How the right to deny the existence of God is under threat globally.

[Taf]

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

[Kabaal]

^

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Taf

LOL
I've just sent it to her on her ipad

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chris

Right, so:

- "across the globe" is actually a selection of the usual Islamic suspects.
- The "report" is a campaigning document written by a lobby group with an obvious self interest, the International Humanist and Ethical Union.
- The Indy is very happy to promulgate the notion that an intellectual, philosophical or evangelical attack on a belief or a set of ideas, is to be equated with the denial of rights.
- The IHEU appears to have tried to use Scotland as a fig leaf to avoid a charge of Islamophobia. Does it really see a moral equivalence between faith schools in Scotland and the denial of identity documents, forced adoptions and executions of atheists in certain Islamic states?

Apart from that, top marks.

Good to see you read the report before you judged it.

Oh wait, no you didn't. Had you done so you'd have noted criticisms of varying degrees leveled against states throughout the world, with Scotland and the UK stuck in mid-table obscurity, and with no 'campaign aim' other than secularism - the equal treatment of all regardless of belief with special privilege for none.

Gee how very wicked and selfish. Can't have those horrid atheists / Christians / Muslims / Buddhists / Hindus delete as appropriate having the same rights and privileges as those Christians / Muslims / Buddhists / Hindus / delete as appropriate the state favours.

As far as this comment goes:

- The Indy is very happy to promulgate the notion that an intellectual, philosophical or evangelical attack on a belief or a set of ideas, is to be equated with the denial of rights.

I'm not going to respond to in any depth as a considerable proportion of said reply would be caught by the swear filter.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Good to see you read the report before you judged it.

Oh wait, no you didn't. Had you done so you'd have noted criticisms of varying degrees leveled against states throughout the world, with Scotland and the UK stuck in mid-table obscurity, and with no 'campaign aim' other than secularism - the equal treatment of all regardless of belief with special privilege for none.

Gee how very wicked and selfish. Can't have those horrid atheists / Christians / Muslims / Buddhists / Hindus delete as appropriate having the same rights and privileges as those Christians / Muslims / Buddhists / Hindus / delete as appropriate the state favours.

As far as this comment goes:



I'm not going to respond to in any depth as a considerable proportion of said reply would be caught by the swear filter.

Do get off your high horse Carl. The OP quoted a newspaper article. I replied to him, including his quote and his thread title, in which the ludicrous phrase "right to deny the existence of God" features prominently.

I have better things to do with my time than to study the special pleading of evangelical humanists. But I'm not the first person to criticise someone else's beliefs without bothering to read the source text first, am I?

[Russ]

Read this forum and you'll see how there is no 'global threat' to the right to deny the existence of God.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Russ

Read this forum and you'll see how there is no 'global threat' to the right to deny the existence of God.

when exactly did this forum start to represent a world view of anything

[Russ]

Is there any threat on here? On other forums? Out in the street? At your work? If not then I don't consider it a 'global threat'.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Russ

Is there any threat on here? On other forums? Out in the street? At your work? If not then I don't consider it a 'global threat'.

For a minute there. I thought that we on this forum were the global brain and control centre.

Religion is global.

[Russ]

But the 'threat' to the right to deny God is not.

[tweetiepooh]

So those with a naturalistic leaning are threatened (not right)? Yet many are still determined to enforce that faith position on all and sundry without censure.

All faith positions should be able to safely state and promote their views. And that would include in schools and government. No single faith position should use the tools of rule to deny rights to those of another faith position.

This is the separation of state and "church" that the US founding fathers wanted. What has happened is that those of "no faith" insist that you can't express any other "faith" in "public" jobs and organisations and use the separation clause as their right to so demand.

I'd back anyone to follow whatever faith they want (within the bounds of "common" law - child sacrifice is out) and the right to evangelise. After all I want that right to tell others about Jesus.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

So those with a naturalistic leaning are threatened (not right)? Yet many are still determined to enforce that faith position on all and sundry without censure.

All faith positions should be able to safely state and promote their views. And that would include in schools and government. No single faith position should use the tools of rule to deny rights to those of another faith position.

This is the separation of state and "church" that the US founding fathers wanted. What has happened is that those of "no faith" insist that you can't express any other "faith" in "public" jobs and organisations and use the separation clause as their right to so demand.

I'd back anyone to follow whatever faith they want (within the bounds of "common" law - child sacrifice is out) and the right to evangelise. After all I want that right to tell others about Jesus.

but what if we don't want to told about Jesus?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

So those with a naturalistic leaning are threatened (not right)? Yet many are still determined to enforce that faith position on all and sundry without censure.

