On "spiritual intelligence"

Bishop Donal McKeown wrote:

"President McAleese and Queen Elizabeth had the conviction and humility to be leaders, bringing their increasingly secular societies to a place which they could not reach on their own."

So it was secularism that polarised us all this time? Thank heavens this religious pair where here to prevent we atheists and agnostics from tearing one another to shreds for eternity.

You don't have to be religious, or believe in an supernatural entities, to have "spiritual intelligence".

Sounds like a high-ranking cleryman doing his best to say that religion was never an important factor that contributed to the conflict. And that faith was so important in putting the conflict behind us.

Not surprising to hear him say that. And not accurate.

Newdwr

"You don't have to be religious, or believe in an supernatural entities, to have "spiritual intelligence"."

I'm going to have to ask again, what do you mean by 'spiritual'?

Not that I think the churches get off the hook just as easily as the Bishop might like to suggest, but then I can't ask him a question.

So, if there were no religion, there would be no killing, oppression or injustice, eh? Because if the answer to that question is, 'no, of course I don't mean that', then what is your problem with religion?

"I hope that the events of last week will enable people to be proud of their identity and contribution to a modern society".

Would that contribution include a sectarian education system?

3. peterm2 wrote:

"...what do you mean by 'spiritual'?"

I don't want to get caught up in semantics, but the bishop is using the term 'spiritual' here as if only people 'of faith' are nuanced enough to appreciate the concerns of others and react accordingly. This is a rather arrogant assumption.

We are all capable of experiencing this same 'spirituality', if you want to call it that. It is not the special reserve of the faithful. We all experience the same sensitivities. All of us are capable of empathy, love, hatred, grief, courage, etc. It is part of being human.

It is not necessary in my view to believe that these qualities arise from an external source, or that spirituality is some kind of an immaterial substance. There is no good reason to suppose that it arises from anything other than the natural functioning of highly evolved modern human brains.

What do 'you' mean by spiritual?

Casur1,

"So, if there were no religion, there would be no killing, oppression or injustice, eh? ",

I wouldn't say there would be "no" killing, oppression or injustice but it would take an awful lot of justifications away. Just removing the bible from our conciousness would remove a lot of the motivating factors.

Trolling Casur1 is trolling.

It's easily shown that the most secular societies in this world are also the most advanced, tolerant, cohesive and stable. Speeches like the one here from McKeown are an attempt by the increasing irrelevant and sidelined clergy to try to assert some kind of unmeasurable quality that they claim to add to the mix.

I'm not going to even pretend that the conflict in Ireland is based on religion; religion was used an excuse to propagate it and both denominations are to blame for the jingoism that made it worse, but ultimately it was a political and territorial dispute. In that way I agree with the Bishop, even if I think, ultimately, he's trying to sound important when he, and his church, no longer is.

Natman (@ 8)

"It's easily shown that the most secular societies in this world are also the most advanced, tolerant, cohesive and stable."

Of course, that depends how we define 'secular'. It shouldn't be conflated with 'atheistic', since we have a record of specifically 'atheistic' societies, which doesn't make for happy reading. (Admittedly I have been guilty of this error in the not too distant past! Oops.)

I contend that authentic Christianity is actually quite 'secular', since the principle of respect for free will is at the heart of the secular concept of tolerance. The idea of free will does not sit easily with the deterministic philosophy of materialism, but it certainly coheres well with a Christian outlook. It could be argued that the Reformation - with its emphasis on sola scriptura (therefore implying that people have to read the Bible for themselves) - laid the groundwork for so called 'enlightenment' free thinking. Protestantism has certainly encouraged (whether willingly or 'kicking and screaming') the idea of individual conscience and conviction,and the possible downside of that is a multiplication of sects.

I think that Jesus himself was quite 'secular', in that he challenged the oppressive practices of the religious leaders of the day, who placed legalistic burdens on people but failed to understand the whole purpose of the law of God, which was designed to help not to enslave people. It seems to me that church history of the last 2000 years has been marked by a conflict between 'religion' and the kind of 'secular (people centred) godliness' displayed by Jesus. I take the view that much of the stability we see in so-called secular societies is the fruit of the kind of approach Jesus took, as implemented by more enlightened Christians (and by 'enlightened' I do not mean 'atheistic' or 'unspiritual', but more consistent with the love of God rather than the onerous demands of religious institutionalism.)

LSV,

I think we must be reading from different dictionaries. You're right though; secular doesn't equal atheist and I was careful not to equate the two. However, the definition given for secular (from Collins) is:

1. relating to worldly as opposed to sacred things,
2. not connected with religion or the church

Jesus himself (whoever that means) certainly wasn't secular, unless you take the second meaning as 'not connected with the church' and reading 'church' as the contempory Jewish authorities.

I can't let it slide the strawman that somehow because authoritarian, oppresive regimes with strong state control over every aspect of their people's are atheist that therefore atheism is the cause for their authoritarian oppressiveness. I've been very careful -not- to equate theocratic regimes with a specific religion. It's the format of the government that oppresses, not the specific beliefs (or lack of) of the rulers. Only someone with a point to grind and a lack of honesty when dealing with facts would make that assumption.

5.At 21:31 26th May 2011, newlach wrote:
"I hope that the events of last week will enable people to be proud of their identity and contribution to a modern society".

Would that contribution include a sectarian education system?
***************
Just curious, is there a problem with the quality of parochial schools in Ireland or am I misunderstanding the comment?
Here in the States, Catholic schools have higher testing scores & overall provide better education than public schools.Many of our parochial schools have waiting lists for students who want to enroll.
And back to the subject at hand: forgiveness is very important & I'm glad for the events surrounding the Queen's visit.How can anything succeed without forgiving & moving ahead?

Casur1 (@ 4) -

"So, if there were no religion, there would be no killing, oppression or injustice, eh? Because if the answer to that question is, 'no, of course I don't mean that', then what is your problem with religion?"

(With reference to - Natman @8 - "Trolling Casur1 is trolling.")

Hello 'troll'. 'Dishonest blogger' here. Since we've both been condemned by the resident 'holier than thou' Natman, I guess we'd better commiserate together, naughty people that we are, eh?

However, there is light at the end of the tunnel, since Natman's post #10 is a wonderful piece of backpedalling. I doubt he will own up to it though, but since he admits that secularism has nothing to do with atheism, and the logical implication of that point is that a believer in God can be a secularist, then I am curious to know exactly what his point is.

Of course, since I have dared to question him, I will now wait for the predictable 'straw man and dishonesty' accusation, that has become the technique of choice adopted by those who can't cope with answering challenging questions (which isn't exactly very 'honest', is it?)

