Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Eastern Religions => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on March 14, 2025, 03:05:29 PM
-
https://news.sky.com/story/dalai-lama-says-his-successor-to-be-born-outside-china-13326231
But Beijing does not agree.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) Yet again Vlad shows that he doesn't know what secularism means....
-
https://news.sky.com/story/dalai-lama-says-his-successor-to-be-born-outside-china-13326231
But Beijing does not agree.
China isn't a secular country.
-
China isn't a secular country.
The it's a religious country???
It's a secular authority, a non religious authority, pronouncing on a supernatural event in a weird attempt at secularisation.
Doesn't only happen in China.
Secularists have made pronouncements on what constitutes the Holy in the UK as well as good and bad holiness.
-
The it's a religious country???
Who said that?
It's a secular authority, a non religious authority,
Those are two different things, only one of which applies to China.
pronouncing on a supernatural event in a weird attempt at secularisation.
China is not a secular authority - you can be secular and religious, you can be non-religious and not be secular, they are not two opposite ends of a spectrum.
Doesn't only happen in China.
Doesn't even happen in China, as it turns out.
Secularists have made pronouncements on what constitutes the Holy in the UK as well as good and bad holiness.
And? Why shouldn't, say, a secularist priest have an opinion on what constitutes 'Holy'?
O.
-
The it's a religious country???
It's a secular authority, a non religious authority, pronouncing on a supernatural event in a weird attempt at secularisation.
Doesn't only happen in China.
Secularists have made pronouncements on what constitutes the Holy in the UK as well as good and bad holiness.
It isn't a secular authority it is an irreligious one which is officially an atheist state.
Which secularists have made pronouncements on what constitutes the Holy in the UK? Remembering that a secularist is 'someone who believes that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country: Secularists condemn Christian influence in the public sphere.' (Cambridge dictionary).
-
Who said that?
Those are two different things, only one of which applies to China.
China is not a secular authority - you can be secular and religious, you can be non-religious and not be secular, they are not two opposite ends of a spectrum.
Doesn't even happen in China, as it turns out.
And? Why shouldn't, say, a secularist priest have an opinion on what constitutes 'Holy'?
O.
I don't know whether your definition of the term secular is standard or the peculiar Religionethics concensus definition.
MPs have expressed a desire to make rulings on what constitutes holy matrimony and who can have one or perform one and thus have sought to define holiness.
Although, as far as I know, they haven't gone as far as ruling where the next major miracle will be.
I think the ruling on silent prayer is still contentious.
-
I don't know whether your definition of the term secular is standard or the peculiar Religionethics concensus definition.
MPs have expressed a desire to make rulings on what constitutes holy matrimony and who can have one or perform one and thus have sought to define holiness.
Have they? Did they succeed?
-
Have they? Did they succeed?
Not really, secular authorities trying to rule on the spiritual and miraculous, while trying to remain secular is laughable in my opinion.
-
I don't know whether your definition of the term secular is standard or the peculiar Religionethics concensus definition.
The standard definition of secular, which is to say the belief that the state should not be advocating for or against positions on a religious basis. China is in no way a secular state, they firmly believe that ALL areas of life within China are under the control of central political authority.
MPs have expressed a desire to make rulings on what constitutes holy matrimony and who can have one or perform one and thus have sought to define holiness.
Have they? I'm aware that they've passed legislation on marriage, as it's a CIVIC function, and they've carved out what they believe is an historically sensitive warding around religious marriage to keep that part of the same process without fully exposing them to all the same egalitarian expectations, but I'm not aware that the state has suggested it has something to say on what is or is not 'holy', or even if that means anything at all.
I think the ruling on silent prayer is still contentious.
Do you? Do you think religion is being singled out, or do you think that religious speech is just being treated as all speech in that situation - an entirely secular approach, which doesn't treat religious sentiment as anything more or less than anything else?
O.
-
Not really, secular authorities trying to rule on the spiritual and miraculous, while trying to remain secular is laughable in my opinion.
