Discussion is welcome on this website. I’ve moved some discussion-based comments here to separate them from the specific themes of other posts. Please feel free to continue any discussions here that don’t seem to fit in anywhere else.
May 28, 2009
60 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
There is also another thread with general discussion, with about 150 comments so far, here:
General Discussion and Comments Part 1
Comment by Michael Nugent — May 26, 2009 @ 9:00 am
Congratulations…for what? It was hardly a sellout and much less than the national outrage you have projected, a disappointment if anything. Most of the audience seemed inebriated, though that could have been the stupefying effects of Ian ‘Whinger’ O’Doherty …yawn….. Seriously guys, get a life and grow up – you’re like a bunch of spoiled infantile bullies http://www.parentmanual.co.uk/img/crying.jpg
Comment by Mujaahid — May 26, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
Comment by Mujaahid:
“Congratulations…for what? It was hardly a sellout and much less than the national outrage you have projected, a disappointment if anything. Most of the audience seemed inebriated, though that could have been the stupefying effects of Ian ‘Whinger’ O’Doherty …yawn….. Seriously guys, get a life and grow up – you’re like a bunch of spoiled infantile bullies”
Dear M,
It seems to me that you may need to confront your own parents and ask them why it is you were not allowed to cry when you were hurt as a child yourself: I get a strong whiff of projection from your post.
Good luck with that!
Comment by Martha — May 26, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
Mujaahid’s comments are designed to start a silly word-war, and I think that they should be ignored. They remind me of a right-wing Republican blogger that I encountered during the invasion of Iraq; emotional, confrontational and devoid of logic or fact.
These comments do one thing though – they point out that, whether we like it or not, we will be grouped together by the people who agree with the blasphemy law. While I don’t believe in anything supernatural, some of the people in the room were agnostic, some Christian, some Muslim. We probably come from different backgrounds, work in different jobs, have different political persuations and follow different sports. This doesn’t matter. We will be targeted as a group.
Unfortunately, not all of us can make good arguments, spot straw men / oversimplifications / generalisations / emotional appeals. Some of us won’t even be able to refrain from making these mistakes ourselves, and this will do damage. The worst thing any of us can do, is spout rubbish because we’re pissed off. How many times have you been involved in a debate, when somebody on YOUR side of the debate produced and doozy of a comment that made you wish they were with the opposition?
Think. Don’t get mad. Don’t get petty or use illogical arguments. Stick to the facts. I recommend that we all follow this link, familiarise ourselves with these logical falasies, learn to spot them in arguments, and refrain from using them ourselves:
http://dsc.dixie.edu/owl/writing_revision/LogicalFallacies.htm
I especially like the ‘false dilema’ – isn’t this what Dermot Ahern used to kick this mess off in the first place?
Comment by Paul Rafferty — May 27, 2009 @ 11:52 am
Sound advice there Paul, ‘think’ – when will you all start? Do you honestly think actively insulting and being offensive is anything short of bullying? Would you encourage your kids to do that in school? To pick on the kid with red hair, or the kid who believes in God or whatever other reason bullies choose to pick on people. That’s all it is, and it’s hypocrisy. If it’s wrong in the school yard, it’s wrong in the public sphere. But to get to this point of understanding you’ve got to ‘think’ so again, I welcome your call.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 27, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
Really sorry for the double post and what follows has probably already been noticed many times over. Wikipedia’s Dermot Ahern entry contains these two paragraphs (though Wikipedia can be complete crap as we all know);
“Following his appointment as minister responsible for equality, it was reported that Ahern had in 1993 criticised the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Furthermore he agreed with a statement by Fine Gael TD, Brendan McGahon when he said; “I regard homosexuals as being in a sad category, but I believe homosexuality to be an abnormality, some type of psycho-sexual problem that has defied explanation over the years. I do not believe that the Irish people desire this normalisation of what is clearly an abnormality. Homosexuality is a departure from normality and while homosexuals deserve our compassion they do not deserve our tolerance. That is how the man in the street thinks. I know of no homosexual who has been discriminated against. Such people have a persecution complex because they know they are different from the masses or normal society. They endure inner torment and it is not a question of the way others view them. The lord provided us with sexual organs for a specific purpose. Homosexuals are like lefthand drivers driving on the right-hand side of the road.”
