Religion - Put it in it's place

[randdebiel²]

I agree with Andymacken and Markfiend about the dangers of highly politicised and exclusionary religion. Hey, I've always been an atheist too, and find the christian right as scary as anyone else. But my point was that since the French state is NOT de facto secular, the new law simply and unjustifiably discriminates against various minorities, simply because they are minorities.

The only two options are to allow public displays like this FOR EVERYONE, or become a totally secular state. I don't know what a totally secular state would look like, because there aren't any, but I do know that the existing structure of weekends and bank holidays would not feature in it.

I personally choose the former.

it does....visible crosses and stuff are banned, the same way kippa's or scarves are.....IN SCHOOL

[MrChris]

I'm saying it's a very fine line. There are no totally secular states in the world, and in most states the religion that happens to form the majority practices its religion without difficulty, because the majority determines what is 'normal'. I think people underestimate what would have to change to make societies 'truly' secular. The holidays case was only one example. I don't want to eradicate religion to that extent, even though I'm not religious.

[Ed Rhombus]

Trouble is, any religion is effectively geared to be intolerant towards the others. By definition you cannot be anything other than the chosen people which gives you a huge superiority complex. The only way to avoid this is to fail to take your religion seriously. Far from promoting diversity it promotes division.

I'm a Buddhist and it's quiet the opposite.

There is no desire that everyone should be a Buddhist.

All teachings, religions and so forth are respected and have value.

You only run into trouble when you think you know better than everyone else and that you can control or order peoples thinking.

I can control you no more than you can control me.

A person than can be controlled is a rather weak human being and does no credit to your religion (Take note Jesus Army)

Also a lot of things that in religion are taken as absolutes stem from public health warnings in society at the time.

Since the clergy and clerics were respected and listened to, they were the best people to pass on and instruct various pieces of information.

It's like when the Euro came out. In Portigal, a very rural and strongly Catholic place, the info and Euro packs were given to the priests.

Religion goes wrong when the cunning meets the stupid

[randdebiel²]

But a Muslim friend of mine told me that none of this is actually specified in the Koran any more than a lot of the stuff Christians come out with relates to what Jesus is supposed to have said. Just people trying to exercise control over others as usual.

the Koran actually does specify headscarves....in the same way as the traditional clothing for mulim men....

[randdebiel²]

I'm saying it's a very fine line. There are no totally secular states in the world, and in most states the religion that happens to form the majority practices its religion without difficulty, because the majority determines what is 'normal'. I think people underestimate what would have to change to make societies 'truly' secular. The holidays case was only one example. I don't want to eradicate religion to that extent, even though I'm not religious.

but nobody argues or asks for a totally secular state....the only way the politicians use the term (and they said so on numerous occasions) is the fact you have separation of church and state, really the bottom-line of this conversation....

[markfiend]

I'm a Buddhist and it's quiet the opposite.

There is no desire that everyone should be a Buddhist.

All teachings, religions and so forth are respected and have value.

You only run into trouble when you think you know better than everyone else and that you can control or order peoples thinking.

I can control you no more than you can control me...

I have a lot of respect for Buddhism, Zen in particular, and I'm not entirely sure that Buddhism fits the definition of "religion"!

By which I mean that Buddhism is not about heirarchical authoritarianism.

Who is the Zen Master that makes the grass green?

The answer to this koan is IMO one of the most important lessons any person can learn.

[randdebiel²]

I have a lot of respect for Buddhism, Zen in particular, and I'm not entirely sure that Buddhism fits the definition of "religion"!

By which I mean that Buddhism is not about heirarchical authoritarianism.

Who is the Zen Master that makes the grass green?

The answer to this koan is IMO one of the most important lessons any person can learn.

tell that to the peasants in Tibet who starved to get richess to the Buddhist monks of Lhassa.....

[CorpPunk]

adopting symbolism creates the mindset of a "secret society" and introduces a further element of clannish and cultish behaviour

Isn't that why we all bought Heartland t-shirts?

That's why I bought mine. Let the brainwashing begin!