By an unfortunate accident of history, the Church of England is subject to the government, which attempts to be secular. In practical terms, I think the government succeeds mostly in avoiding too much meddling in CofE affairs but that doesn't mean there aren't issues every now and then.
-
The standard definition of secular, which is to say the belief that the state should not be advocating for or against positions on a religious basis. China is in no way a secular state, they firmly believe that ALL areas of life within China are under the control of central political authority.
Have they? I'm aware that they've passed legislation on marriage, as it's a CIVIC function, and they've carved out what they believe is an historically sensitive warding around religious marriage to keep that part of the same process without fully exposing them to all the same egalitarian expectations, but I'm not aware that the state has suggested it has something to say on what is or is not 'holy', or even if that means anything at all.
Do you? Do you think religion is being singled out, or do you think that religious speech is just being treated as all speech in that situation - an entirely secular approach, which doesn't treat religious sentiment as anything more or less than anything else?
O.
I’m not against civic weddings and the signing of registers at Religious weddings but the idea of someone like yourself wearing a peaked cap with council on it pushing the vicar and God out the way and taking charge, I find most hilarious. But not for the reasons you might.
-
... pushing the vicar and God out the way ...
Your god seems remarkably easy to push around.
-
I’m not against civic weddings and the signing of registers at Religious weddings but the idea of someone like yourself wearing a peaked cap with council on it pushing the vicar and God out the way and taking charge, I find most hilarious. But not for the reasons you might.
Given how far in advance of the birth of Christianity, or even it's Judaism predecessor, pair-bonding rituals and ceremonies are in human history, it's a bit rich for you describe it as the state muscling in on religion rather than the other way around.
O.
-
Your god seems remarkably easy to push around.
Yesterday he's a cosmic tyrant, today he's a pushover
Make your minds up.
-
Given how far in advance of the birth of Christianity, or even it's Judaism predecessor, pair-bonding rituals and ceremonies are in human history, it's a bit rich for you describe it as the state muscling in on religion rather than the other way around.
O.
As far as I know there is no state older than christianity
-
As far as I know there is no state older than christianity
Today's Christianities, though, are not the original Christianity, either, and I'm reasonably confident that the early marriages are probably over and done with by now, too. What's your point, that because modern Greece isn't an absolute 100% direct successor to ancient Greece the history of the concept is invalidated?
Marriage, as a concept, predates Christianity. States formalising such arrangements predates Christianity. It's therefore readily apparent that Christianity has no proprietary claim over the notion, and if anything has been butting into this - and other - state business for an awfully long time. If only there was a philosophy about separating religious notions from the legal statutes and the operation of government....
O.
-
Today's Christianities, though, are not the original Christianity, either, and I'm reasonably confident that the early marriages are probably over and done with by now, too. What's your point, that because modern Greece isn't an absolute 100% direct successor to ancient Greece the history of the concept is invalidated?
Marriage, as a concept, predates Christianity. States formalising such arrangements predates Christianity. It's therefore readily apparent that Christianity has no proprietary claim over the notion, and if anything has been butting into this - and other - state business for an awfully long time. If only there was a philosophy about separating religious notions from the legal statutes and the operation of government....
O.
Of course marriage predates Christianity and that is why I now claim no position of judgment over anybody else's marriage. I can't say whose marriage God approves of though since I am not God.
That's probably not good enough for you though. I suppose you want people's approval rather than a live and let live attitude.
-
I think the ruling on silent prayer is still contentious.
What ruling?
-
Yesterday he's a cosmic tyrant, today he's a pushover
Make your minds up.
Ι don't have to. I don't believe your god is real, so I can embrace the contradictions in it without cognitive dissonance.
-
Ι don't have to. I don't believe your god is real, so I can embrace the contradictions in it without cognitive dissonance.
What “I can talk any contradictory nonsense I like because I’m an atheist”?
Let me remind you that your motivation for suggesting God is both a tyrant and a bit too easy going is to convince me.
-
Of course marriage predates Christianity and that is why I now claim no position of judgment over anybody else's marriage. I can't say whose marriage God approves of though since I am not God.
Perhaps, then, I misunderstood what you were going for when you talked about the state butting in to the Church's business.