Ahern himself added to those comments; “Will we eventually see the day in this country when, as has happened in the USA, homosexuals will seek the right to adopt children? We should think seriously about this possibility”. Following his appointment as minister responsible for equality, Ahern has refused to be drawn on this matter and has not given an answer as to whether he still holds those opinions. [3] Ahern’s department are responsible for implementing the Civil Partnership Bill which was recently released in draft version”.
If true this blasphemy arse could be personally motivated.
Comment by Alan — May 27, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
Ahern sounds like a decent fellow. Seriously though Alan, you lost all momentum when you invited Ian ‘Whinger’ O’Doherty to speak, bad move. The man is an opportunist lout, a self-proclaimed Zionist and an Islamophobe. The fact that his speech, and I use the word in its most base and loose form in his regard, made constant mention of Muslims is enough for all to see what his aim was. Will he be speaking in Cork?
Comment by Mujaahid — May 27, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
‘I’ didn’t invite anyone. I want this law binned and certainly agree that that Journalist chappy will be a mahor hindrance to any campaign. If we are to succeed we need to focus only upon the law and not our own beliefs. You can’t win a debate with insults.
Comment by Alan — May 27, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
Mujaahid,
I would be honestly interested in hearing you opinion on this law, whether you are for or against and the reasons. I think it would be a good start to try and understand the opinions of all members of our society.
Regards,
Diarmuid
Comment by Diarmuid Boyle — May 27, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
Diarmuid: Let me begin by stating that I am not opposed to legitimate debate, which is carried out with a respect for differences.
Unfortunately, as has been amply shown on this site, few can actually engage in and maintain a civil dialogue without descending into offense and insult, without a care in the world for the harm that they cause.
We understand this is harm because we do not condone it in many different circumstances. For example, in the schoolyard we do not encourage pupils to bully children for a belief in God, for red hair, for protruding front teeth or for any of the myriad of reasons that children bully other children.
If a child were to draw a cartoon of another student, and caricature him/her in an offensive way and use this picture to encourage others to jeer and laugh at him, there isn’t a teacher in the world who would condone that, because it is bullying. So we condemn it and tell children not to do it, but suddenly when they grow up we change the rules and tell them it’s a free speech right and they should actively seek to offend.
Secondly, a number on this site have evoked the right to free speech but are at the same time actively engaged in removing religion from the public sphere, in effect curbing our right to free speech.
Thirdly, why offend? What is to be gained by causing emotional and psychological harm to others? How does being offensive toward religious communities engender better understanding or cohesion?
Comment by Mujaahid — May 27, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
If you don’t mind, I’d like to address a couple of your points:
>Unfortunately, as has been amply shown on this site, few can actually engage in and maintain a civil dialogue without descending into offense and insult, without a care in the world for the harm that they cause.
Also unfortunately, this is true of every discussion board I’ve ever read, it’s not exclusive to atheist.ie. People like to argue; they feel less confined and are more confident arguing on a computer than in real life. They tend to use more insulting language (such as calling people “infantile bullies”) than they would use otherwise. Whether it’s discussion of religion, the recession, Northern Ireland, the Israel/Palestine conflict, the war in Iraq/Afghanistan or even the latest Dan Brown movie, some people will always use colourful language if they feel passionate about an argument and they are discussing it online. I’m not saying its right; I’m just saying that’s the way it is.
>We understand this is harm because we do not condone it in many different circumstances. For example, in the schoolyard we do not encourage pupils to bully children for a belief in God, for red hair[...]
Nobody would condone childhood bullying, but your analogy is false. A large amount of people getting offended about something, as this law addresses, is not the same as the one person being bullied. Furthermore, criticising a religion is even more removed from your analogy. If you are anti-Semitic, this is racist, but if you criticise Judaism as a religion, it is not. No set of beliefs should be legally protected from criticism, especially if those beliefs themselves are discriminatory to any group of people in society. In this case, the right of that group of people to be treated equally outweighs the right of the religion to teach discriminatory beliefs.