(BTW, I don't suppose it's occurred to dear Mr Natman that if it's a straw man to associate authoritarian regimes with atheism, which were actually professedly atheistic, then, by that same logic, it is also a straw man to associate authoritarian regimes with religion, that were professedly religious! What's good for the goose... as they say!)

Newdwr #6

From the other thread.

An answer on our use of the word ‘spiritual’.

Your definition of the word, to include what I might most often describe as human experience or emotion or, as you say, sensitivity, is fine by me; the word is often used in this way now and does not include the concept of God or religion. And I agree, these are all part of being human, and they are not confined to ‘people of faith’. Here, I think, the bishop has made a mistake. (at least in what what he appears to imply)

There is, however, another way of using the word, or perhaps I should more correctly say, ‘other ways’ of using the word, for they need not be ‘christian’ - ways which involve religion, or god, or mysticism, or ‘New Age. Most often when I think of the word ‘spiritual’ I think of it in this way. Perhaps I could say - ‘God’s space’ to help define it.

However, for me as a Christian, this does not mean, ‘out there’, ‘distant’, or 'not real', or 'didn’t happen', or a way of explaining away ‘failed prophecies’, as we were discussing on the other thread. That was why I raised the question.


A so begins another discussion, or not!!

Natman #10

"Jesus himself (whoever that means) certainly wasn't secular"

So, you're passing comment on someone, "certainly wasn't secular", but you don't know who you're talking about, "(whoever that means)"?

If we could get past the rash of pejorative comments which have infected this blog of recent months, perhaps we could all return to something resembling debate.

Ok, Dave, so I guess that would be 'no, we won't be living in an Earthly paradise just because we have got rid of religion'. And certainly, Natman strikes the nail squarely on the head when he holds up the 'secular' societies as the most advanced, humane and tolerant; one assumes he follows the standard New Atheist practice defining Communism as a religion and therefore semanticizing Stalin's Russia and Mao's China right out of the word 'secular'.

Casur1 (@ 15) -

"...he follows the standard New Atheist practice defining Communism as a religion and therefore semanticizing Stalin's Russia and Mao's China right out of the word 'secular'."

I have in my possession a book published by the 'Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow' in 1961 entitled Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism edited by O. Kuusinen. This book - published in the USSR as a basic manual of ideology - makes absolutely clear that the philosophical basis of Marxism-Leninism is materialism.

Chapter 1 (Philosophical Materialism) begins with the words: The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Marxism-Leninism is its philosophy - dialectical and historical materialism.

The chapter includes sections such as... 'Materialism and Idealism'; 'The Philosophical Concept of Matter'; 'Consciousness - a Property of Matter Organised in a Special Way'; and others in the same vein.

Chapter 2: Materialist Dialectics.

Chapter 3: The Theory of Knowledge

This clearly sets out a materialistic epistemology in which knowledge and cognition is based entirely on practice, and abstract concepts exist only to serve the needs of physical pragmatism.

Part Two is entitled 'The Materialist Conception of History'

And I could go on... I think you get the picture.

The philosophy of materialism, which is the basis of atheism, was fundamental - a sine qua non - of the entire political system of the USSR. Anyone who attempts to argue otherwise is either a liar or pitifully ignorant (or both).

LSV (and Casur too),

Apologies to you both! Here I was, labouring under the same opinion as the collective opinion of all current historians in thinking that communism (Stalinist, Maoist or whichever flavour) was an authoritarian regime that destroyed any rival to the collective state that was supposed to represent everything to the people (including religion).

It turns out all along that -because- they were atheist they were authoritarian as well! Oh my gosh, don't I feel silly. Communist equals materialist equals atheist and therefore atheism is evil and atheist governments are bad!

I'm so glad we sorted that out. I was beginning to think that secular based governments weren't living upto the standard and now I know why! I expect to see their five years plans any time now.

Of course, current theocratic governments like those seen in Iran, Yemen and so on, and the historical regimes like those seen in Spain are bastions of freedom, tolerance and progress.

I don't understand how I ever got it all mixed up!
(/sarcasm)

To attribute the worst aspects of communistic regimes with atheism is false and misleading and is completely against the trend seen in modern, secular, governments.

Oh, btw, LSV, are you ever going to answer the questions I raised in another posting? You went conspicuously quiet from there for a long time afterwards and then avoided answering (Open thread #87).

Natman (@ 17) -

"To attribute the worst aspects of communistic regimes with atheism is false and misleading and is completely against the trend seen in modern, secular, governments."

Fine.

THEREFORE, don't use that kind of reasoning with regard to religion either! (Although the above comment still seems to me to suggest that you are crediting the success of modern secular governments to atheism as a way of 'disproving' that atheism was at fault during the dark years of communism in the USSR and China - hence your reference to 'the trend').

If it is all about politics, and not about people's belief or non-belief in God, then fine.

In other words, this argument about secularism is completely irrelevant concerning Christianity or any other religion, since you have, in effect, admitted that authoritarian (and therefore non-authoritarian) regimes operate according to political and not philosophical or religious motives.

For fear of being accused of putting words into your mouth, I will ask you: are you acknowledging this or not? If not, then why are you not being logically and morally consistent? And if you are, then presumably you will accept that theism cannot be criticised on the basis of the political performance of religious people, since you refuse to accept that the same judgment can be made against atheists?

If theism is the reason for the tyranny of Iran (for example), then it follows logically that atheism is the reason for the tyranny of the USSR. You cannot have it both ways!!

I look forward to your answer (especially considering that I am still not clear what point you are trying to make with this 'secularism' issue). I will be looking closely at your reasoning, to see if you really are prepared to be consistent.

I'll have a look at the other posts soon.

LSV,

Again, again and again I, or someone else, has to point out to you that atheism is a -lack- of beliefs. You don't ascribe the crimes of the Soviet Regime to their lack of a belief in fairies, or Santa Claus.

Theocratic regimes use their religion as an excuse to oppress and display intolerance, all in the name of their beliefs. Communist regimes don't use their lack of beliefs as an excuse, but rather try to eliminate religion as it poses a rival authority to their own.

It's not the lack of buddhism that causes Iran to be aggressive, it's not the lack of wicca that causes China to flagrantly abuse its protestors, it's not the lack of fairyism that makes Sweden so progressive.

However, it -is- the islam in Iran that causes it to be so virulently anti-western. It was the catholic fanatism in medieval Spain that caused the inquisition to take root, and it is the ability of secular states to ignore the demands of a religion that allow it to be so free.

