Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[Walter]

That's Jolly D of you.

ah! I've got one ;

Putting up the towns Christmas decorations in December . Oh , and taking them down again in January.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The actual question is, “which religious beliefs and which public office job combinations should be kept apart?”

I suppose it's more than we can hope for to get a list from you.
Walter has offered the first contribution to what I'm sure will be the great opus of the atheist paradigm in secularism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

ah! I've got one ;

Putting up the towns Christmas decorations in December . Oh , and taking them down again in January.

Master has been kind to Dobby, Master has allowed Dobby Christmas!!!

[Nearly Sane]

I suppose it's more than we can hope for to get a list from you.
Walter has offered the first contribution to what I'm sure will be the great opus of the atheist paradigm in secularism.

As I raised and you answered some different issue though there are certain beliefs that  yu would surely believe cause issues with certain appointments, such as the right to have sex with 5 year olds for a primary school teacher?

[Walter]

As I raised and you answered some different issue though there are certain beliefs that  yu would surely believe cause issues with certain appointments, such as the right to have sex with 5 year olds for a primary school teacher?

Ive just censored my response to that.......     but it was bloody funny

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

The problem is that you seem t be making it about the religious belief rather just the belief, i.e the second part of my example of paedophilia is not about religion,

But it could be, and the issue is about religious beliefs specifically. If a would-be teacher is just a flat our paedophile then there’s no discussion. If though he said, “it’s an article of my faith that paedophilia is an obligation I must follow and you must privilege that belief because it’s religious” then I'd say the proper answer would be, “no chance son”.

But then what? Should the state be in the business of deciding which religious beliefs are ok and which beyond the pale, or should it just say that no religious special interest group should have access by right (ie, the critical bit Vlad keeps doctoring out) to the offices of state and be done with it?     

[Maeght]

The very fact that Baggini has to write them indicates that there is a problem over what he terms as neutrality.

He believes there is a problem but I'd rather see evidence than accept someone elses opinion.

I am perhaps a bit more read on Baggini but in an item where he quotes Rawls on the language of secularism, Baggini suggests IMV that eventually everyone has to settle on the same language and that is not religious. Baggini IMV supports this by saying that the majority are not religious so that dictates the language of secularism. That is rot since for secularism to work we cannot remain lazily ignorant of the different views or languages of those views because we are waiting for the other party to make their views comprehensible to us. I cannot afford the time to wade back through Baggini so any links are going to have to wait.

Present some of your own evidence then rather than rely on Baggini.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But it could be, and the issue is about religious beliefs specifically. If a would-be teacher is just a flat our paedophile then there’s no discussion. If though he said, “it’s an article of my faith that paedophilia is an obligation I must follow and you must privilege that belief because it’s religious” then the only answer would be, “no chance son”.

But then what? Should the state be in the business of deciding which religions are ok and which beyond the pale, or should it just say that no religious special interest group should have access by right (ie, the critical bit Vlad keeps doctoring out) to the offices of state and be done with it?     

  This seems to be a different set of questions. The point surely is that the holding of certain beliefs and stating them openly would preclude someone from holding certain positions in the opinion of both you and Vlad? Given that concentrating on them being religious and whether or not someone says you should respect them because of religion, or in the case of non religious beliefs because they are right, seems irrelevant,

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

This seems to be a different set of questions. The point surely is that the holding of certain beliefs and stating them openly would preclude someone from holding certain positions in the opinion of both you and Vlad? Given that concentrating on them being religious and whether or not someone says you should respect them because of religion, or in the case of non religious beliefs because they are right, seems irrelevant,

Not only is it not irrelevant, it’s the whole point. If someone thinks that religious special interest groups should have privileged access by right to the offices of state then the content of those beliefs doesn’t matter – the entry ticket is just, “That’s my religious belief” and they’re in.   

That leaves the state with two options: either to embark on the shifting sands of which religious beliefs are ok and which aren’t, or to say that no religious special interest group (whether CofE or any other) should have this privileged access by right – ie, secularism. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,
 

Not only is it not irrelevant, it’s the whole point. If someone thinks that religious special interest groups should have privileged access by right to the offices of state then the content of those beliefs doesn’t matter – the entry ticket is just, “That’s my religious belief” and they’re in.   

That leaves the state with two options: either to embark on the shifting sands of which religious beliefs are ok and which aren’t, or to say that no religious special interest group (whether CofE or any other) should have this privileged access by right – ie, secularism.