>Secondly, a number on this site have evoked the right to free speech but are at the same time actively engaged in removing religion from the public sphere, in effect curbing our right to free speech.
The right to free speech applies to everybody. The right to criticise is included in this.
>Thirdly, why offend? What is to be gained by causing emotional and psychological harm to others? [...]
Nothing, but the classification of offense lies with the offended, and that is the problem. Nobody (I don’t think) would go out of their way to cause offense or “emotional harm”, as you say. Sometimes, by criticising a religion/political party/football team, people who uphold criticised views will choose to get offended. It is their right to say they are, but not their right to have the protection of the law.
Comment by Graham Cooke — May 28, 2009 @ 9:18 am
> We understand this is harm because we do not condone it in many different circumstances. For example, in the schoolyard we do not encourage pupils to bully children for a belief in God, for red hair, for protruding front teeth or for any of the myriad of reasons that children bully other children.
This is probably a ‘false analogy’, but let’s stick with it for a moment. I think that it is wrong to bully somebody for having red hair too, but I don’t think that Ireland needs a law that specifically protects children with red hair. If we did create a ‘red hair’ law, it would be unfair to the hypothetical “bald student”.
> So we condemn it and tell children not to do it, but suddenly when they grow up we change the rules and tell them it’s a free speech right and they should actively seek to offend.
Absolutely not! I hope that the vast majority of the people who oppose this law are doing it because they disagree with it, not because they want to offend people without fear of prosecution.
> Nothing, but the classification of the offense lies with the offended.
…Exactly! I know people who are much more ‘religious’ about football than they are about the supernatural. If I walked into a certain Dublin pub during an Ireland match, stood on the bar and shouted “football is shite” or “Ireland are crap”, I’d get my head kicked in. Look at the wording of this new law and see if you can spot a dangerous precedent! (Hint: large number of outraged people)
I too noticed that Islam was singled out during the Dublin meeting, and I didn’t like it. If anybody has an axe to grind with a particular religion, I think they should do it elsewhere. Personally, I have problems with a LOT of religions, but this isn’t the place to talk about them.
> ‘I’ didn’t invite anyone. I want this law binned and certainly agree that that Journalist chappy will be a mahor hindrance to any campaign. If we are to succeed we need to focus only upon the law and not our own beliefs. You can’t win a debate with insults.
On the subject of Ian Doherty’s attendance at the meetings; It appeared to me that Ian’s personal gripe with Islam is more important to him than this blasphemy law. On the one hand, he jumped onto the bandwagon when people were slating Islam, but he jumped to the defence of America’s invasion of Iraq. He didn’t have any particular logic, he just said that he was sick of liberals using America as an ‘easy target’. (Not sure if this is a ‘Straw man’, an “Ad hominem” or a “bandwagon”. Perhaps it’s all three!) Regardless, if Ian Doherty is (as Mujaahid says) a self-confessed Zionist and Islamophobe, then the organisers should seriously consider asking him not to sit at the front of the next meeting with a microphone. (You’ll note the difference between “I didn’t invite him” and “I asked him not to attend”.) However, nobody can stop Ian from attending, getting mad, jumping up and down and spilling his beer. Nor should there be a law preventing him from doing this if he wishes.
Finally, to defend the point that was being made about America (which Ian got mad at):
Americans used to pride themselves on living in ‘Land Of The Free’. But the people of America sat back listened to their govenment’s fear mongering, gave up personal freedoms, entered into an illegal war based on lies, set up concentration camps and tortured people to death. (I know I’ve skipped over a few things, but that’s enough to be going on.) I’m not trying to suggest that the majority of Americans agreed with these actions, I’m just saying that they let it happen. They allowed the wool to be pulled over their eyes. My sister lived there for 10 years and thought that she was in an George Orwell novel. Only after it was too late did Americans start to publicly question their country’s acts between 2001 and 2008. But let’s get this straight – I’m not ‘America-bashing’. I love the place. New York is the best city on earth! A great many Germans asked themselves “Wie haben wir uns das passiert?” after the 2nd world war was lost, and I’m not bashing Germany either. I’m simply saying that any country that gives their government carte blanche will end up regretting it while they try to piece together their self respect and their international reputation.
