that part of my argument.

Actually I'm increasingly thinking that there's not really a huge distinction between many 'secular' experts and professionals and the priesthood (with which they often share cultural roots). An awful lot of 'professsions' are not nearly as 'evidence based' as they have convinced themselves - and others - that they are. They share the same mixed-motives of a clergy - their own power and status and income-stream being a major unconcious driver of belief.

While I know this does happen in the scientific communities sometimes, the difference is that a substantial counter-argument to counter the current accepted wisdom goes somewhat further than it does in religious communities. The number of points that the Catholic church has conceded in terms of what it considers to be accepted wisdom in the last 2000 years can probably be counted on two hands, whereas among scientists it has happened beyond count. We'd still be discussing the Four Humors and other such bollocks as if they had scientific merit if it wasn't the case, whereas the requirement of a woman proving that she is a virgin is still in the Bible. Imagine finding the scientific equivalent of that in a 'current' science textbook (aside from "teaching the controversy")!