But you were stating that due to certain religious  beliefs you think people should excluded from certain roles, and that is the question I am discussing with you. Again I think you and Vlad would agree that certain beliefs are problematic, whether they are religious or not, and that it makes more sense to talk about those beliefs without the qualification of religious, unless you are actually advocating that the state precisely intervenes because of the religious beliefs that you think should preclude people from holding certain offices.


To take an example it would appear that because my old sainted mother prays, you wouldn't want her to be allowed to be Prime Minister.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Look, let's stop beating about the Bush.
Hillside would forbid everyone who prays to another authority than appealing to their own brain or say, a Matt Dillahunty from being prime minister.
That leaves Atheists in charge since presumably agnostics might sneak in a prayer on the off chance. We thus arrive at what this is about. The Atheocracy.
LOL.

[Nearly Sane]

Look, let's stop beating about the Bush.
Hillside would forbid everyone who prays to another authority than appealing to their own brain or say, a Matt Dillahunty from being prime minister.
That leaves Atheists in charge since presumably agnostics might sneak in a prayer on the off chance. We thus arrive at what this is about. The Atheocracy.

Leaving aside your continued misuse of agnostic, your logic means that since some religious people  murder people for being gay, what the theism is all about is murdering gay people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Leaving aside your continued misuse of agnostic, your logic means that since some religious people  murder people for being gay, what the theism is all about is murdering gay people.

Does it I don't recall having you in mind. Did I mention you? I have never said all atheists want an Atheocracy but evidently, some do. Therefore the destination of some atheists on this thread is the atheocracy.

[Gordon]

Does it I don't recall having you in mind. Did I mention you? I have never said all atheists want an Atheocracy but evidently, some do. Therefore the destination of some atheists on this thread is the atheocracy.

Smashing: so who exactly are these 'atheocracy' advocates?

[Nearly Sane]

Does it I don't recall having you in mind. Did I mention you? I have never said all atheists want an Atheocracy but evidently, some do. Therefore the destination of some atheists on this thread is the atheocracy.

You are using the term in such a general way that that is the clear implication. And I take it you are accepting that you have been continually misusing agnostic?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But you were stating that due to certain religious  beliefs you think people should excluded from certain roles, and that is the question I am discussing with you. Again I think you and Vlad would agree that certain beliefs are problematic, whether they are religious or not, and that it makes more sense to talk about those beliefs without the qualification of religious, unless you are actually advocating that the state precisely intervenes because of the religious beliefs that you think should preclude people from holding certain offices.

No, this is the same mistake Vlad keeps making: conflating the content of the religious claim with the privileged status given to such claims as a package (in this case the “package” being the suite of CofE beliefs mostly).

Think of it as akin to diplomatic immunity. You and I get fined for parking on a double yellow, the ambassador for Nowherestan doesn’t because his behaviours are afforded special privileges – ie, protected status. That’s the point – to take the earlier example, if Joe Bloggs the paedophile wants to be a teacher there’s no chance; if the Very Rev Joe Bloggs wants to promote his views, to have special schools for them, to have open access to the media then come right on in. In other words, once his beliefs are wrapped in a box and sealed he gets to use them from a privileged position that by right wouldn’t be afforded to someone else. (Yes I know of course that would never happen if the belief happened to be as extreme as paedophilia but it’s the principle I’m after here. That said, diplomatic immunity for the Vatican for example seems to do an effective job of keeping pederast priests from the law.)

To take an example it would appear that because my old sainted mother prays, you wouldn't want her to be allowed to be Prime Minister.

To be frank, I really don’t know. Was it Ronald or Nancy Reagan who invited fortune tellers the White House? WTF? How about Mike Pence reportedly thinking he hears Jesus tell him what to do?

How do you sort the (no doubt entirely benign and delightful) NS’s Mum from the fruit loops for this purpose?

A: Do you hear voices in your head?

B: Yes.

A: Next!

A: Do you head voices in your head?

B: Yes, but I’m part of a religion.

A: What colour would you like the Oval Office?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No, this is the same mistake Vlad keeps making: conflating the content of the religious claim with the privileged status given to such claims as a package (in this case the “package” being the suite of CofE beliefs mostly).