(I’m wondering long it’ll take for somebody to selectively quote my last paragraphy and use it against me.)
Comment by Paul Rafferty — May 28, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
>(I’m wondering long it’ll take for somebody to selectively quote my last paragraphy and use it against me.)
What do you expect with your America bashing!
“Americans used to pride themselves on […] fear mongering […] and tortured people to death. (I know I’ve skipped over a few things, but I’m […] trying to suggest that the majority of Americans […] let it happen.”
Comment by Graham Cooke — May 28, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
I think we’re getting somewhere Paul, if religious adherents and I speak of Muslims here, could be sure that this campaign wasn’t a cover for Muslim bashing then perhaps there might be scope for discussion and compromise. But as you correctly noted O’Doherty uses every opportunity and all the speech resources at his disposal to demean Muslims and denigrate Islam. I’ve seen very little on this site, though again I must commend those who have spoken out against O’Doherty’s silliness, to convince me that opposing the blasphemy bill is a good idea. On account of the O’Doherty’s of this world I believe gross offense should cautioned against, if only for the benefit of the offender.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 28, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
Excellent example Graham.
Comment by Paul Rafferty — May 28, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
As far as I can recall there is already protection against this kind of bullying in most schools. What makes you think employing a €100,000 fine to protect a child is in any way effective?
Right, I’m starting to see your logic. You feel we (as believers) should have state vindication against people who bully us by advocating free speech. However the grounds of outrage are a foolish way to legislate as anyone can organise outrage to get someone prosecuted. Believers in faith are already protected under hate speech laws.
Good point, but it merely shows that some atheists can advocate extremist views. That wasn’t a surprise to me at all. Even if people did curb the rights to free speech for theists, are you telling me that you would not continue to speak about Allah in public?
Some people will get offended more easily than others. I’ve already explained to you, I may cause serious offence to an Orthodox Jew by saying that their faith was incomplete and that Jesus Christ is the Jewish Messiah, as I currently believe.
I see where you are coming from Liam, and I think I have been fair to you in this discussion so far. However, I don’t think I, or my God need protection by law.
Comment by Gareth — May 28, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
Category error. Cartooning a child, and thus demeaning and humiliating that child, is categorically different from cartooning an alleged deity and causing followers of that alleged deity to be offended on his/her behalf. Children exist; deities haven’t been shown to. Your analogy would hold if deities did the equivalent of crying in front of their parents or the teacher — no deity has ever done so. I would have less of a problem with the blasphemy law if it required deities to make a complaint to the Gardaí personally.
In the context of the definition of blasphemy in the proposed legislation, I think it is legitimate to identify Islam as an example of a religious group who have demonstrated “outrage among a substantial number of … adherents” over blasphemy in recent times.
Comment by Emmet — May 28, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
Emmet: I’ve yet to see why an omnipotent deity can be compared to a child. Do you not find this reasoning strange? Personally I think the God of Israel will judge anyone better than any court in this land ever could. I don’t believe God needs defending, and I think that I can take your criticism, and anyones criticism for what I believe in.
Comment by Gareth — May 28, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
Emmet: I know you think that’s a smart answer, but it completely overlooks the issue that the blasphemy law addresses. So rather than simply regurgitating tired old arguments, go read up on the proposal and then come back and present your point.
Gareth: Again, you are correct – Allah, the correct term to use when addressing the Most High, needs no advocate, and I would respectfully ask you to read the proposal as it does not seek to protect Allah whatsoever.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 28, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
Ian O’Doherty is interesting because he is a right-wing atheist (in terms of foreign policy), and they are pretty rare. I’m one too, although I find O’Doherty’s writing a bit crude and simplistic for my taste. But his heart is in the right place (pro-Israel for example).
The important point is that opposition to this outrageous law is a coalition of left-wing atheists, right-wing atheists and even theists. Do not assume people should agree with you on everything.
