What is the problem religionists have with secularism?

[ippy]

Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is  religious sees it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html

Hi Rose I've just had a quick read of your link, I will read it through again later but my first impression is immediately the author is another person like yourself that seems to be unable to grasp the idea of secularism and what it's all about.

Aggressive secularism, what's that all about?

Secularism wants to protect your right to hold and practice any religious belief you wish to take up; I suppose secularists are aggressive towards those that would like to take your religious freedoms away from you.

Use of the phrase "aggressive secularism" is a phrase when used tells immediately that the user of this term doesn't understand secularism.

ippy       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is  religious sees it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html

A timely article which hopefully will move this debate on and inform.

[ippy]

Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is  religious sees it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html

A timely article which hopefully will move this debate on and inform.

You never will get secularism Woo, best find another thread where you might at least understand the subject.

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is  religious sees it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html

But this articular has nothing to do with secularism.

The argument here is about limits to freedom of speech that isn't fundamentally about secularism. All a secularist agenda would claim is that the limits of freedom of speech should be balanced, so that both the religious and non religious have the same ability to speak as they see fit. A secular agenda would suggest that if religious people can insult and offend non religious people and their views/beliefs, so should non religious people be able to insult and offend religious people and their views/beliefs. Or that freedom of speech should be curtailed so than neither should be able to insult and offend the other and their views/beliefs.

So the secularists currently are concerned about limits to freedom of speech that specifically protect the religious and they religions, while allowing them free reign to insult others. That's not balanced.

[Rhiannon]

I actually find the article unpleasant to read. Firstly, most Islam isn't aggressive - it's only a minority. Secondly, secularism doesn't just uphold the right to offend but the right to take offence - to say that secularism 'doesn't care' is ridiculous, like saying religion 'doesn't care'. Clearly the author doesn't understand what secularism is. And gay marriage is a 'fashion'? Funny that a Catholic country has just voted for marriage equality then.

[Hope]

This is an area where the BBC are masters of their art, each move they make is on a small scale like like for instance the timing of a broadcast, a voice over or keeping an idiot speaking on a phone in and cut short an articulate speaker, to suit their purposes but when these small moves are added together plus the fact they don't miss, it's quite clearly a concerted effort.

ippy

I'd agree, ippy (Shock, horror).  I've listened to lots of phone-ins and TV debates where inarticulate non-religious people have been given preference over articulate religious people when discussing everything from economics to science, terrorism to international aid.

The same goes for most TV and radio characterisations of clergy and other religious leaders - bumbling, 'All Gas and Gaiter'-y, etc.  That is often in sharp contrast to the respect shown to scientists and other such folk - even when what they say is incomprehensible, full of jargon and clearly goes way over the heads of the general public.

[ippy]

This is an area where the BBC are masters of their art, each move they make is on a small scale like like for instance the timing of a broadcast, a voice over or keeping an idiot speaking on a phone in and cut short an articulate speaker, to suit their purposes but when these small moves are added together plus the fact they don't miss, it's quite clearly a concerted effort.

ippy

I'd agree, ippy (Shock, horror).  I've listened to lots of phone-ins and TV debates where inarticulate non-religious people have been given preference over articulate religious people when discussing everything from economics to science, terrorism to international aid.

The same goes for most TV and radio characterisations of clergy and other religious leaders - bumbling, 'All Gas and Gaiter'-y, etc.  That is often in sharp contrast to the respect shown to scientists and other such folk - even when what they say is incomprehensible, full of jargon and clearly goes way over the heads of the general public.

One of the worst with an agenda of his own is Jeremy Vine on the phone in parts of his show BBC radio 2 1200 t0 1400 5 days a week whether you go along with his agenda or not it's wrong.

Most of the flipping of the paddles on the pin ball table the BBC does is very clever, well oiled, works in all sorts of ways if you take the trouble to list its methods it make those that do sound like a conspiracy theorist, that sounds like Peter Cook speaking with his well known "Did you know" sketch soppy voice.

I've yet to hear a programme made for non-religious people that is specifically made for non-religious people by non-religious people about non-religious subjects like, for instance, Humanism.