That's probably not good enough for you though. I suppose you want people's approval rather than a live and let live attitude.
I think a 'live and let live' attitude is a fine stance. I'd be happier if people could be genuinely accepting of human variety, and I'm always curious to see who Christians either revel in or attempt to justify the homophobia of the Bible, but that's an idle curiosity - what we need is more religious believers (and other homophobes, I guess) who take that 'it's not for me, but knock yourself out' look at the situation.
O.
-
I think a 'live and let live' attitude is a fine stance. I'd be happier if people could be genuinely accepting of human variety,
Do you mean that bit about loving your enemy?
-
What “I can talk any contradictory nonsense I like because I’m an atheist”?
No. The contradictory nonsense that you talk doesn't bother me because I don't think your god exists.
Let me remind you that your motivation for suggesting God is both a tyrant and a bit too easy going is to convince me.
I've never said God is tyrant. I don't think God exists, so how can it be a tyrant? What I do say is that the god that Christians claim loves us, is portrayed s a tyrant in some of your most important literature.
Again, it doesn't bother me - I'm certain your god doesn't exist. However, it clearly bothers Christians because whole industries that support thousands of theologists and apologists have grown up to try and resolve the incoherency.
-
Do you mean that bit about loving your enemy?
Human variety is not your enemy, despite the efforts of right wing popularism's to convince you otherwise.
-
Human variety is not your enemy, despite the efforts of right wing popularism's to convince you otherwise.
It doesn't matter who your enemy is Jeremy. Can you bring yourself to love them.
-
Do you mean that bit about loving your enemy?
I was rather more thinking about the not preaching about how gay people are abominations and not having your bishops vote against granting them equal rights under the law, predominantly.
O.
-
I was rather more thinking about the not preaching about how gay people are abominations and not having your bishops vote against granting them equal rights under the law, predominantly.
O.
I don’t see how you can legally enforce what God is to decide. Sorry but that’s a bit obvious isn’t it.
I am heartened though that you aren’t requiring approval. That I believe goes beyond the law.
-
I don’t see how you can legally enforce what God is to decide. Sorry but that’s a bit obvious isn’t it.
I'm not aware that the law has tried to say what a god can or can't decide - I'd agree it's a bit obvious, but probably not for the same reasons you do.
I am heartened though that you aren’t requiring approval.
I don't think we should require their approval, I don't think we should be considering their opinion particularly at all in parliament.
That I believe goes beyond the law.
As do so many of their 'special dispensations'. Tax exemptions, discriminatory hiring practices, special employment classifications...
O.
-
I'm not aware that the law has tried to say what a god can or can't decide - I'd agree it's a bit obvious, but probably not for the same reasons you do.
Obviously.
I don't think we should require their approval, I don't think we should be considering their opinion particularly at all in parliament.
I don't think we should be considering the opinions of Conservatives but it is how it is
As do so many of their 'special dispensations'. Tax exemptions, discriminatory hiring practices, special employment classifications...
O.
I obviously don't mind everything you do. Do I need a violin?
-
Obviously. I don't think we should be considering the opinions of Conservatives but it is how it is.
The Conservatives are parliamentary party, offering a political view for people to adopt or not - we absolutely should be considering their opinion in parliament. We can disagree with it - I'm fairly confident we'd both disagree with their stance on pretty much everything - but it's the right forum for them.
Bishops, on the other hand, don't have a place in parliament, it's outside of their wheelhouse. Parliament shouldn't be making laws with consideration to religion, and religion should put out its moral codes for its adherents to follow or not.
I obviously don't mind everything you do. Do I need a violin?
Only if it's very, very small, and you have a busker's permit - got to claw back that tax exemption money somehow, right?
O.
-
It doesn't matter who your enemy is Jeremy.
Your clear implication is that you believe human variety is your enemy. If you stop seeing people as your enemies just because they are different to you, you wouldn't need special commandments to love them.
-
Bishops, on the other hand, don't have a place in parliament, it's outside of their wheelhouse.