Comment by Mark Humphrys — May 28, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
Do you agree with the ‘Israeli’ pogroms against innocent Palestinians Mark? Is the targeting of innocent children and women acceptable to you? Or are they all guilty because they’re Muslim?
Comment by Mujaahid — May 29, 2009 @ 12:16 am
Mujaahid (not that I really want to talk to this troll), of course the Israel situation bears no similarity to your characterisation.
I’ll believe you care about Muslims when you condemn the endless, ongoing killings of tens of thousands of innocent Muslims by jihadis in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan. The jihadis even suicide bomb Muslim mosques, and carry out chemical weapon attacks on Muslim primary schools. Yet what do we hear from MPAC? Crickets.
Comment by Mark Humphrys — May 29, 2009 @ 7:08 am
Hi Mujahiid, can you be explicit about who needs protection from this law?
Gareth mentioned hate speech laws (Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989); there is also protection from bullying (due to religion among other things) at work under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2008, and both psychological and physical bullying are grounds for legal action through the civil courts or the Injuries Board. I found this all on citizensinformation.ie if you want to have a look.
So, with these laws in mind, can you say, very plainly, who would need this law, and in what scenario. As you’re the only person on this page arguing in favour of the legislation it would be helpful to fully understand your view.
Comment by Sheena — May 29, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Mujaahid, you seem to believe the proposed legislation is akin to the UK ‘incitement to hatred’ laws.
I think most of us would agree that the UK laws can be justified – spreading lies and untruths about a group with the intention of inciting violent attack on them must be illegal.
The proposed blasphemy law is entirely different – while it can be argued that the above example of incitement could be included as something that is outlawed by the proposed blasphemy law it would also outlaw many things that are in no way agreed upon by most reasonable people – in particular the idea of outlawing insulting a religion in a way that it sounds offensive to members of that religion.
In practice this means that for the same action will result in religions being treated differently under the law,
Followers of some religions are known for their delicate temperament whenever their God or prophet are mocked. Others take it with a pinch of salt and treat the joke as insignificant.
Could I go out and insult the flying spaghetti monster and expect to be taken to court?
Does anyone think the case would be taken seriously?
How about the same exact insult, joke or cartoon against a more well known God or prophet?
Comment by Sigmund — May 29, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
I asked Mark:”Do you agree with the ‘Israeli’ pogroms against innocent Palestinians Mark? Is the targeting of innocent children and women acceptable to you? Or are they all guilty because they’re Muslim?” He answered, actually it’s not really an answer more a diversion:”the Israel situation bears no similarity to your characterisation.” Oh dear, so the UN, Amnesty International and a host of NGOs must be wrong, I note your lack of condemnation. You are simply the flip side of the coin Mark, a Zionist extremist who cannot bring himself to utter one word of condemnation against his beloved. Pitiful and disappointing.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 29, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
Sheena: “Hi Mujahiid, can you be explicit about who needs protection from this law? Gareth mentioned hate speech laws (Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989); there is also protection from bullying (due to religion among other things) at work under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2008, and both psychological and physical bullying are grounds for legal action through the civil courts or the Injuries Board. I found this all on citizensinformation.ie if you want to have a look.
So, with these laws in mind, can you say, very plainly, who would need this law, and in what scenario. As you’re the only person on this page arguing in favour of the legislation it would be helpful to fully understand your view.”
Let me put it this way, it may well be legal at this juncture in time to grossly offend the sensitivities of religious adherents, but is it ethical? Publishing images that injure is a morally questionable act, and as such requires moral justification. I have witnessed no such justification thus far. I’d like to see a society that does not use a free speech right to bludgeon and bully people because of religious beliefs. The Catholic wars on science and technology were wrong, their denigration and hounding of scientists was wrong – we do not need to replace one evil with another. If people could be trusted to wear seat belts we wouldn’t need laws to enforce it, if people could be trusted to be civil and respectful we wouldn’t need blasphemy laws, race/hate laws etc – they can’t, sadly a sign of an immoral age, and therefore we need laws.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 29, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
Mujaahid, there are plenty of things that are not ethical that are not, however, outlawed. Indeed to outlaw every single aspect of life that is unethical would make society unworkable. Some things should, however, be outlawed (serious crimes for instance). The question is where do we draw the line. Is it ethical to suggest that an adult who believes in Santa Claus is ignorant or delusional? I would suggest it is more unethical to allow them to remain ignorant of the fact.