Are we referring to many here as a fixed number or a large proportion of those with a 'naturalistic leaning'? If a fixed number then it depends what you define as 'many'. If a large proportion I'd say that's nonsense and you're conflating it with secularism. The two are very different. The view that no-one should believe in God and those who do should have atheism 'enforced' on them is one I'm not actually aware of anyone holding. I'm sure there are some nutters who think people should be forced into atheism however they are precisely that - nutters.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

All faith positions should be able to safely state and promote their views.

The intro to the report, despite its obvious focus on those without faith, makes precisely that point.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

And that would include in schools and government.

I'm not aware of secularists complaining about such promotion of views in the UK. More when a privileged place is given to such views that there become issues - such as reserved places for bishops in the Lords - or when religion is influencing public policy. So long as it's kept in the appropriate place, religious education, it's all good.

Secularism does not entail the banning of religion in any way, shape or form. That would be some hideous authoritarian atheist state which no right-minded person would want.

The UK is not the USA and was not founded on secular principles. I can't speak for any other country.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

No single faith position should use the tools of rule to deny rights to those of another faith position.

Agreed - of course.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

This is the separation of state and "church" that the US founding fathers wanted.

Really?

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

The amendment specifically mentions 'respecting an establishment of religion'. Not only preventing negatives for those of different faiths by 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof', but any positives for those of the appropriate faith.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

What has happened is that those of "no faith" insist that you can't express any other "faith" in "public" jobs and organisations and use the separation clause as their right to so demand.

All of us? Really? Expression of faith and making laws based on it are very different things. I'm indifferent to the first unless it threatens the second. In actual fact objections arise when a single faith is promoted over others. This causes issues in the USA for obvious reasons - Christianity is by far the most observed faith.

It's relatively recently, in fact, that the belief that the USA is a Christian nation has come about. The Treaty of Tripoli is unequivocal.

A breach of this principle was remedied not by removal of the Christian aspect but by permitting other faiths to add their own - equal treatment for different faiths, something you are in favour of.

People in public positions in the USA express faith all the time. Non-stop. However the law keeps this out of schools to avoid breaking the 'respecting an establishment of religion' phrase.

Again I refer you to the below, this time from the BHA:

We are committed to secularism – the principle that, in a plural, open society where people follow many different religious and non-religious ways of life, the communal institutions that we share (and together pay for) should provide a neutral public space where we can all meet on equal terms. State secularism, where state institutions are separate from religious institutions and the state is neutral on matters of religion or belief, guarantees the maximum freedom for all, including religious believers. In such a state, no one should be privileged nor disadvantaged on grounds of their religious or non-religious beliefs.

There is nothing in there that says that people in public life should not discuss their religious beliefs, quite the opposite it specifically mentions a society with a pluralism of religious ways of life.

This is a national charity representing the non-religious. I'm sure you can find people who shout down religion, I can find people who think I'm going to burn in hell for blasphemy, there are extremes on both sides.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

I'd back anyone to follow whatever faith they want (within the bounds of "common" law - child sacrifice is out) and the right to evangelise. After all I want that right to tell others about Jesus.

I would have a read of the Jefferson Bible. It's fascinating and presents an interesting viewpoint on one of the founding fathers' opinions of evangelism.

I couldn't care less and you are more than welcome to evangelise to me all you want. There have been ~3,000 deities that we know about, all followed by those confident that theirs is the right one, and nearly all followed by those who wish to evangelise.

We're all atheists to 3,000-ish gods, I just have an extra one on my score. I'm sure we can all get along regardless so long as we're not being Richards to one another, and I do love our chats, tweetie.

---------- Post added at 13:50 ---------- Previous post was at 13:49 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

but what if we don't want to told about Jesus?

You ignore it or politely ask the person telling you to either talk about something else or go elsewhere.

We all have people talking at us about things we've no interest in from time to time, some extremely enthusiastically. Many companies have people who actually have 'evangelist' in their job titles for example.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

You ignore it or politely ask the person telling you to either talk about something else or go elsewhere.

We all have people talking at us about things we've no interest in from time to time, some extremely enthusiastically. Many companies have people who actually have 'evangelist' in their job titles for example.

It comes down to degree: when you have people coming uninvited into your personal space then that is over the line, for example, knocking on your door to promote their specific faith.

Everyone should be entitled to declare their faith or non-faith in a respectful way and in an appropriate context. Of course, there is no consensus on what is respectful and appropriate and therein lies the rub ..

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by ianch99

It comes down to degree: when you have people coming uninvited into your personal space then that is over the line, for example, knocking on your door to promote their specific faith.

Everyone should be entitled to declare their faith or non-faith in a respectful way and in an appropriate context. Of course, there is no consensus on what is respectful and appropriate and therein lies the rub ..

Indeed.