The religious are able to have and broadcast unchallenged programmes for themselves on a daily basis, which contrary to what you may think of me, I think it's quite right that the religious have their unchallenged programming, regardless what I might think of the subject.

The BBC doesn't do unchallenged non-religious broadcasts on any of the main stations, it did a series about free thinkers some months back on radio 3 at and around 2330 to 0100, get the picture?

You think the BBC has an agenda?

They use exactly similar flipping on the pin ball table methods with politics to suit their agenda and of course it's all in our imaginations, they are nowhere near the benign organisation they would have all of us think they are.

ippy       

[ProfessorDavey]

This is an area where the BBC are masters of their art, each move they make is on a small scale like like for instance the timing of a broadcast, a voice over or keeping an idiot speaking on a phone in and cut short an articulate speaker, to suit their purposes but when these small moves are added together plus the fact they don't miss, it's quite clearly a concerted effort.

ippy

I'd agree, ippy (Shock, horror).  I've listened to lots of phone-ins and TV debates where inarticulate non-religious people have been given preference over articulate religious people when discussing everything from economics to science, terrorism to international aid.

The same goes for most TV and radio characterisations of clergy and other religious leaders - bumbling, 'All Gas and Gaiter'-y, etc.  That is often in sharp contrast to the respect shown to scientists and other such folk - even when what they say is incomprehensible, full of jargon and clearly goes way over the heads of the general public.

Can't say I can agree with you there.

On the portrayal of 'characters' in tv and radio, there was a long discussion on this some while ago and the view seemed to be that religious figures (e.g. clergy) were portrayed in a broadly sympathetic manner (e.g. VofD and Rev etc), and of course scientist are still regularly portrayed by the media in fictional programmes as geeks.

On scientists and religious figures on news, current affairs etc - well first why do you assume that stuff religious leaders come out with isn't also 'incomprehensible, full of jargon and clearly goes way over the heads of the general public- - I'd argue that it often is too.

But you also need to recognise the difference between getting someone on the news for their 'expert opinion', and for their 'opinion'. If there is a news item on mortality rates due to ebola then a scientist is likely to be giving an 'expert opinion' - to inform the listeners or viewers so to speak. It would not be reasonable to attack their expert opinion, because it is likely to be based on fact. That contrasts with someone giving an opinion on a matter where there is no agreed 'fact' but is genuinely a matter of opinion. So if a bishop gives their opinion on gay civil marriage, it isn't an expert opinion, merely one opinion, not factually based, and one of many opinions that need to be balanced and challenged by the broadcaster to ensure impartiality.

[ippy]

Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is  religious sees it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html

I'm afraid I find all this talk of "the divine" quite meaningless. It is an idea ancient people dreamed up, but has no place in a modern, enlightened world.

I don't agree mainly because although technology and knowledge has increased the basic human being is very much the same.

People nowadays are no different to those ancient people, who also thought they lived in an enlightened age too.

Most, in fact all tribes they have discovered in the last few hundred years all had a religious belief of some sort which indicates to me anyway, that it is something that is deep in our being.

Take away our electric lights and our technology and I wonder how long or how many generations before it popped up again even if the original people were atheist.

I think the sense of divine, and all the rest of it is to much a part of us to be just cast off.

Astrology is still going strong, despite our more "enlightened times"

I think it is more enlightened to accept that aspect of human nature is always going to be with us, no matter how many new gadgets we have, or how much science we learn.

I suppose you could also argue our sense of the divine is evolving with us.

Astrology, how come identical twins don't live/have identical lives?

The above tells you all anyone needs to know about astrology.

ippy

[Harrowby Hall]

Another example of the BBC's slickness is Beyond Belief which is broadcast on Monday afternoons at 4.30.

It is a programme which purports to look at matters of interest/concern to religion in a non-sectarian context. The subjects may be overtly religious, like fundamentalism, or more ethically related, like organ donation.

However, what you almost always get is a series of faith-based statements (a jewish, islamic, hindu, christian etc). There is seldom any input from someone who has no faith viewpoint.