Atheism is a catch-all term for a lack of belief, not a movement, idealogy or religion. To use it as a reason for oppressive behaviour is missing the real reason for why states oppress their populace.

mscracker

In Northern Ireland the religious label stuck on kids at birth determines the school that they attend (mainly). Some think that this is a great idea because it allows children to be force-fed religious dogma. Religious leaders are not opposed to Protestant and Catholic children mixing in certain environments, it's just that they first want to make sure the children know which religion is the "right" religion.

No right-thinking person would support the idea of having separate schools for White and Black children (I understand that the history of the United States on this issue is controversial). Taxpayers should not fund a system of education that promotes harmful division on the grounds of religion.

Some of the world's best performing pupils are from China - I do not think religion has much to do with the academic success of pupils.

“Communist regimes don't use their lack of beliefs as an excuse, but rather try to eliminate religion as it poses a rival authority to their own.”
and
“Atheism is a catch-all term for a lack of belief, not a movement, idealogy or religion.”

Then, shouldn’t the atheist be the most quiet and not eloquent mumbler-grumblers in this world. It is only about… nothing? If they have nothing to ‘sell’, why bother others who want to ‘sell’ to the significant potential ‘buyer’ others, including atheists.

Major religious/sacred texts do not carry any debate with atheists. Mainly because atheists have nothing to ‘sell’, in the parlance of modern marketing economics… atheism is not a competing product. Jesus biggest problem was with the other religious folks, right up to his very end.

At its peak (pre 1989), one third of the world’s population was under communist regimes. Back there and then, a lack of revolutionary fervour was considered a criminal offence. Those not incriminated were, therefore, not atheists, but, visual revolutionary fanatics. At their most discreet, there were closet atheists lustily singing the Internationale.

But when it came to culling out the religious reactionaries, will the atheist come out of the closet to help their more spirited cadres? Whichever way he answers YES or NO, they end up proving he only has a fickle mind and no backbone.

Sizzlestick,

Nice ad hominem on the mindset of the atheist. You clearly have no concept of what atheism is, even LSV recognises why atheists are as vocal as they are, even if he disagrees with it.

I know the concept of someone who rejects your locked-in mindset is difficult to comprehend, but do some reading (like here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_Atheism_FAQ_for_the_Newly_Deconverted%29 and then you might see how wrong you are.

Natman (@ 19) -

There is a simple anwer to your 'non-belief' argument.

Allow me to concede (purely for the sake of argument) that 'atheism' is a non-belief. OK. Then let's not talk about atheism, but rather something else which no honest and informed person can claim is a 'non-belief' and that is: the philosophy of materialism.

Are you therefore willing to acknowledge that the philosophy of materialism or naturalism was the philosophy at the heart of the oppressive regime of the USSR? And if so, then I would be interested to see how atheism makes sense without it being dependent on that philosophy (which would have to be the case if atheism has nothing to do with communistic tyranny)! Atheism implies a philosophical outlook, and materialism (naturalism) is a necessary and sufficient condition for atheism. Atheism is not just a trivial and silly parlour game that denies the existence of "Russell's Teapot", FSM etc.

On this thread I have provided documentary *evidence* (note that word!) that the ideology of the USSR was firmly based on the philosophy of materialism. This philosophy is a belief about reality. It is NOT a non-belief. You cannot build any ideology on a 'non-belief'.

Furthermore, the regime of the USSR was anti-religious, meaning that it was actively atheistic: the regime believed that all religion was false and dangerous. That was an active belief based on a particular worldview.

But if you are claiming that atheism is a non-belief, then obviously it has nothing to do with secularism, since secularism cannot be based on a non-belief. Therefore, according to your logic, secularism can be as much based on religion as on any other philosophy.

I suspect, however, that you are trying to drag up any old argument to credit atheism for the 'success' of secularism while refusing to blame it for the horrors of state communism. That is what it looks like to me, in the light of this comment of yours: "To attribute the worst aspects of communistic regimes with atheism is false and misleading and is completely against the trend seen in modern, secular, governments." You seem to be using the success of modern secular governments as evidence that atheism shouldn't be blamed for the worst aspects of communistic regimes, which logically suggests that you believe that modern securalism is the true effect of atheism. Please clarify this (as I wouldn't want to be accused of reading something into your words!!)

LSV,

You went wrong when you assumed that anti-religion equals atheism.

As usual.

Natman -

Oh well, that's a relief to know that atheism is not anti-religious. I was getting worried there for one moment!

Hope you'll have the time to answer my questions about materialism and the USSR, as well as clarify your earlier comment which I have brought up now TWICE.

If you don't answer, then I'll have to assume that I've won the argument.

Natman

I'm curious: as a general principle, can "lack of" (whatever), ever lead to any kind of behaviour?

Put it another way, does your lack of belief (I presume in god), lead to anything?

Maybe a "lack of Religion" can lead to a straight forward humanity Peter. Also, by applying some of his principles, he certainly comes across as a better human-being than some religious religious types who apply theirs

Ryan

Sure, there's no doubt that there are those who are not religious who are good people, I have no quarrel with that, but that's not my question.

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that Natman wants to have his cake and eat it. He seems to want to promote a 'lack of belief/religion', value a lack of belief/religion, encourage a lack of belief/religion, flag up the benefits of a lack of belief/religion yet not accept that any kind of negative behaviour might flow from such, on the basis that it's a 'lack of'. A bit like the bishop on this thread, who seems to want to talk up the benefits of 'faith' while ignoring all it's ills.

Humanity is much more complex than that.

peterm2 (@ 28) -

"It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that Natman wants to have his cake and eat it."

It's funny, but I seem to be getting the same impression.

Can't think why!!!

"It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that Natman wants to have his cake and eat it."...It's funny, but I seem to be getting the same impression.

The two of you have it all wrong; Natman lacks the belief in 'eating and having his cake', so he couldn't possibly want to.

13. peterm2:

If 'spirituality' is a shared human condition, then why does it need to be dragged into the supernatural to explain it?

LSV,

Claim victory all you like, but your presumption that the evils of the USSR and communist China are there because of atheism is flawed, against current historical thinking and probably based on a desire to score semantical points than any real argumentation.

But, hey, since when did basing your argument on unfounded 'I think x, therefore truth' ever stop you?

LSV, Peter2m, Andrew... all of you seem to labour under a misconception that there's a vast Atheist United, a philosophy we all adhere too, a 'church' that can be blamed for all the bad stuff atheism spawns. Perhaps this is from a desire to have a atheist boogyman to hit with a metaphorical stick.

Communism was anti-religion. Atheist is 'don't give a flying monkey's poo' about religion, secularism is 'have it if you want, leave it at the door' about religion.

