Andrew Copson chooses 5 books on Humanism

[ProfessorDavey]

OK.....I have never accused them of atrocities either.

The why are you linking them to Stalin ... or is your comparison with Stalin simply because he had a fantastic moustache, rather than because he committed ideologically-driven atrocities.

[ProfessorDavey]

''Hitler liked Wanger''

Now that is news to me.

Then you might want to read a little more widely

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Very simply - that those who wish to follow a religious belief should not be prevented from doing so, and equally that those who do not wish to follow a religious belief should not find religion impinges on their lives due unless they chose it to.

I find myself changing the word ''religion'' to ''Secular Humanism'' here and then seeing how it reads.

[ProfessorDavey]

I find myself changing the word ''religion'' to ''Secular Humanism'' here and then seeing how it reads.

Again failing to understand the difference between secularism and humanism.

If humanism I agree, and indeed so does secularism - a truly secular society would also include freedom to be humanist and freedom from humanism too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The why are you linking them to Stalin ... or is your comparison with Stalin simply because he had a fantastic moustache, rather than because he committed ideologically-driven atrocities.

Nope we know Stalin had particular and well formed plans regarding religion and these were acquitted.

As I said in my opinion a sense of the horror at Stalin's attitude expressed by an atheist commentator on Christianity that religion should be carried out in private only is not casually held by some humanists who actually follow the Stalinist line on religion. To believe that religion and the religious should have no political involvement is such a thing. I can understand why you might want it's Stalinist overtones sanitised.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again failing to understand the difference between secularism and humanism.

If humanism I agree, and indeed so does secularism - I secular society would also include freedom to be humanist and freedom from humanism too.

That's fair I suppose but how would you plan on realising that?

I rather fancy a world where there would be a Humanist centre in town with a chirpy Humanist Celebrant dispensing bonhomie to everyone on his or her patch. Still I suppose while the movement is in the clutches of R Dawkins we will have to put up with SH'rs going by the book (TGD) fervently ''not being nice'' to accommodating atheists, religion, and Templeton laureates.

[Shaker]

As I said in my opinion a sense of the horror at Stalin's attitude expressed by an atheist commentator on Christianity that religion should be carried out in private only is not casually held by some humanists who actually follow the Stalinist line on religion.

Which humanists follow Stalin's line on religion?

Wouldn't following Stalin's line on religion in itself disqualify anyone from being a humanist?

To believe that religion and the religious should have no political involvement is such a thing.

And yet you can't provide/produce names and statements of anyone who holds such a belief.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope we know Stalin had particular and well formed plans regarding religion and these were acquitted.

Which were neither secular (which doesn't look to ban religion, merely separate religion and the state) nor humanist. So I've no idea why Stalin's marxist authoritarian ideological approach to religion is relevant here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which humanists follow Stalin's line on religion?

Wouldn't following Stalin's line on religion in itself disqualify anyone from being a humanist?
And yet you can't provide/produce names and statements of anyone who holds such a belief.

Not so much can't as won't.

[Shaker]

We've only your word for that - if you can substantiate your claims, why would anyone choose not to?

It still looks like can't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

. So I've no idea why Stalin's marxist authoritarian ideological approach to religion is relevant here.

Your response to the question/s ''How do you go about establishing Freedom of religion/secular humanism, freedom from religion/secular humanism would confirm that.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your response to the question/s ''How do you go about establishing Freedom of religion/secular humanism, freedom from religion/secular humanism would confirm that.

No it wouldn't.

Stalin wanted to ban religion - secularists don't want to ban religion. Stalin has more in common with totalitarian theocratic regimes (which also look to ban religions with the severest sanction on those found still to be practicing) such as Saudi than he does with secularism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stalin has more in common with totalitarian theocratic regimes

As far as I know no theocratic regime has wanted to suppress itself.

[Shaker]

As far as I know no theocratic regime has wanted to suppress itself.

No - they want to suppress rival forms of power.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No - they want to suppress rival forms of power.

Yes but the Prof has kind of gone nuclear. There was the Hitler and Wanger(sic) business but we have now gone from religion to Totalitarian Theocracies.

