Anglicans exclude the US Episcopalians over gay bishops

[Shaker]

OK, answer me this question

Why? Can't you answer the question I put to you about your supposed belief system, instead of posing an irrelevant question about a belief system I do not hold?

[Hope]

Why? Can't you answer the question I put to you about your supposed belief system, instead of posing an irrelevant question about a belief system I do not hold?

It is not an irrelevant question about a philosophical system that you don't hold, Shakes.  You have often placed yourself in the atheist camp - and of course, Marxism is an atheist 'understanding'.  You may not claim to be a Marxist, but I'm using it as an example of the overall philosophy you hold to.  My question was 'does the horrific actions of some atheist authorities over the centuries invalidate the underlying philosophical principles that those regimes were based on?"

Yes or No?

Once you answer that, you'll find that you've answered your own question.

[Shaker]

It is not an irrelevant question about a philosophical system that you don't hold, Shakes. You have often placed yourself in the atheist camp - and of course, Marxism is an atheist 'understanding'.  You may not claim to be a Marxist

As it happens I do.

but I'm using it as an example of the overall philosophy you hold to.

Which "overall philosophy" do I hold to?

[Aruntraveller]

Simples - you are an atheist - ergo you are a Marxist philosophical materialist.

[Shaker]

Simples - you are an atheist - ergo you are a Marxist philosophical materialist.

Vlad? Vlad? Is that you?

[Aruntraveller]

No its still Trent - but I'm feeling a little funny - so I'd better get on stage before it wears off.

[jeremyp]

  - family structures that are supportive and protective of children

 - education processes

 - family structures where the elderly are respected and perhaps even venerated

 - legal systems that have complex forms

and that's just 4 examples.

Also

- slavery

- a penchant for invading other societies' territories and committing genocide

- treating women as possessions

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shakes,

Vladdy telling porkies? No, surely not?!?!?!? Say it ain't so Shakes, say it ain't so...

Shaker:it's llies,Lavinia ,LIES, LIES!!!!!!!
Hillside:oh eugenia I think I'm getting an attack of the vapours.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't tell me Vlad, you're still not getting it, (secular humanism)?

It's worrying, do you drive on the roads anywhere?

ippy

I suspect it is you who confuse secular humanism with secularism......you and the NSS and BHA. Do you see your self for instance as an atheist member of the secular movement or do you see the secular movement as atheist?

It all hinges on what you mean by Freedom from religion.....and so far you have shied  away from answering that.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Trent,

No its still Trent - but I'm feeling a little funny - so I'd better get on stage before it wears off.

 

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

I suspect it is you who confuse secular humanism with secularism......you and the NSS and BHA. Do you see your self for instance as an atheist member of the secular movement or do you see the secular movement as atheist?

It all hinges on what you mean by Freedom from religion.....and so far you have shied  away from answering that.

Well I haven't shied away from answering you about what I mean about freedom from religion but then most people would be able to understand that when I said we need to bring an end to all forms of religious privillege, that the effect of this would enable choice to either take up religion or not, without any more pressure from any one group than any other.

What part of that is it that you seem unable to understand?

And by the way there are shed loads of religious believers that are secularists as well, there are a number of humanists that are religious believers too, not that there are any figures to say how many humanists are religionists too, I would think there are fewer religionsts with any connection to humanism, than there are religionists that go along with with the secularist pov.

If that's not simple enough for you Vlad, well?

I see myself as a non-religious person call me an atheist if you must, I wont be loosing any sleep if you continue to do so.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well I haven't shied away from answering you about what I mean about freedom from religion but then most people would be able to understand that when I said we need to bring an end to all forms of religious privillege, that the effect of this would enable choice to either take up religion or not, without any more pressure from any one group than any other.

What part of that is it that you seem unable to understand?

And by the way there are shed loads of religious believers that are secularists as well, there are a number of humanists that are religious believers too, not that there are any figures to say how many humanists are religionists too, I would think there are fewer religionsts with any connection to humanism, than there are religionists that go along with with the secularist pov.

If that's not simple enough for you Vlad, well?

I see myself as a non-religious person call me an atheist if you must, I wont be loosing any sleep if you continue to do so.

ippy

Well thank you for that.
Perhaps freedom of religion, freedom from religion is a lousy, contradictory slogan.

My own take is this? Religions should have the same freedoms as say unelected hereditary lords in terms of being in the House of Lords,  they should have the same freedoms as an ice cream salesman in terms of access and advertising themselves in your street, religions should have the same access as a Conservative peer running a carpet company to sponsoring school education.

To argue that they should have less is special pleading.