Think of it as akin to diplomatic immunity. You and I get fined for parking on a double yellow, the ambassador for Nowherestan doesn’t because his behaviours are afforded special privileges – ie, protected status. That’s the point – to take the earlier example, if Joe Bloggs the paedophile wants to be a teacher there’s no chance; if the Very Rev Joe Bloggs wants to promote his views, to have special schools for them, to have open access to the media then come right on in. In other words, once his beliefs are wrapped in a box and sealed he gets to use them from a privileged position that by right wouldn’t be afforded to someone else. (Yes I know of course that would never happen if the belief happened to be as extreme as paedophilia but it’s the principle I’m after here. That said, diplomatic immunity for the Vatican for example seems to do an effective job of keeping pederast priests from the law.)

To be frank, I really don’t know. Was it Ronald or Nancy Reagan who invited fortune tellers the White House? WTF? How about Mike Pence reportedly thinking he hears Jesus tell him what to do?

How do you sort the (no doubt entirely benign and delightful) NS’s Mum from the fruit loops for this purpose?

A: Do you hear voices in your head?

B: Yes.

A: Next!

A: Do you head voices in your head?

B: Yes, but I’m part of a religion.

A: What colour would you like the Oval Office?

It really isn't making the sane mistake as Vlad because at no point have I argued treating beliefs differently if they are religious beliefs vs non religious beliefs. I am afraid that from the opposite viewpoint from Vlad, it's youwho mirror him. That's the reason why I am arguing with both of you here because you each want to privilege a set of beliefs, simply because they are religious versus non religious.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Thread,

Atheocracy, that's a new word, I will watch, see how it develops, but I doubt it will enter the Oxford!

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Thread,

Atheocracy, that's a new word, I will watch, see how it develops, but I doubt it will enter the Oxford!

Gonnagle.

The word exists.

And in a manner I am glad Vlad has used the term - mainly because it allows us to put clear blue water between Vlad's vision of a totalitarian state that is anti religion, which would be an atheocracy on the one hand, and a secular state which is none of those things on the other. Vlad seem to think that a secular state is an atheocracy - it isn't. Indeed an atheocracy is just as much anathema to a secular state as a theocracy is.

[ippy]

The word exists.

And in a manner I am glad Vlad has used the term - mainly because it allows us to put clear blue water between Vlad's vision of a totalitarian state that is anti religion, which would be an atheocracy on the one hand, and a secular state which is none of those things on the other. Vlad seem to think that a secular state is an atheocracy - it isn't. Indeed an atheocracy is just as much anathema to a secular state as a theocracy is.

Umpty dumpty dumpteen posts and he still can't or refuses to get it, looks like a waste of time to me.

Regards ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

Umpty dumpty dumpteen posts and he still can't or refuses to get it, looks like a waste of time to me.

Regards ippy

Indeed - but at least we now have a word for what Vlad thinks (wrongly) a secular state is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The word exists.

And in a manner I am glad Vlad has used the term - mainly because it allows us to put clear blue water between Vlad's vision of a totalitarian state that is anti religion, which would be an atheocracy on the one hand, and a secular state which is none of those things on the other. Vlad seem to think that a secular state is an atheocracy - it isn't. Indeed an atheocracy is just as much anathema to a secular state as a theocracy is.

Professor Davey cannot, it seems to me grasp that there are fellow atheist who would not allow theists to hold executive positions in Government. That is de facto atheocracy, unless of course they elevate the blessed agnostics to some kind of priestly ruling caste.

We already have a secular state.

[Nearly Sane]

Professor Davey cannot, it seems to me grasp that there are fellow atheist who would not allow theists to hold executive positions in Government. That is de facto atheocracy, unless of course they elevate the blessed agnostics to some kind of priestly ruling caste.

We already have a secular state.

I see you haven't stopped misusing agnostic.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Well at least you have me thinking, just been on the NSS web site.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2018/02/sturgeons-praise-for-catholic-schools-will-exacerbate-scotlands-tribal-divisions

But their head line got me me thinking "150 YEARS OF CHALLENGING RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGE" that long, wow!! ( that's a sarcastic wow by the way )

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

Professor Davey cannot, it seems to me grasp that there are fellow atheist who would not allow theists to hold executive positions in Government. That is de facto atheocracy, unless of course they elevate the blessed agnostics to some kind of priestly ruling caste.

We already have a secular state.

Without resorting to google or wiki, what’s an agnostic?