I can blame religion for the ills it spawns in government because it's bigoted, intolerant and determined to force its opinion into every aspect of a persons life, and all this based on nothing more than an ancient book with dubious integrity.

The fact none of you can see that is telling, it really is.

newdwr

We don't have to 'drag it into the supernatural to explain it', but it depends what we are explaining; I gave two basic definitions, one wasn't supernatural, the other was.

Natman

"LSV, Peter2m, Andrew... all of you seem to labour under a misconception that there's a vast Atheist United, a philosophy we all adhere too, a 'church' that can be blamed for all the bad stuff atheism spawns."

I can answer this notion of yours - no, I labour under no such misconception.

Just answer the question.

Here's another while we're at it. Is there anything your lack of belief in god stems *from*?

At one level, though, I'm not really bothered wether you answer or not, but this:

"The fact none of you can see that is telling, it really is."

That, if you care to read what I have openly said on this blog over a number of years now, is a blatant misrepresentation... even this thread, where I say, #3 "Not that I think the churches get off the hook just as easily as the Bishop might like to suggest, but then I can't ask him a question." and #28 where I say, "A bit like the bishop on this thread, who seems to want to talk up the benefits of 'faith' while ignoring all it's ills." highlights this; goodness, you even use the word "ills".

Natman (@ 32) -

"...your presumption that the evils of the USSR and communist China are there because of atheism is flawed..."

Therefore likewise your argument about religion is also flawed. As I said before, you cannot have it both ways. If atheism has no influence for evil (because those atheists in power were really motivated by politics and not by their worldview), then the same argument applies to religion - i.e. those religious people in power were really motivated by politics and not by their worldview. Or do different rules apply to the 'special' people called atheists?

It's obvious that you are applying a ridiculous double standard, and you seem either unable or unwilling to see it.

to be continued...

Natman (@ 32) continued...

"I can blame religion for the ills it spawns in government because it's bigoted, intolerant and determined to force its opinion into every aspect of a persons life, and all this based on nothing more than an ancient book with dubious integrity."

What do you mean by 'religion'? Please explain. I hope you have the honesty to answer this question, so that the rest of us can see whether what you call 'religion' really is 'bigoted and intolerant'.

Funny how you take umbrage at the claim that atheism is anti-religious and yet here you are calling religion 'bigoted, intolerant and determined to force its opinion into every aspect of life'!! You sound rather 'anti-religious' to me!

Your grotesque inconsistency, double standards and contradictions prove that you really have no argument. Instead of tying yourself up in knots trying to rescue a failed argument - like a certain Harold Camping - why don't you just do the mature grown-up thing and admit you're wrong.

Even if you insist on going the Harold Camping route of cognitive dissonance, at least other readers can see that atheism is really such a load of nonsense, if it has to be supported by such hypocritical arguments. Thank God atheism is just a myth, is all I can say.

Funny how you take umbrage at the claim that atheism is anti-religious and yet here you are calling religion 'bigoted, intolerant and determined to force its opinion into every aspect of life'!! You sound rather 'anti-religious' to me!

• Natman is an atheist.


• Natman is anti religion.


• Therefore atheists are anti religion.

I do not think it right that GPs should talk about Jesus to vulnerable patients who are not interested in religion. The doctor interviewed admitted to having multiple complaints made against him but yet he remains determined to speak to patients on the contentious subject of religion when he wishes. Taxpayers do not pay this man's salary so that he can force religion on vulnerable patients.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Grokesx has it right.

I am not representative of atheists, I can be anti-religion as much as I like and it makes no difference to the mindset of any other atheist out there. However, when a member of a religion claims to believe in xyz, if that belief forms part of the creed of said religion, then I can use that claim by a specific person to talk about the whole religion.

That's the advantage of critiquing an organised body.

Peter2m,

Why can't my atheism come from me? I know the concept of thought originating from a persons self is an alien concept to one who holds to a dogma that tells you how to act and think about everything, but my atheism stems from my own rationalisation of things I have learnt, read and studied. No one source can be attributed and it was a gradual process. Largely helped along by the religious themselves.

Your lack of a belief in Shiva, or Quetzacoatl seems to effect you not one shred, why should my lack of a belief in Yahweh effect me?

Natman

There's a sentence in your first paragraph to me which is indicative of the current tone of this blog...

I think some people need to understand the difference between a 'necessary condition' and a 'sufficient condition'.

Let's say that...

X = atheism

Y = anti-religion

What is the relationship of X to Y? Here are the possibilities:

1. X is only a necessary condition of Y.

2. X is only a sufficient condition of Y.

3. X is both a necessary and sufficient condition of Y.

4. X is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of Y.

The correct answer is #1.

X is clearly a necessary condition of Y, if 'religion' is defined as "any belief in a spiritual or supernatural reality", since to be against 'religion' requires a philosophical rejection of that which is an integral part of religion. That 'philosophical rejection' is called 'atheism'.

However, it may be true that X is not a sufficient condition of Y, meaning that an atheist does not necessarily have to be anti-religious, i.e. atheism does not inevitably lead to an anti-religious position.

The anti-religious policies of the USSR were certainly motivated by atheism (an historical fact), because atheism is a necessary condition for rejecting all supernatural beliefs (since that is what atheism is). Just because atheism is not a sufficient condition for anti-religious policies does not therefore mean that the policies of the USSR had nothing to do with atheism!

So to use the argument that "because there are atheists that are not anti-religious this means that the horrors of the Gulag had nothing to do with atheism", is just plain dishonest.

But I suppose if some people need to resort to emotional rather than rational arguments to make their flimsy case, then I guess they're entitled to. If it really makes them feel better, then so be it...

Natman,

It's even more complicated than Grokesx (rightly) infers.

I am an atheist, but I am not anti religion. I don't believe in any of it's instantiations but I firmly agree with peoples right to believe whatever they want. That does not make me ant-religion - just means I am an atheist who believes in human rights.

I am anti many things which are done in the name of religion and many of it's interferences in other people's (and my) day to day life and freedom to make my own decisions and actions. That does not make me anti religion - just means I am an atheist who believes in peoples right to self determination and will stand up for it.

I have, on this board, been openly supportive of the actions and outlooks of some religious people (not many I know) and accept that some religious people hold their beliefs but act in a way which does not negatively impact on the world and people around them. That does not make me pro religion - just means I am an atheist who recognised and gives credit to anyone who acts in a way which respects other peoples rights and contributes positively to society as a whole (secular or not).

