Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
No conclusion jumping imo. Asking for clarification. Perhaps the number of requests is an indication of the ambiguity of your post though.
|
How could it be ambiguous? It was a question, a request for information, not a statement of fact or belief. I don't think it was reasonable to try to extrapolate anything from it, which Incog did and you and the Inj. associated yourselves with.
Anyhow, I digress.
Quote:
I'm not necessarily talking about my morality, but rather about a morality that is shared by the majority of people in this country whilst not offending others. A faith-neutral morality if you like. It shouldn't be too hard to find such a set of morals I would think.
As for there being illiberal undertones to the libertarian argument. Well, yes, if someone has the right to not be subjected to another person's faith-based morals in school, than it stands to reason that this will impact on another person's ability to make those morals heard (in school). But then, as a non-religious person, I think faith should be a personal matter. You are free to adhere to your faith, but you are not free to impose it on me or my children.
|
From what evidence do you conclude that broadly Christian morality is not shared by the majority of people in this country? Let's not confuse 'Christian morality' with 'Church attendance'.
Let me ask another question: if it were possible to arrive at such a 'faith-neutral' morality (and I am not at all convinced it is), who would be the arbiter of it? Where would its authority come from? How would it be ensured that everyone shared it, or at least observed it? In any matter where there is difference between various religions (and the non-religious), what takes priority and who decides it?
It seems to me that any attempt to create or set up a moral code, whether religious or non, inevitably leads to 'imposition' of one person (or one group)'s moral code on those who do not share it in any situation where some form of conformity amongst a group of people is required.
My issue is with the idea that it is desirable to remove faith-based morality from schools and replace it with something 'faith neutral'. What those who propose this are actually calling for, is removal of something they don't agree with and replacing it with something they do agree with. It's an understandable aim but I object to it being dressed up as 'neutral' when it is anything but. It's just 'different'.
As for your comments about imposition of faith: I'm afraid I don't see their relevance as an answer to my post. To be honest they sound like a standard objection to Christianity (and a badly-constructed one, as Biblical Christianity always seeks to persuade, never impose). The very point I've been making throughout this thread is that there is a difference between adherence to (or respect towards) a general moral code, and observance of the faith that creates that moral code. This is why I think it is acceptable for an Islamic state school to have an Islamic ethos but not to compel its female pupils to wear a headscarf.