[MrChris]

I'm saying it's a very fine line. There are no totally secular states in the world, and in most states the religion that happens to form the majority practices its religion without difficulty, because the majority determines what is 'normal'. I think people underestimate what would have to change to make societies 'truly' secular. The holidays case was only one example. I don't want to eradicate religion to that extent, even though I'm not religious.

but nobody argues or asks for a totally secular state....the only way the politicians use the term (and they said so on numerous occasions) is the fact you have separation of church and state, really the bottom-line of this conversation....

That's what I mean by secular - the separation of church and state. That's also what the dictionary means by it. What do you mean by it?

[markfiend]

tell that to the peasants in Tibet who starved to get richess to the Buddhist monks of Lhassa.....

Hmmm...

I hadn't thought of that.

[MAtT]

People should be allowed to wear what they want... and up to a certain age parents should have the right to say what their kids wear. After a certain age they should not.

What SHOULD be banned is any religious teaching beyond the factual (teaching what different faiths exist, their histories, and what they believe) in public schools. It's paramount to indoctrination - and we have enough trouble with that from parents.

Indoctrination of children is evil.

[MAtT]

That's what I mean by secular - the separation of church and state. That's also what the dictionary means by it. What do you mean by it?

There are two meanings in the dictionary. Yours is the second. The main meaning is "Religious skepticism or indifference" - or something similar

[MAtT]

Despite the best efforts of the nuns I am an atheist too.

Atheism is effectively a religion. The only logical standpoint on the matter of god is agnosticism.

[MrChris]

Not in my dictionary, but hey! I mean by secularism the separation of church and state. Indifference to religion is an attitude which cannot be forced on anyone either way. I'd have call that a post-religious society, not a secular one. An end to religion is certainly not what French politicians have tried to achieve. Secular implies to me that there is a religion, but that it is detached from the state, and I think French politicians mean the same thing.

But we'd better run, before we add the etymological police to the grammar police.

[randdebiel²]

People should be allowed to wear what they want... and up to a certain age parents should have the right to say what their kids wear. After a certain age they should not.

What SHOULD be banned is any religious teaching beyond the factual (teaching what different faiths exist, their histories, and what they believe) in public schools. It's paramount to indoctrination - and we have enough trouble with that from parents.

Indoctrination of children is evil.

but what when "allowing people to wear what they want" results in them having LESS (as is the case with the scarf)?

[markfiend]

Atheism is effectively a religion. The only logical standpoint on the matter of god is agnosticism.

I disagree. If it is asserted to me that this room is filled with invisible pink unicorns, I am right to disbelieve, even though I have no absolute disproof. There has been no individual god described to me which is incapable of disproof, so why should I suspend judgement on any further hypothetical gods that may yet be invented?

[randdebiel²]

I disagree. If it is asserted to me that this room is filled with invisible pink unicorns, I am right to disbelieve, even though I have no absolute disproof. There has been no individual god described to me which is incapable of disproof, so why should I suspend judgement on any further hypothetical gods that may yet be invented?

if you were capable of disproof you could make a lot of money with it, caus in philosophy of science ontology and all those things it's been established as a fact (by proof yes) that you cannot disproof the existence of a God, or prove it for that matter....
the "individual" in this post is actually even out of place, as maybe you can disproof a religion, but never a god....

[randdebiel²]

tell that to the peasants in Tibet who starved to get richess to the Buddhist monks of Lhassa.....

Hmmm...

I hadn't thought of that.

that's normal, there's a general case of "sacralising" buddhism in our society because of the occupation of Tibet by China, people have long forgotten what it was like to live in Tibet when it was independent....."underdog" role you know

[randdebiel²]

btw thus indee, atheism is a religion, and agnosticism is the "logical" way....

[markfiend]

if you were capable of disproof you could make a lot of money with it, caus in philosophy of science ontology and all those things it's been established as a fact (by proof yes) that you cannot disproof the existence of a God, or prove it for that matter....
the "individual" in this post is actually even out of place, as maybe you can disproof a religion, but never a god....