[Harrowby Hall]

Rose

Do you believe that there is any validity to astrology? And if so, why?


The conference Methods of Predicting the Future has been cancelled for unforseen reasons.

[Gordon]

That contrasts with someone giving an opinion on a matter where there is no agreed 'fact' but is genuinely a matter of opinion. So if a bishop gives their opinion on gay civil marriage, it isn't an expert opinion, merely one opinion, not factually based, and one of many opinions that need to be balanced and challenged by the broadcaster to ensure impartiality.

I'd agree, although no doubt these clerics see themselves as being 'moral experts', and to some extent that they are asked to pontificate on such matters in the public arena just encourages them, and also the odd notion that the professionally religious are somehow moral luminaries just by dint of their chosen career. 

[Harrowby Hall]

I'd agree, although no doubt these clerics see themselves as being 'moral experts', and to some extent that they are asked to pontificate on such matters in the public arena just encourages them, and also the odd notion that the professionally religious are somehow moral luminaries just by dint of their chosen career.

The following is taken from a website called Sexual Intelligence - effectively a monthly blog by sex therapist named Marty Klein. He mostly concerned with American attitudes to sex and sexuality.

Two weeks ago I had the privilege of speaking at NECSS—the Northeast Conference on Science & Skepticism. I was surrounded by world-class scientists, including Yale Med School neurologist Steve Novella, Stanford physicist Deborah Berebichez, Oxford neuroscientist Heather Berlin, and even Bill Nye The Science Guy.

It was glorious—no explaining why science is important to everything we do or touch or think. Every one of the 600 attendees "believes" in gravity, evolution, and the Scientific Method.

I started each of the conference's three days in a wonderful bubble. But each day, news from the outside world was an ugly intruder—which, in a way, was why I was asked to speak there. My talk was on religion's successful challenge to democracy and public policy—which is particularly visible in the realm of sexuality.

My opening presentation was pretty straightforward:

    Organized religion has successfully marketed itself as Morality Experts
    Organized religion has persuaded many people that sex is mostly about morality—and therefore, they are society's Sex Experts
    Organized religion has persuaded many people that sexual morality is about limiting choices (as opposed to, say, ethical decision-making or transparency).
    Therefore, when organized religion gets political power, it invariably limits everyone's choices concerning sexuality.
    Organized religion is aggressive in including a huge number of human enterprises within its supervision of our sexuality.

Some American politicians (such as Michelle Bachman and Scott Walker) are devout believers, with whom the above message resonates deeply. They enthusiastically drag America down to social illiteracy with them. But many politicians (such as Chris Christie) are simply for sale, and will cynically flaunt newfound religious and erotophobic bonafides as part of fundraising and campaigning.

That's why I called my talk "The Successful Subversion of Secularism."

Here are just a few reminders of the way organized religion denies science—hard-won human knowledge and certainty—to maintain its power and enforce its mass delusions on people of faith.

[Rhiannon]

Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.

http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right

[ippy]

Another example of the BBC's slickness is Beyond Belief which is broadcast on Monday afternoons at 4.30.

It is a programme which purports to look at matters of interest/concern to religion in a non-sectarian context. The subjects may be overtly religious, like fundamentalism, or more ethically related, like organ donation.

However, what you almost always get is a series of faith-based statements (a jewish, islamic, hindu, christian etc). There is seldom any input from someone who has no faith viewpoint.

All programmes of this type are vetted and put out via the BC's religion and ethics department, they do have the odd contribution from a non-religious person, if you ever hear one of these programmes go out where the non-religious contributers out number the religionists please tell me, I'll try not to feint; there is always someone there at the BBC tapping the paddles on the pin board table, they never miss.

By having the occasional non-religious person on their programme if you were to complain HH; well Mr HH there was a Mr This or a Ms That on at various times representing your POV, without telling a lie.

Another ploy often used is where, as standard practice  they always outnumber the non-religious speakers, they then have perhaps something like an interview with someone that has relevance to the subject of the programme that lasts say perhaps for ten minutes thats another ten minutes knocked off of the programme where the already out numbered non-religious contributer wont be heard; believe me the are up to all of these tricks.