This is why LSV's logic does not work because he is trying to create inferences between assertions (beliefs), non assertions (lack of belief) and positional statements (anti this or pro that) as if they had some kind of closed equality, they do not and they do not even attempt to describe similar things.

Does believing that the catholic church is blasphemous make a protestant anti caholic or simply a protestant who disagrees with some other peoples belief. It is only when that protestant acts to curtail that catholics freedom to blaspheme (from the protestants point of view) would it then become a a problem for someone like me. I would take the same view of that as I would any religious person interfering in my civil rights (say with regard to equal access to marriage).

I think that made sense.

I agree with your points about organised religion and atheism, I am not a member of any group of atheists, there is no core belief statement I adhere to (not really possible as there is no belief), I don't discuss atheism with other atheists in order to reach agreement of what to interpret as atheism as there is nothing to discuss.

Atheism is simply a term which humans developed to describe people who do not have beliefs (ie the default state), it is what is left after all the people who have made belief assertions have been counted.

LSV,

"Just because atheism is not a sufficient condition for anti-religious policies does not therefore mean that the policies of the USSR had nothing to do with atheism!"

True.

However, it also doesn't mean that atheism was the sole and only cause for the policies of the USSR, nor does it mean that the policies of the USSR were driven by an atheist agenda.

That's the claim you're making; that somehow the persecution of the religious in communist countries was driven by atheism, is not true; atheism was a property of the communist state, but its persecution of organised religion was driven by ideological necessity - any competing philosophy to the socialist agenda was a threat to its success.

In a theistic state, the ideological agenda -is- the religion. That's the difference you're failing to make.

Peter2m,

Possibly, I regret if the tone of the posts are less than perfect, but the ad hominem attacks and bitterness was brought, as usual, into the thread by someone else. I try to remain objective and even attempt to level some measure of respect to those who hold opposing views to mine, but it's usually thrown back without any responce.

LSV,

Just because atheism is a necessary condition for some types of regime, you have not provided any evidence to connect that condition to the quality of that regime. A regime in which only atheists reside can be benign, belligerent or downright evil, same as any other regime really, that has nothing too do with atheism.

Theocracies however are based not only on beliefs but on the rules and regulations which are commanded by that belief and these can a do form bigoted, discriminatory and in some cases evil regimes. They can do little else as their basis (or interpretation of it) are bigoted, discriminatory and in some cases evil.

Regimes based on religion are not solely based on a belief in a supernatural being, they are based on the rules that are perceived to be handed down and the view that they have the right to inflict those rules on everyone. As atheist have no rules like that there are no drivers to develop a regime.

Dave (@ 45) -

"Theocracies however are based not only on beliefs but on the rules and regulations which are commanded by that belief and these can a do form bigoted, discriminatory and in some cases evil regimes. They can do little else as their basis (or interpretation of it) are bigoted, discriminatory and in some cases evil."

You are talking about 'theocracies', which is something highly specific, and not necessarily the inevitable outworking of 'religion' per se. In fact, 'religion' is a necessary condition for a 'theocracy', but not a sufficient condition. In other words, you obviously have to be religious in order to be theocratic, but it doesn't follow that a religious person will become theocratic. (In fact, it could be argued that you don't actually need to believe in God to be theocratic; you only need to believe in the earthly religious institution. I am sure you realise that you can be an atheist and religious in an institutional sense. Just ask Heliopolitan!)

So the argument I put about atheism also applies to religion. If you cannot blame atheism for the horrors of the USSR, then, by that same logic, you cannot blame religion (i.e. belief in God) per se for the horrors of the Ayatollah, the Inquisition etc.

Would you say that, for example, the Quakers are bigoted and theocratic? They are 'religious' aren't they?

There is a great deal of evidence in the Bible that shows that Christianity is actually quite 'secular' (i.e. politically non-theocratic). I will try to post something later about this.

Lets see how this works
I am an atheist
I reject all supernatural beliefs
Therefore I am a communist
Excellent

Mr James, that must have taken you a long time to write, given your struggles with literacy, as you obviously couldn't read post #42.

Or is it just logic that you find a little trying?

Whichever it is, you're a great entertainer. I'll give you that!!

Getting back to the topic of the thread

... Churches may have implicitly been removed from being identified as being responsible for past difficulties and as enemies of the future. But the visit also challenges the churches to re-examine our role in northern society.

“I suppose the only place you could equate it to, with the violence, would be Northern Ireland,” says assistant police commissioner Justin Felice, head of the Jamaican police’s anti-corruption bureau. He was appointed after a spell in the police ombudsman’s office in Northern Ireland, where he helped to reform the police into a force that reflected both Catholic and Protestant communities. Jamaica’s similarities to Northern Ireland are startling—right down to the parties’ colours. “I arrived here on election day in 2007 and all these orange and green flags are flying,” recalls Felice. “I thought: have they got those up for me? And then I heard gunshots ringing out.”

OK Natman, let’s try again.

The reason I raised my question in #26 was because I get the impression that when the definition “atheism is a ‘lack of belief’ (and nothing more), it is not a movement, ideology or religion”, is used, it implies that because it is deemed a ‘non-position’ then no comment against it is allowed and it is not the cause of any kind of behaviour. However, I have a number of problems with this.

First of all, “it is not a movement”. No it may not have a *formal* creed (although there are many definitions) or institution, but how would you define, describe, for example, the internet and publishing... community? This:

https://www.atheists-online.com/links.asp?p=7

for example, or this:

https://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=7496.

Or what about the Atheist ‘A’, what’s that all about? Or the bus campaign? (We Christians call that kind of thing evangelism.) It seems to me too that there wouldn’t be “Notable Atheists” (Rational Wiki - Atheism), “Key Concepts” (Rational Wiki - Atheism), and there’d be no “More about Atheism” (Rational Wiki - Atheism).

Anyway... part two... there's certainly a 'lack of' web space here!

Second, ideology.

This was what prompted my question.

You ‘lack belief in god’. So, what does this mean? That you take no position on the god question? That you have no reasons for your ‘lack of belief’? That your ‘lack of belief’ isn’t the motivator of your arguments against belief in god? That it is entirely a non position, that nothing can be said about it and that you say nothing about it? That you are entirely unaffected by discussions about god?

This is why I asked the questions, ”does your lack of belief (I presume in god), lead to anything?” and ”Is there anything your lack of belief in god stems *from*?”

It seems to me that if your ‘lack of’ position (not that it’s a position) were the non position you claim it to be, then the answers to both those questions should/would be, ‘no’. It also seems to me that you wouldn’t engage in debates about ‘belief in god' and that you wouldn’t be promoting websites like that on you linked to in #22 of this thread.

