View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
til661 wrote: | You advocated that we should use religion as part of societal morality. How do you do this without everyone believing it? |
Societal for the people who want to follow that norm.
I repeat, I never advocated all following 1 religion, or 1 set of morality.
In my previous postings I repeatedly mentioned multiple religions, and people switching religions {or opting out} if they felt so inclined.
Indeed, I wonder if the problem here is with some atheists who think everyone who doesn't think like them is trying to rule the world. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
til661
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I don't think you are trying to rule the world, i'm just not clear about what you are trying to say. How would your idea work in practice, should we have seperate religious courts, what about when religious morality is incompatible with secular law, should the state be involved in religion? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
til661 wrote: | I don't think you are trying to rule the world, i'm just not clear about what you are trying to say. How would your idea work in practice, should we have seperate religious courts, what about when religious morality is incompatible with secular law, should the state be involved in religion? |
My idea ??
I am just describing how the world is now. What makes you think I am unhappy with the present way in the world ?
People and nations can do what they like .. ideally in a democratic framework.
I again get the feeling I am being the liberal one here, and you are trying to paint people of a religious leaning as almost 5th-columnists. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
faceless admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
The British state is headed by The Queen who is the leader of the Church of England also. There's no getting away from it - though that's not the reason I'd see them removed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Colston
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
faceless wrote: | The British state is headed by The Queen who is the leader of the Church of England also. There's no getting away from it - though that's not the reason I'd see them removed. |
Yeah... that's not acceptable. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
til661
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Mandy wrote: | til661 wrote: | I don't think you are trying to rule the world, i'm just not clear about what you are trying to say. How would your idea work in practice, should we have seperate religious courts, what about when religious morality is incompatible with secular law, should the state be involved in religion? |
My idea ??
I am just describing how the world is now. What makes you think I am unhappy with the present way in the world ?
People and nations can do what they like .. ideally in a democratic framework.
I again get the feeling I am being the liberal one here, and you are trying to paint people of a religious leaning as almost 5th-columnists. |
I didn't say any such thing.
I believe that the structures of society should be secular, Not that you can't believe what you like. At the moment we don't have that. The point Faceless made being one of the more obvious examples. State-Funded religious schools being another. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
til661 wrote: | I believe that the structures of society should be secular, Not that you can't believe what you like. At the moment we don't have that. The point Faceless made being one of the more obvious examples. State-Funded religious schools being another. |
I believe societies should be democratic. Let them decide what they want to follow, and not like in Algeria or Palestine where the wrong vote result leads to a coup .. I could add USA where the wrong result lead to a supreme court "coup".
Til : to explore your viewpoint, what if a society in another country votes for laws to be based on a religion. Should the rest of the world intervene ?
UPDATE : Let me mention Turkey where the West has institionalised military coups : The army is empowered by the Western imposed constitution (that is irrevokable) that allows the army to stage a coup to "rescue" democracy if any party is elected which has any religious component. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
til661
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Before we get into this, let's define terms. I've already fucked up by misunderstanding someone
By rulebook what do you mean?
OK noticed your edit.
Seeing as you mentioned Hamas earlier we'll use that as an example. Do I disagree with Hamas' ideology, yes absolutely. Do I think that the west should never have helped them in the first place, yes absolutely. Do i think it is fair to punish the voters of palestine for voting for them, no. Fatah had become bloated and corrupt and Hamas promised them a better civil society and people were prepared to overlook their religious fanaticism in the hope of a greater victory. The fact that they were originally funded by Israel to break up Fatah is instructive.
So, would i personally disagree, yes. Could i countenance intervention, no because if only pragmatically it makes things worse. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Colston
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
til661 wrote: | Before we get into this, let's define terms. I've already fucked up by misunderstanding someone |
Me too... 'tis hard when you are writing. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
til661
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Colston wrote: | til661 wrote: | Before we get into this, let's define terms. I've already fucked up by misunderstanding someone |
Me too... 'tis hard when you are writing. |
You're not wrong |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
til661 wrote: | Do i think it is fair to punish the voters of palestine for voting for them, no. Fatah had become bloated and corrupt and Hamas promised them a better civil society and people were prepared to overlook their religious fanaticism in the hope of a greater victory. The fact that they were originally funded by Israel to break up Fatah is instructive.
So, would i personally disagree, yes. Could i countenance intervention, no because if only pragmatically it makes things worse. |
Great .. we agree. The fear is people like Hitchens would use (and have used) "anti-religion" to instigate and support coups (as in Turkey, Algeria, Afghanistan, Palestine etc.) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nekokate
Joined: 13 Dec 2006 Location: West Yorkshire, UK
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
But there's a marked difference between atheism and anti-religion. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
nekokate wrote: | But there's a marked difference between atheism and anti-religion. |
I totally agree. I have not criticised or attacked atheism. I don't agree with the atheist view, but then there are many views I don't agree with in this world. That's healthy.
It is the racists/fascists who use "anti-religion" as a political tool to achieve their amoral (and illegal) aims. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
p.s. I used the phrase "anti-religion" without ever recalling seeing it used before, since it conveyed the militancy I saw underlying Hitchens' viewpoints.
I just checked wikipedia, and found the following entry which conveys the same feeling.
Update : Glad to see Hitchens and Dawkins in the list of Notable antireligious people. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Colston
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
nekokate wrote: | But there's a marked difference between atheism and anti-religion. |
Absolutely... but with the leading lights of the day, Hitchens and Dawkins, it is anti religion and what is hilarious arguing against the existence of the supernatural using reasoned argument.
It is like trying to catch water in your hands... okay for a second or two but soon enough you're flooded.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
Couchtripper - 2005-2015
|