Evidently theÿ have a place and it's in their wheelhouse. Until it isn't
-
Your clear implication is that you believe human variety is your enemy. If you stop seeing people as your enemies just because they are different to you, you wouldn't need special commandments to love them.
Unfortunately we need commandments as many millions of "good chaps" found under kinds of pressure they turn out to be not so good after all.
-
Unfortunately we need commandments as many millions of "good chaps" found under kinds of pressure they turn out to be not so good after all.
And the commandments stop that do they?
-
And the commandments stop that do they?
You've answered it yourself Jeremy. Laws only work for those with the heart to follow them and as you suggest they are not a success. That means the man, made zeitgeist is not as strong as all that.
-
Evidently theÿ have a place and it's in their wheelhouse. Until it isn't
No, they don't have a place there, but they currently have the authority to go anyway.
O.
-
I don't think we should require their approval, I don't think we should be considering their opinion particularly at all in parliament.
Careful now, this seems to go beyond the fairness issue and into some generic condemnation of a group of people.
Democracy should represent a greater diversity of people not, surely.
Surely a selection of people who find their way into parliament without having to be chums with a politician is a valuable thing as is representing spirituality.
-
Careful now, this seems to go beyond the fairness issue and into some generic condemnation of a group of people. Democracy should represent a greater diversity of people not, surely.
And that's why we shouldn't ignore their opinion, but we shouldn't pay PARTICULAR attention to it, as I said. If the only reason they have for wanting something to be the law is it's in their book, then it can be their law of conscience. If they can show, regardless of what their motivation for raising it is, that their suggestion is beneficial for society as a whole, then it stands or falls on those merits - it neither gets implemented nor ignored on the basis of its religious basis.
Surely a selection of people who find their way into parliament without having to be chums with a politician is a valuable thing as is representing spirituality.
We have plenty of MPs who aren't chums with other politicians, just look at Reform right now. Seriously, though, probably not - we need people who will go to Parliament, know that it's full of vested interests and ideologies clothed in marketing, and be able to work with those people - if they can't, parliament breaks down and we get something akin to the US' current position.
As to whether representing spirituality is a valuable thing, you're welcome to try to make the case just as soon as you can come up with a definition of 'spiritual' that means anything.
O.
-
Thanks for your responses, Outrider.
We have thought deviated from the case in question which is the Chinese authorities contradicting the Dalai Lama on where and whom he is going to be reborn as after this incarnation passes. What is your reaction on the secular authorities directing a spiritual matter?
-
Thanks for your responses, Outrider.
We have thought deviated from the case in question which is the Chinese authorities contradicting the Dalai Lama on where and whom he is going to be reborn as after this incarnation passes. What is your reaction on the secular authorities directing a spiritual matter?
Again, the premise of your question is flawed. China is not a secular country, the government does not take a stance that religion and politics should be separate, it takes the stance that any religion in China must serve the state. I think that's a better principle than the state serving religious principles, as we see too often in the US (for example), but I think it's worse than a secular approach where the government says 'religious principle? Don't care, unless it impinges on something we actually govern."
O.
-
Again, the premise of your question is flawed. China is not a secular country, the government does not take a stance that religion and politics should be separate,
Sorry, my AI says it has elements of secularismit takes the stance that any religion in China must serve the state. I think that's a better principle than the state serving religious principles
I thought this might elicit a response like that. What you see as a better principle is of course a bad thing, a rotten totalitarian sentiment on your part. Having said that, the state has IMV had the better end of the deal out of inevitably controlling relationships since at least Henry VIII,
-
Sorry, my AI says it has elements of secularism
AI has a long way to go, it seems.
I thought this might elicit a response like that. What you see as a better principle is of course a bad thing, a rotten totalitarian sentiment on your part.
Bully for you. I'd rather have a state keeping superstition in check than the power of the state in hock to the tribalism of religion - I don't like either, but not all bad results are equally bad.
Having said that, the state has IMV had the better end of the deal out of inevitably controlling relationships since at least Henry VIII
Well, I'm sure you'll go in depth on that opinion and not just wander off to try and shift the burden of proof somewhere else.
O.