Interestingly too, you have given the beginnings of an answer to my second question in #40, ”my atheism stems from my own rationalization of things I have learnt, read and studied.” That’s a thought process, it involves choices, decisions, actions - in short it’s not ‘nothing’. It’s a process which can be debated, a way of understanding the world, and there are others who have followed a similar process and arrived at a different conclusion.

So ‘atheism’ does not escape scrutiny simply because some people seek to define it as a ‘lack of’ something. You may lack belief in god but that does not mean there is nothing to discuss and that nothing can be derived from it.

That is my simple point.

LSV;

"...you obviously couldn't read post #42."

To be honest LSV, #42 isn't the easiest read in the world, is it? But for me it is newlach who carries off the palm in the entertainment stakes, for his;

"In Northern Ireland the religious label stuck on kids at birth determines the school that they attend (mainly). Some think that this is a great idea because it allows children to be force-fed religious dogma."

I'm keeping my fingers crossed my post will get through the mods.

hah! moy droog, once again I am undone by LSV's rapier wit.

Theophane (@ 52) -

"To be honest LSV, #42 isn't the easiest read in the world, is it?"

I'm sure it'll be no problem for the resident atheists, since they frequently claim to be so intelligent.

And apparently 'reason' (logic) is even supposed to be their forte!! (Ha ha)

Peter
Given my struggles with literacy Natman and others will probably put it better, but for me it's simple, I see no evidence for gods.

Paul.

How then do you explain Jesus Christ?

Paul

"for me it's simple, I see no evidence for gods."

Yep, that's pretty straightforward, and fine by me. You don't, I do, and we can leave it there. Natman, however, goes further than that, and this is the reason why I pursue the debate.

pastorphillip

Maybe I shouldn't do this, but I'd guess that to the extent Paul thinks about Jesus at all, he thinks, 'Nope, no evidence for God there.'

Peter
Thanks, you are correct.

As I promised in post #46, here are some thoughts about the secular nature of Christianity, as laid out in the Bible. I know 'biblical evidence' doesn't count as 'evidence' in the minds of some people, but since they are so prone to peddling delusions about the Christian faith, I thought I would try to set the record straight. I am using the word 'secular' in contradistinction to 'theocratic' or 'religion dictating the political system'.

The claim is that Christianity is a bigoted outlook on life which involves trying to impose religious and moral strictures on society by political means. While I am not denying that there are so-called Christians who seek to do this, are they acting with a biblical mandate? And the answer to that question is: no.

Where in the New Testament do we read that the purpose of the Church was to take over society politically?

What did Jesus say?

"My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here." John 18:36

After the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand it says in John 6:15 - "Therefore when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, he departed again to the mountain by himself alone." In other words, Jesus sought to avoid any kind of political statement, or to give any impression that he had come to rouse the people to pursue a political agenda.

to be continued...

...continued from post #61

Just prior to his ascension the disciples asked Jesus: "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" To which the reply was: "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in his own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." In other words, God's agenda was not political but spiritual.

Then we have such sayings as "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (Mark 12:17), i.e. cooperate with the political system in which you find yourselves.

"You are the salt of the earth" Matthew 5:13. Salt has a subsidiary function, and therefore this saying speaks of service not an aggressive takeover of society.

Another saying of Jesus: "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." Mark 10:42-45. How anyone can see 'bigotry' and 'authoritarianism' in this saying is beyond me. This is affirming THE EXACT OPPOSITE of authoritarianism.

Even the Old Testament is not as theocratic as some people might imagine. What about this verse:

Jeremiah 29:7: "And seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the LORD for it; for in its peace you will have peace."

The Jews who went into captivity in Babylon were not to take over the country aggressively with a theocratic regime, but to seek its peace and prosperity.

I could go on, but this is enough information to show that the Bible does not support the accusation that 'religion' (by which I assume is meant 'belief in God') is inevitably 'bigoted' and 'authoritarian'.

Paul, #60

Then I respectfully ask you to consider Him.

LSV

"The claim is that Christianity is a bigoted outlook on life which involves trying to impose religious and moral strictures on society by political means. While I am not denying that there are so-called Christians who seek to do this, are they acting with a biblical mandate? And the answer to that question is: no."

I agree entirely.

Phillip
Respectfully considered. Respectfully disregarded.
As Peter succinctly noted, "Nope, no evidence for god there."

Final thought for tonight
"The claim is that Christianity is a bigoted outlook on life which involves trying to impose religious and moral strictures on society by political means. While I am not denying that there are so-called Christians who seek to do this, are they acting with a biblical mandate? And the answer to that question is: no."

Do you condemn those christians that do?

Hello Natman at 22.
I cannot answer sooner as it was Sunday soon in Singapore, when I would be doing what is natural to me, with the Supernatural. Instead of reading blogs and writing responses.

I meant no disrespect when I made no explicit reference to you for your quoted statements at my 21. It must be my Indonesian heritage, many a times, instead of beginning a rebuttal with ‘you/he/she said this or that’: we say “I heard this or that (with no names), …’. Just to lessen the impact of what could be construed later as a personal attack. Please do not take it too personally, ala ad hominem.

I take my cue from The Jesus who spoke often in parables. Just treat what I had said as ersatz homilies, and enjoy the conversation.
Thanks for the link, but to a hard-boiled faithful like my self it’s just a rerun of heard-before counter-arguments. I am just too tired to do the tiresome, even though it’s only Monday here.

paul james (@ 66) -

"Do you condemn those christians that do?"

Who said anything about 'condemning'? I was criticising a particular position from a biblical point of view (or is that not allowed?)

Do you condemn - or criticise - those atheists who sent people to the Gulag?

"The claim is that Christianity is a bigoted outlook on life which involves trying to impose religious and moral strictures on society by political means. While I am not denying that there are so-called Christians who seek to do this, are they acting with a biblical mandate? And the answer to that question is: no."

Out of interest what are examples of religious and moral strictures which some Christians seek to impose on society?

Paul, #65

I suggest that Jesus Christ deserves rather more than 30 minutes of your time.

His life was predicted in detail; He was miraculously conceived within the womb of Mary; He lived a life of perfect sinlessness; His miracles astonished those who saw Him; His teaching has resonated down 21 centuries; His death makes no sense unless it was an atonement for our sin, and His resurrection confirms Him as nothing less than the Divine Son of God.

I can understand why thinking about Christ makes atheists uncomfortable, but I can assure you it is well worth the discomfort!! Go on Paul - push through the pain!

"In Him dewells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2v9)

Andrew (@ 69) -

"Out of interest what are examples of religious and moral strictures which some Christians seek to impose on society?"