[Shaker]

Well thank you for that.
Perhaps freedom of religion, freedom from religion is a lousy, contradictory slogan.

Nothing remotely contradictory about it.

Freedom of religion means the freedom for adherents of a religion to practise said religion within the limits of the law.

Freedom from religion means that those who are not adherents of said religion are not expected to observe, abide by or be inconvenienced by the rules of a club of which they're not members.

[Rhiannon]

Including freedom from having our children 'educated' as though religion were fact unless we specifically choose to opt into it.

[ippy]

Well thank you for that.
Perhaps freedom of religion, freedom from religion is a lousy, contradictory slogan.

My own take is this? Religions should have the same freedoms as say unelected hereditary lords in terms of being in the House of Lords,  they should have the same freedoms as an ice cream salesman in terms of access and advertising themselves in your street, religions should have the same access as a Conservative peer running a carpet company to sponsoring school education.

To argue that they should have less is special pleading.

Vlad you've said the same as me, using your words a different way around up until you finished your post off with " To argue that they should have less is special pleading", I've never said anything other than, religious or non-religious, we should all have a level playing field, so you didn't get that lot from anything I've said, why say it Vlad, no one on the forum has argued that?

ippy

[Leonard James]

Including freedom from having our children 'educated' as though religion were fact unless we specifically choose to opt into it.

No, that should never be an option. Teaching children that beliefs are facts is to mislead them.

[Hope]

Freedom of religion means the freedom for adherents of a religion to practise said religion within the limits of the law.

I'm not sure that the 'within the limits of the law' bit is quite true.  For instance, under a previous Nepalese Constitution (and poosibly under the new one),people were not allowed to change religion from that of their father.  Over a period of time (in the 60s and 70s) a large number of Christians were arrested under the terms of this law.  Initially, they were simply arrested and exied to another part of the country - with minimal involvement of the courts.  In the mid-70s, 3 generations of men from a leading Christian family were arrested and properly charged, meaning that they, at least, would see the inside of a courtroom.  When faced with the charges, the grandfather - whose father had been a Buddhist - pleaded guilty, only to be told that (as his father hadn't been a Hindu) nothing would be done.  His son and grandsons, however, pleaded innocent, on the grounds that they were following the religion of their father.  It came to light, at this stage, that they had been beaten by the police in an attempt to get them to renounce Christianity and 'returm' to Hinduism.  They had  refused on the grounds that 1) their ancestors hadn't been Hindus so they couldn't 'return' to it and 2) that if they did become hindus, they would actually be breaking the very law that they had been arrested and charged under!! Few, if any, laws are worded in ways that actually result in what they had been designed for; even court decisions that create precedent can change the lawmakers' original intentions.

Freedom from religion means that those who are not adherents of said religion are not expected to observe, abide by or be inconvenienced by the rules of a club of which they're not members.

The corollary of this is that religious people are equally "not expected to observe, abide by or be inconvenienced by the rules of a club of which they're not members" - so legislation that runs counter to their beliefs isn't necessarily binding on them.  The majority of religious people choose to adhere to the majority of secular laws because those laws reflect their religious beliefs; however, there are some such laws that don't reflect their beliefs, so they oppose them, disobeying them in the last resort.

[Hope]

No, that should never be an option. Teaching children that beliefs are facts is to mislead them.

In which case, why are we teaching them science?  After all, science is only a set of ideas that fit a human construct, and are therefore deemed to be facts when they may well not be.

[Shaker]

In which case, why are we teaching them science?  After all, science is only a set of ideas that fit a human construct, and are therefore deemed to be facts when they may well not be.

Evidence, Hope, evidence.

[Leonard James]

In which case, why are we teaching them science?  After all, science is only a set of ideas that fit a human construct, and are therefore deemed to be facts when they may well not be.

We accept them as facts because the evidence points that way. God beliefs lack any evidence.

[Rhiannon]

No, that should never be an option. Teaching children that beliefs are facts is to mislead them.

You can't expect the religious to teach children that beliefs aren't fact. But it should not creep into everyday education.

[Leonard James]

You can't expect the religious to teach children that beliefs aren't fact. But it should not creep into everyday education.

Yes, true, but they can be educated to see that unless there is evidence, beliefs are not facts, no matter what their parents tell them.

[Shaker]

Yes, true, but they can be educated to see that beliefs are not facts, no matter what their parents tell them.

Often easier said than done, alas.

[Leonard James]

Often easier said than done, alas.

True, but that should not prevent us trying.

[Hope]

Evidence, Hope, evidence.

That's easy, Shakes.  Everything that science is based on has been observed and interpreted by human beings.  Where is the independent confirmation of anything?