French religious leaders have called for more security at places of worship

[bluehillside Retd.]

"French religious leaders have called for more security at places of worship following the murder of an elderly priest in Normandy on Tuesday.

Representatives of Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist faiths spoke after meeting President Hollande.

Father Jacques Hamel was killed while conducting morning mass in his church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, a suburb of Rouen.
The killing came 12 days after the attack in Nice in which 84 people died.

Only one of the two attackers has been named. Adel Kermiche, 19, had twice tried to reach Syria to fight with the self-styled Islamic State group (IS)."

(BBC News website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36901897)

Grotesque as yesterday's events were, am I alone at raising an eyebrow at the notion of faith leaders focusing on asking for protection with no accompanying thoughts on why thinking that "faith" is a reliable guide to anything is a good idea? Who can say what motivated the thugs who carried out the murder, but it seems likely that their "faith" was part of it at least - if only because it they needed no exit strategy given the supposed rewards to come.

What then would these clerics use to counter-argue against the same belief they have that faith is a good idea: "Yeah, the faith bit was fine only they were doing it wrong"?

What would "correct" faith look like, and how would they know?

   

[Nearly Sane]

So if politicians called for the same, you would say the same thing?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So if politicians called for the same, you would say the same thing?

No - though in highly secular France in particular I suspect a few might comment on the paradox of those who actively promote "faith" as a method seeking protection from others who do the same thing, albeit with different conclusions. In security terms though whether it's the right - or even a practical - thing to do is a stand alone matter.

The point however was rather that those who think "faith" - and acting on it - is a good idea thereby legitimise and validate that idea, and arguably to a degree at least will reap what they sow.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No - though in highly secular France in particular I suspect a few might comment on the paradox of those who actively promote "faith" as a method seeking protection from others who do the same thing, albeit with different conclusions. In security terms though whether it's the right - or even a practical - thing to do is a stand alone matter.

The point however was rather that those who think "faith" - and acting on it - is a good idea thereby legitimise and validate that idea, and arguably to a degree at least will reap what they sow.   

why do you ignore that much violence is political? Why the double standards?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

why do you ignore that much violence ispolitocak? Why the double standards?

What double standards?

First, addressing one aspect of violence but not another isn't "double standards" - any more than, say, criticising one dictator is a double standard if I don't at the same time criticise the rest of them.

Second though what I'm actually doing is to point to a relationship between on the one hand promulgating religious faith and on the other hand suffering the consequences of it when it produces an unwelcome result. Of course there are other causes of violence, but it's that connection that's unique I think to religion.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

What double standards?

First, addressing one aspect of violence but not another isn't "double standards" - any more than, say, criticising one dictator is a double standard if I don't at the same time criticise the rest of them.

Second though what I'm actually doing is to point to a relationship between on the one hand promulgating religious faith and on the other hand suffering the consequences of it when it produces an unwelcome result. Of course there are other causes of violence, but it's that connection that's unique I think to religion.   

That you think somehow expressing non justifiable statements for religion should be somehow treated differently from non justifiable statements in terms of politics. If there is a relationship between my mother's religion and ISIS, then there is a relationship in your political position to North Korea.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

That you think somehow expressing non justifiable statements for religion should be somehow treated differently from non justifiable statements in terms of politics. If there is a relationship between my mother's religion and ISIS, then there is a relationship in your political position to North Korea.

That's a false analogy - you're conflating process with content.

The point about your mother's (or anyone else's) religious beliefs is that they rest on faith. For some reason, faith is considered a legitimate or reliable guide to establishing truths and to acting on them. Regardless of what the faith happens to be about, if a religion does that then it unmans itself from the same defence - "but that's my faith" - when others deploy it, albeit for wholly unwelcome purposes.

Political positions on the other hand can certainly involve ideologies, but there's no relationship between, say, my politics on state ownership of businesses and those of Kim Jong-un. I could argue my position perfectly well without the Dear Leader responding that I was using the same epistemological process as him. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

That's a false analogy - you're conflating process with content.

The point about your mother's (or anyone else's) religious beliefs is that they rest on faith. For some reason, faith is considered a legitimate or reliable guide to establishing truths and to acting on them. Regardless of what the faith happens to be about, if a religion does that then it unmans itself from the same defence - "but that's my faith" - when others deploy it, albeit for wholly unwelcome purposes.

Political positions on the other hand can certainly involve ideologies, but there's no relationship between, say, my politics on state ownership of businesses and those of Kim Jong-un. I could argue my position perfectly well without the Dear Leader responding that I was using using the same epistemological process as him.