Here's an interesting read on this topic.

pastorphillip,

You don't get it, do you? To someone who views the bible as a collection of stories, heavily edited, contradictory and self-fullfilling, the concept of Jesus as put across by the likes of you means nothing.

Why don't you go and give Odin the proper consideration he deserves? Afterall, there's reams of stories about him and I'm sure, if you consider the sagas, you'll see his life was predicted in detail. Hey, he even died for your sins!

Perhaps when you begin to retort with 'I don't believe in those stores' you'll see why your continued insistance that an atheist should consider Jesus is so pointless.

Peter2m,

My atheism is not what drives my, for sake of a better phrase, 'anti religion'. Unlike LSV who insists the two are inseperable, indeed, even makes the connection that it's that atheism that drives communism (hee hee), I don't see atheism as necessarily leading to anti-religion.

My anti-religion stems from my opinion that religion is harmful to modern society, the focus on the religious to do things in this world for the benefit of themselves in another, unproven, existence, and the need of the religious to obey and serve an imaginary being, is detrimental to humanity.

I know you, and perhaps others, will find fault with this, but blog posts are not enough to put across the hows and whys behind my thinking properly so I'm not about to try. I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me.

Andrew #69

My view of the business of church and politics is this. There are those who, throughout history, have sought to establish the church as a temporal power. LSV has noted a contemporary example, and, without pointing to anyone outside my own tradition, The Solemn League and Covenant (1643/44) is a good historical example.

Natman

"My atheism is not what drives my, for sake of a better phrase, 'anti religion'."

Then I shall continue to debate your "anti religion"!

"I don't see atheism as necessarily leading to anti-religion."

No, not necessarily, but... it could, and does - and the point has been established.

So it is with religion, it need not necessarily lead to, for example, theocracy. Which seems to me to have been one of LSV's points.

One of the interesting ironies here is that it is both LSV and I (religious people, to use a catch all phrase I don't particularly like) who have been arguing against theocracy.

LSV

Perhaps my question was a little disingenuous.

Are there any 'religious and moral strictures' which you believe are appropriate to be enacted as a law of the state? And if so, why?

I suppose my train of thought is leading to other questions such as; how should Christians give an account of the state, its existence and purpose, and its laws?

Natman (@ 72) -

"I know you, and perhaps others, will find fault with this, but blog posts are not enough to put across the hows and whys behind my thinking properly so I'm not about to try."

You are prepared to air your 'opinions' publicly, but can't defend them. How very convenient!

"My anti-religion stems from my opinion that religion is harmful to modern society, the focus on the religious to do things in this world for the benefit of themselves in another, unproven, existence, and the need of the religious to obey and serve an imaginary being, is detrimental to humanity."

For the sake of argument, let's suppose you're right. OK. So let's imagine that all 'religion' has been totally eradicated from the face of planet earth and atheism has triumphed gloriously. No more 'blaming religion' then, as it's been completely destroyed. No more scapegoats and soft targets.

Please explain then how your brave new world guarantees the benefit of mankind. Please explain how the philosophy of naturalism (which obviously undergirds this 'brave new world') is the only way of solving problems. Please explain how atheists are always altruistic and, unlike those nasty 'religious' people, do not do things for the benefit of themselves. I would be very interested to see how you answer this, in the light of the fact that you have already admitted (on another thread) that 'truth', 'morality' and all ideas of 'meaning' are completely subjective.

(Oh wait! Silly me! He can't answer, because this is only a blog!)

"Unlike LSV who insists the two are inseperable, indeed, even makes the connection that it's that atheism that drives communism (hee hee)..."

Interesting that you should laugh, considering that I have actually presented evidence to support my case, unlike you. But then again, despite your pleas, it's not really 'evidence' that you are interested in, but rather your own subjective desires and wishful thinking.

Your understanding of Christian motivation is truly pitiful, by the way, but I won't embarrass you any longer in this post. I don't hit people who are already 'down for the count'.

LSV,

I never claimed removing religion would suddenly make the world perfect, I just think humanity would be better off without it.

Just because you remove one ill from society doesn't heal it completely. Just because you want to deal in absolutes does not make it true.

I'm not about to clog up this blog with thousands of words explaining my personal opinions on very complex ideals, especially not when you sprout out massively long posts of your own, full of many points, questions and rebuttals that all deserve their own replies, but you leave no space or time for anyone to refute. Peter2m has the decency to keep his posts short and concise, dealing with one topic at a time and refrains from the frantic Gish Galloping followed by an empty 'I win!' at the end. Claim this as victory if you want, but it's as empty as your claims in god's existence.

Peter2m,

So you would be opposed to a society run along by the rules and laws set by your religion? You would oppose the creation of a state on christian ideals, managed by those with the interests of your faith at heart and with society run according to christian teachings?

Natman (@ 77) -

I'll take your reply as a highly 'complex' way of throwing in the towel.

I don't need to give my reasons why I think this, as it's all a bit 'complex' and this poor little blog isn't up to accommodating my sophistication and 'intellectual depth'!

Natman

”So you would be opposed to a society run along by the rules and laws set by your religion? You would oppose the creation of a state on christian ideals, managed by those with the interests of your faith at heart and with society run according to christian teachings?”

Well, I wouldn’t ‘take up arms’ against it, but then again neither do I think it a good idea. Not only have attempts at theocracy always ended in tears but, as LSV has pointed out, theocracy isn’t the mandate of the church.

There’s a whole conversation in your questions, though; one which relates to what we think the church is, what the church is for, what the gospel is, who Jesus is, what the Kingdom of God is, how the church relates to the state, how Christians make their voice heard in society and so on... perhaps another time!

Phillip@70
If I were a muslim listening to the phrases you use what would I think? Now remove even the supernatural crutch of any believer and imagine how empty the creed sounds. Not everyone goes to the same Sunday school as you.

Paul@80
If you were a muslim you'd go along with most of pastorphilip's phrases, apart from those touching on Jesus' death and resurrection.

Peter

Well, I wouldn’t ‘take up arms’ against it, but then again neither do I think it a good idea. Not only have attempts at theocracy always ended in tears but, as LSV has pointed out, theocracy isn’t the mandate of the church.

I agree with this okay. It gets more complicated when we think of the Christian as citizen.

There’s a whole conversation in your questions, though; one which relates to what we think the church is, what the church is for, what the gospel is, who Jesus is, what the Kingdom of God is, how the church relates to the state, how Christians make their voice heard in society and so on... perhaps another time!