I disagree again. I take as an example of an "individual" god, the omniscient, omnipotent, loving god of Christianity:

The Problem Of Evil:
If God is not aware of the evil in this world then he is not omniscient.
If God is aware, yet unable to act against it then he is not omnipotent.
If God is aware, able to act, yet unwilling, then he is not loving.

QED. The omniscient, omnipotent, loving god of Christianity cannot exist.

[MrChris]

Atheism literally is the condition of living without god. It's greek, you see. I'm not agnostic on whether pineapples spontaneously combust, and I'm not agnostic on whether the earth was created in six days. I'm an atheist. I have no god. I have no desire to prove the existence of god either way. I live without any god.

[andymackem]

Totally secular state:

How about the USSR?

Religion was not part of public life in any way, shape or form. Churches operated in secret or not at all.

Arguably it worked out better. The Orthodox traditions did not die ... the people who believed because they felt it was right to do so continued in their faith. The historical monuments left by the church were generally very well maintained (visit a city like Suzdal to get an idea of a Russian monastic city, preserved as a museum piece throughout the communist era). Therefore what the religion became was something closer to the pure, individually chosen faith that makes some kind of sense to me. The "corporate" element of popular religion or state religion disappeared out of necessity.

Strangely enough there were weekends and holidays as well. Any society with a sense of the passing of time finds ways of marking this, and builds in leisure time as well as work time. It's not co-incidence that some kind of midwinter festival exists across cultural divides, nor that spring and harvest are marked by festivities. Christmas is simply a hijacking of the likes of Uphelyar, Easter a remake of the spring fertility rites etc. People will always give themselves this kind of down time if they can, for obvious reasons. It doesn't really matter if you have a holiday because it's the anniversary of the revolution or the anniversary of the birth of your chosen prophet. It's still a holiday.

Obviously there was a huge downside in terms of religious persecution, which I would not endorse or encourage. One might argue that had more to do with the people in charge and their paranoid efforts to cling to power than the decision to secularise the nation, though.

But if you follow my position to its logical conclusion you might (in an ideal world) arrive at a suitable compromise.

If religion is kept entirely private, and does not enter the public arena at all, there is little or no peer pressure to sign up to the prevalent doctrine of your native society. If you want it, you can go find it, but you find it for yourself rather than being lined up for it at school and then collecting it from a kind of faith hypermarket run by your local place of worship.

Those who believe can do so in the purest of faith, and are available to anyone who is interested. Those who do not believe are not faced with a world where they are asked to tolerate the religious-inspired intolerance of others.

I know, I'm too much of a dreamer ....

[markfiend]

I know, I'm too much of a dreamer ....

I often wish there were more of us about.

Re: USSR as a secular state:

You could argue that Soviet Communism borrowed many of the "tricks" of religion; Lenin's tomb is a fine example.

[MrChris]

a) the USSR doesn't exist any more
b) I wouldn't want to live there either. Brutal oppression of religion accompanied by brutal repression of anything Stalin et al didn't currently believe themselves.

I can't believe you think otherwise. So what's the point of your point? Can you think of a genuinely secular state anyone would actually want to live in?

[Carrie]

Without wishing to sign up to the eytymological police, a quick glance in the Cambridge Dictionary produces

"the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship"

on which basis atheism is in fact a REJECTION of all religion, preferably in favour of a reasonably enlightened tolerance of others' little foibles...certainly that's how I've been interpreting it for 33 years...

As an atheist, I think that religion should be a non-intrusive, non-didactic & non-evangelical affair, within a self-selecting community, who are quite welcome to fetishize the mythical being of their choice in the privacy of their own home or place of worship.

That said, I'm also a teacher & a pragmatist, & my experience is that in the school where I teach, an atmosphere of mutual respect between students of different faiths prevails - I'd hate to see Muslim or Sikh students forbidden to wear headscarves or turbans, which, on the whole are neat, unobtrusive & far preferable to the ubiquitous baseball caps which I spend half my time confiscating.

As for the suggestion that the French ban is even handed because crucifixes will also be prohibited - ARE there vast flocks of French school kiddies promenading about bedecked with crosses, in the style of Salem's Lot extras? I would venture probably not...[/i]