Yes..... Some secular humanists casually hold views which were part of the stock of Stalin, and can't see anything wrong in it, but I have not gone from that to allege that British Secular Humanism is a totalitarian regime. I think I have limited my descriptions to some vague waffling, creepy and sinister.

Don't let it stop any one '' biggin'it up'' though.

[Shaker]

Some secular humanists casually hold views which were part of the stock of Stalin, and can't see anything wrong in it

Yet you can't [sic] name any.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes but the Prof has kind of gone nuclear. There was the Hitler and Wanger(sic) business ...

Oh dear - I see now - having a laugh on the basis of a typo - how very grown up!!

Anyhow I have changed it to Wagner (my obvious intention) in the original post, to make your continuing sniggering look rather stupid.

[ProfessorDavey]

Some secular humanists casually hold views which were part of the stock of Stalin ...

Mussolini got the trains to run on time - some presumably some socialists casually hold views which were part of the stock of the fascist Mussolini.

So what.

Secularists (note not humanists) want separation of religion and the state - whether or not you agree this to be a good thing (I do of course) you'd have to be pretty dim not to recognise the distinction between supporting freedom of religion in a equal manner, which can only be achieved via secularism, and banning religion.

To confuse the two is rather akin to comparing people who support racial equality and therefore want the state to be neutral with regard to race with people supporting apartheid.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Mussolini got the trains to run on time - some presumably some socialists casually hold views which were part of the stock of the fascist Mussolini.

So what.

Secularists (note not humanists) want separation of religion and the state - whether or not you agree this to be a good thing (I do of course) you'd have to be pretty dim not to recognise the distinction between supporting freedom of religion in a equal manner, which can only be achieved via secularism, and banning religion.

To confuse the two is rather akin to comparing people who support racial equality and therefore want the state to be neutral with regard to race with people supporting apartheid.

I think the point is that making the trains run on time is what they call ''a neutral thing'' and wanting religion out of politics and the public forum ''a morally questionable thing''.

You now seem to be saying that there is no such thing as secular humanism...don't you read Wikipedia?

I have set the benchmark for secularism which has religious clergy and humanist celebrant joyfully and publically ministering.....You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear - I see now - having a laugh on the basis of a typo - how very grown up!!

Come on Prof.... One would have to have a heart of stone not to be tickled by a typo like that...........

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the point is that making the trains run on time is what they call ''a neutral thing'' and wanting religion out of politics and the public forum ''a morally questionable thing''.

Wrong - wanting the state to be neutral toward religion, neither favouring nor discriminating against people whether or not they are religious or of any particular religion wouldn't seem to me to be in any way 'morally questionable'. Quite the reverse.

Would you consider it to be 'morally questionable' for a state to act in a manner than neither favours nor discriminates against people on the basis of their race, or their gender? Probably not, so why do you do so on the basis of their religion or lack thereof.

Banning religion on the other hand is certainly 'morally questionable' but secularism isn't about banning religion - indeed the notions of secularism and banning religion are in fact oxymoronic.

[ProfessorDavey]

You now seem to be saying that there is no such thing as secular humanism...don't you read Wikipedia?

No I'm not - what I am saying is that secularism and humanism are separate things - it is of course possible (and quite common) to be both. But the two aren't indivisible where you seem constantly to suggest they are.

So again to use an analogy - there are plenty of Christian Socialists (indeed, you can find a whole page about them on your beloved Wikipedia), but the two elements aren't indivisible - so there are plenty of Christians who aren't socialist, and plenty of socialists who aren't Christian.

[ProfessorDavey]

Come on Prof.... One would have to have a heart of stone not to be tickled by a typo like that...........

Only if you have the sense of humour of a sniggering 12 year old grammar school boy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong - wanting the state to be neutral toward religion, neither favouring nor discriminating against people whether or not they are religious or of any particular religion wouldn't seem to me to be in any way 'morally questionable'.

Non sequitur to the issue of people wanting religion out of politics.

[Shaker]

Non sequitur to the issue of people wanting religion out of politics.

Who does?