I have to admit these ploys I'm writing about here on their own; people would think, oh you're imagining things, that on its own it can't be and yes it does look like that I have to agree but these things happen all of the time and when added together plus the fact that that blasted R & E department doesn't miss, puts a slant, a bias on all of these BBC R & E programmes.     

ippy 

[ippy]

Here is an interesting piece about how someone else who is  religious sees it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335174/Charlie-Hebdo-secularism-is-not-the-solution-but-the-problem.html

I'm afraid I find all this talk of "the divine" quite meaningless. It is an idea ancient people dreamed up, but has no place in a modern, enlightened world.

I don't agree mainly because although technology and knowledge has increased the basic human being is very much the same.

People nowadays are no different to those ancient people, who also thought they lived in an enlightened age too.

Most, in fact all tribes they have discovered in the last few hundred years all had a religious belief of some sort which indicates to me anyway, that it is something that is deep in our being.

Take away our electric lights and our technology and I wonder how long or how many generations before it popped up again even if the original people were atheist.

I think the sense of divine, and all the rest of it is to much a part of us to be just cast off.

Astrology is still going strong, despite our more "enlightened times"

I think it is more enlightened to accept that aspect of human nature is always going to be with us, no matter how many new gadgets we have, or how much science we learn.

I suppose you could also argue our sense of the divine is evolving with us.

Astrology, how come identical twins don't live/have identical lives?

The above tells you all anyone needs to know about astrology.

ippy

Do you know any twins Ippy?

Most of the ones I have met felt they were connected in some way and often made the same choices naturally.

Not that, that has anything to do with astrology, but I expect an astrologist would tell you twins can be born 10mins apart which can make a world of a difference.

"Not that, that has anything to do with astrology, but I expect an astrologist would tell you twins can be born 10mins apart which can make a world of a difference".

Mandy Rice Davies.

ippy

[ippy]

Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.

http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right

Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?

ippy

[Rhiannon]

Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.

http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right

Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?

ippy

Did you actually follow the link?

[Nearly Sane]

Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.

http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right

Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?

ippy

Anyone with an ounce or even a tiny smidgen of sense listens to Psmith. I am a sceptic  but there are some things you just cannot deny. Psmith is one of them.

[ippy]

Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.

http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right

Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?

ippy

Did you actually follow the link?

Yes and what's the name of that title music to the Laurel and hardy films?

ippy

[Rhiannon]

I found him especially accurate in the week he told me my lucky biscuit was a garibaldi. I dread to think what would have happened had I gone for my usual rich tea. As it was I didn't forget to buy the milk or leave my keys in the house.

Phew!

[Rhiannon]

Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.

http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right

Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?

ippy

Did you actually follow the link?

Yes and what's the name of that title music to the Laurel and hardy films?

ippy

So you got that it's a spoof then?

[ippy]

Very Important article on astrology by the world's finest.

http://www.high50.com/life/psychic-psmith-i-knew-i-was-right

Important and astrology in the same sentence and you're a paganist as well Rhi?

ippy

Did you actually follow the link?

Yes again and what else?

ippy

So you got that it's a spoof then?

Yes and what's the name of that title music to the Laurel and hardy films?

ippy

[Shaker]

Rose

Do you believe that there is any validity to astrology? And if so, why?


The conference Methods of Predicting the Future has been cancelled for unforseen reasons.

That reminds me of the newspaper astrologer who got the sack from that particular paper. Opening the letter from the editor, it began: "As you will no doubt be aware ..."

[Nearly Sane]

I found him especially accurate in the week he told me my lucky biscuit was a garibaldi. I dread to think what would have happened had I gone for my usual rich tea. As it was I didn't forget to buy the milk or leave my keys in the house.

Phew!

The day he told me to not wear blue was so useful. Unbeknownst to me a TV company had set up a 'Green screen'  Which is, of course, blue outside my front door for some filming and had I worn blue I would have been invisible to the car that passed, and would have almost certainly killed me.