This is nonsense. I am sure it's very comforting nonsense for you but the process of what you think is right is exactly the same as the Dear Leader uses. It"s just your beliefs, or to phrase it otherwise, faith.
And even more so here is that hint if wanting to regard my mother as justifying ISIS, there is more than a whiff of wanting to suppress beliefs you dislike here.
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

This is nonsense. I am sure it's very comforting nonsense for you but the process p, of what you think is right is exactly the sane as the Dear Leader uses. It"s just your beliefs, or to phrase it otherwise, faith.

Just calling something "nonsense' doesn't make it so. In most areas of life we can use evidence and testing and inter-subjective experience and any manner of other things to test our beliefs and conclusions. When the conclusion is arrived at "because that's my faith" though what tools are there to test the claim?

And even more so here is that hint if wanting to regard my mother as justifying ISIS, there is more than a whiff of wanting to suppress beliefs you dislike here.

I'm not hinting that your mother specifically is justifying anything. I am though saying that those who would legitimise religious faith as a reliable guide to truths have no defence when others do the same thing. That was my point about the French clerics - they seem to me to be part of the problem because they subscribe to the same process on which the bad guys rely. 

Richard Dawkins incidentally is hard line on this kind of thing - he dislikes horoscopes in newspapers for example because they too legitimise woo in the mind of the public.   

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't just call it nonsense, it would be good if you didn't use such strawman in debate. I pointed out that what you and the Dear Leader think I'd right is based on non justifiable beliefs. Indeed that was in the previous post, and you have ignored the further comments on that in the last post. 

We have covered the ground before that you can use evidence after you have picked your axioms of what is good, but that at the time of picking thise axioms it is just as much faith based as my mother, ISIS, or the boy in the funny haircut.


Justifying such decisions is exactly analogous to what you are using my mother or the priest who was being covered for. Why you want to cite Dawkins, I have no idea, but presumably he should on that basis want everyone he wants to say what is good morally to be excluded from the media as well.

[SusanDoris]

If only there were just a few religious leaders who, together, would have the courage to state that of course there is no God - and then knock over that first domino ......

[Nearly Sane]

If only there were just a few religious leaders who, together, would have the courage to state that of course there is no God - and then knock over that first domino ......

since that is a positive statement ,  you will, of course, evidence it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Richard Dawkins incidentally is hard line on this kind of thing - he dislikes horoscopes in newspapers for example because they too legitimise woo in the mind of the public.

Oh if only he had been less concerned over woo in the mind of the public and more concerned at legitimising science in the mind of the public.

[jeremyp]

since that is a positive statement ,  you will, of course, evidence it?

It wasn't a statement, it was a plea.

[Nearly Sane]

It wasn't a statement, it was a plea.

with an implied statement because you meant for them to be correct.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh if only he had been less concerned over woo in the mind of the public and more concerned at legitimising science in the mind of the public.

which attacking astrology does. It shows how science works.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If only there were just a few religious leaders who, together, would have the courage to state that of course there is no God - and then knock over that first domino ......

I think this is more appropriately aimed at the young Richard Holloway who tells us his faith evaporated as a vicar...........but rose to be a bishop before leaving.

[jeremyp]

I'm not quite are what is going on on this thread but in a fair and democratic society, we would justify protection on the basis of risk of being assassinated not on the basis of what comes out of the potential victim's mouth.

I loathe Nigel Farage with every fibre of my being and pretty much everything the comes out of his mouth is a lie, but if he were the subject of credible death threats I would not complain about him being given police protection.

As for the present case, one swallow does not make a summer. I don't think there's any evidence that religious people are specifically being targeted. If they were, of course they should have protection

[jeremyp]

with an implied statement because you meant for them to be correct.

I didn't mean for them to be anything. It was Susan's plea and I don't see anything in it that requires evidence at all.

[SusanDoris]

since that is a positive statement ,  you will, of course, evidence it?

In this case, No! I do not know how many more years, days and hours of life I have leftbut I don't think I'll spend any of them mentioning the vanishingly small god possibility when it comes to discussion of, literally, cut-throat murder, especially when  done in the name of any god.

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't mean for them to be anything. It was Susan's plea and I don't see anything in it that requires evidence at all.

so she wants them to make a statement that she thinks us wrong. Trifle odd

[Nearly Sane]

In this case, No! I do not know how many more years, days and hours of life I have leftbut I don't think I'll spend any of them mentioning the vanishingly small god possibility when it comes to discussion of, literally, cut-throat murder, especially when  done in the name of any god.

So why do you want them to make a statement that you think you can't justify?

[jeremyp]

so she wants them to make a statement that she thinks us wrong. Trifle odd

Got any evidence she thinks the statement is wrong?

[Nearly Sane]

Got any evidence she thinks the statement is wrong?

Yes, Susan thinks it cannot be justified, see her post, so from her viewpoint it is wrong.

[SusanDoris]

Before I turn off the computer for the day, I think I'll just ask for a clarification of who's who!! Too many (repeated) pronouns - them, us, ...