Questions on the state would also need to asked. The SL&C, for instance, doesn't make the church the state. The two are kept distinct. The state is God's minister of justice, albeit the state is to uphold true religion, and the church is to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. We probably both agree on the establishment principle but its not the case that Christianity has nothing to say about the state. We probably agree on that as well.

Whilst theocracy is broadly coterminous with church as state the criticism on this thread seems to be against any Christian - or "religious" - influence on the state. Apart from all else this seems to me to place a burden on the Christian as citizen which Christians should not be obliging in carrying.

Theo@81
"apart from those touching on Jesus' death and resurrection"
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the whole point of this sorry nonsense?

Natman, Paul,

Sounds to me like you're scared to examine the evidence. What have you got to lose by taking a look?

The Christian Faith has nothing to fear from close scrutiny, even from the most sceptical. (Check out Jeremiah 29v13)

Paul@83
You are wrong. It's only "sorry nonsense" if you don't believe in it.

Whilst theocracy is broadly coterminous with church as state the criticism on this thread seems to be against any Christian - or "religious" - influence on the state. Apart from all else this seems to me to place a burden on the Christian as citizen which Christians should not be obliging in carrying

Ryan -

I think it depends on how you understand the word 'influence'. It is not the same as 'imposition'. Christians have as much right as anyone else to exert an 'influence'. If that is not the case, then what right does anyone else have?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

PastorPhillip,

You're being awfully quick to judge that I -havn't- considered Jesus and all the claims of the christian church.

I hate to spoil your carefully crafted stock of quotations from the bible, but I've read it.

All.

I've been to bible studies, gospel meetings, prayer sessions. I've been to evangelical outreaches in Berlin and Belgium. I've spent my summers at youth camps and done my time in holiday clubs, both as a participant and a leader. I would wager a reasonable sum that my knowledge of the bible and what it contains is more than the average church goer and probably up there with a professional pastor.

This is why your continued use of the bible to convince me of your faith won't work.

Peter2m,

So if the state, not being beholden to your religion, created a law that went against your religious convictions, what would you do?

Alternatively, if the state was beholden to a religion or denomination not of your own and created a law that was specific to that religion, but against yours, what would you do?

"The Christian Faith has nothing to fear from close scrutiny, even from the most sceptical. (Check out Jeremiah 29v13)"

Lovely bit of circular reasoning there. Pastorphilip is arguing how solid the christian faith, whose holy book is the bible, is when subjected to skeptical scrutiny. And in support of his position, he holds up a verse from....the bible.

Phillip .Checked out Jeremiah 29

I will pursue them with sword, famine, and pestilence, and will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a curse, a terror, a hissing, and a reproach among all the nations where I have driven them,

.....just the usual smiting from a homicidal maniac then.

What a cheek! Why should your faith be anothers burden when they don't share your religion? Singapore managed to rise to the challenge of a multicultural society- to be secular & reflect everyone. We also live in a multicultural, multi-faith society that necessitates this approach.

Did I say anything about burdening others with my 'faith'? You on the other hand want to tell me what I can and cannot say in the public realm. Which is interesting, is it not?

What a cheek!

I'll quote 82 again

seems to me to place a burden on the Christian as citizen which Christians should not be obliging in carrying

Andrew, where did I say "You on the other hand want to tell me what I can and cannot say in the public realm" ?

Andrew, where did I say "You on the other hand want to tell me what I can and cannot say in the public realm" ?

You didn't say that, I did.

Andrew, How did I tell you what you can & cannot say in the public realm?
Re The paragraph I'd highlighted- In essense you don't wont to be burdened by the state, but like the fundamentalist Muslim, you want your narrow religious views to placed above the greater good of the state & a multicultural society

This church and state thing has taken off. (I blame the Bishop!)

Natman

"So if the state, not being beholden to your religion, created a law that went against your religious convictions, what would you do?

Alternatively, if the state was beholden to a religion or denomination not of your own and created a law that was specific to that religion, but against yours, what would you do?"

I'd seek to live at peace with all.

Ryan (@ 93) -

"LSV,If we are living in a multicultural Society, where people of different religion & culture live side by side, then rules which only apply to one group can't become laws which are enforced on everyone."

I wasn't talking about laws being 'enforced'. I used the word 'influence' as opposed to 'imposition'. Christians have a right to speak up and be heard. Furthermore, some kind of worldview must influence the debates in which legislators engage, in a democracy. Why should it be the atheistic worldview? Why can't the Christian worldview contribute to that debate (alongside other points of view)?

Every worldview has the potential to be bigoted and divisive, and some of the comments on this blog show us only too clearly how bigoted and intolerant atheism can be. So it makes me feel quite angry when I read comments to the effect that 'religion' has some kind of monopoly on bigotry. The dogmatic atheistic worldview is not consistent with tolerant secularism, and we have seen the effect of that worldview in the tragic experience of certain nations. The benign influence of authentic biblical Christianity is more in keeping with a proper tolerant secularism.

Andrew

Yes, "It gets more complicated when we think of the Christian as a citizen"

And as LSV says, "Christians have as much right as anyone else to exert an 'influence"; however as I have said many times on this blog, Christians are also free to relinquish their rights.

The difficulty with the SL&C was that the representatives of the Church and the representatives of the State were, by and large, the same. My view, again, is straightforward, the Church should not have been making covenants on behalf of the State.


Natman

"I've been to bible studies, gospel meetings, prayer sessions. I've been to evangelical outreaches in Berlin and Belgium. I've spent my summers at youth camps and done my time in holiday clubs, both as a participant and a leader."

You have my commiserations. Those are not the reasons I'm still a Christian.

LSV,

You say "Christians have a right to speak up and be heard.",

That is true, christians have the same right as everyone else through the democratic process. What many religious people seem to want (I am not say you specifically) is to have an extra vote based on their religion (presently through privileged lobbying positions and the Bishops in the House of Lords). Unlike the political system the church is undemocratic, it can hardly be said to represent people who a) did note vote for it and b) have no say in the policies as they are set biblically.

Would it not be more reasonable for the bishops to be put out of the Lords and for the church in general to have no more privilege than any other lobbying group - say Stonewall (who I am not a big fan of but I throw it in as an example). It should also be incumbent on religious groups to quantify those they actually are speaking for and not throw around numbers based on a birth count rather than active engagement and support (it's very difficult to opt out of being counted as a christian).

From my point of view it is very iniquitous to be told that I cannot be treated as an equal citizen because someone else's god says so, their god doesn't give me a tax break to compensate for being a second class citizen.

I am not saying that the church should withdraw from public life, just that it has no more say than any other group - it should also pay like everyone else. If a church is operating in the political sphere then it should have its tax status looked at.