Now what about the case of the Easter bunny? Leprechauns? Fairies? God?
All of these have equal evidence in favor of their existence.
Where is the moral or ethical justification for condemning people to live their lives in ignorance?
Comment by Sigmund — May 30, 2009 @ 12:04 am
Mujaahid, can you give me a specific situation in which this law is needed to protect someone? I respect the fact that you are taking the time to explain the other side of this, but unfortunately I find your arguments vague.
For example, you mention ‘images that injure’ – how do images injure? Because they incite hatred of religious adherents? If so, this is provided for by the Act of 89.
If you know of, or can find, an actual incident where this law would have been necessary, that would really help me understand where you’re coming from.
I’ll give you an example of a situation in which I’m glad we don’t have enforceable blasphemy laws: I really enjoyed the ‘His Dark Materials’ trilogy, by Philip Pullman. It provoked a lot of criticism as blasphemous, but I found it uplifting and profound. On the other hand, my mother finds the Catholic mass uplifting and profound, while I find it macabre. I don’t want to take it away from her, I’m glad she has it. So I don’t know why anyone would want to take ‘His Dark Materials’ away from me.
So your turn Mujaahid: an example of a situation in which you would need this law.
Comment by Sheena — May 30, 2009 @ 12:15 am
Sigmund: “Mujaahid, there are plenty of things that are not ethical that are not, however, outlawed. Indeed to outlaw every single aspect of life that is unethical would make society unworkable. Is it ethical to suggest that an adult who believes in Santa Claus is ignorant or delusional? I would suggest it is more unethical to allow them to remain ignorant of the fact. Now what about the case of the Easter bunny? Leprechauns? Fairies? God?
All of these have equal evidence in favor of their existence. Where is the moral or ethical justification for condemning people to live their lives in ignorance?” Can you suggest ways in which outlawing things that are unethical might make society unworkable? I notice how you slip God into your list of mythical characters, of course if you do believe in the Easter bunny, Leprechauns or fairies the onus is on you to prove existence. Good luck with that.
Sheena: Obviously the existing acts do not cover injurious images or comment, otherwise we wouldn’t require a blasphemy bill. Firstly we all recognize that it is wrong to deliberately harm someone. Harm can be both direct and indirect, and a good example of a direct harm might be the images of models in magazines etc. Most women are directly harmed by the images put forth by advertising companies of the ideal woman – who happens to be skinny, have flawless skin and many other attributes not shared by the average woman. Society has recognized how these images have a negative effect are are now calling for action against them. How many young girls have killed themselves trying to look like the waifs on magazine billboards. There is NO moral justification in causing such harm to the mental state of a young child. In like manner there is NO moral justification in printing cartoons of a revered individual simply to cause offence, much less when the only stated purpose is to cause a riot. Glib remarks like they shouldn’t get offended so easily overlook causality, shouldn’t we be asking why people want to grossly offend in the first place? Doesn’t the need to insult and offend people not smack of the schoolboy bully days, an immature and adolescent quirk?
Comment by Mujaahid — May 30, 2009 @ 9:47 am
Muj..
I haven’t posted for a little while, having made my points I sat back and “let the hare sit”.
However, the noise coming from you, seemingly without thought no your part othet than to try to have the selected “facts” and selective bits of other’s, often posts taken out of context is confusing debate.
What’s your game? Most people that use this site are able to think for themselves (I say “most”people and cannot say all because YOU use it) and not enter myth and “Divinely Inspired” idiocy as factual evidence.
By way of illustrating your selectiveness, you state that “Stalin’s atheism that drove his pogroms saw more killed than ALL the religious wars in history combined”.
A few points on that. Best estimates of deaths caused by Stalin’s regime (and I know, they are ESTIMATES) since the release of information after the breakup of the Soviet Union put the number at approx. 20 million. This is roughly the same number of people who died in WW2 in China alone. The holocaust (and don’t say that that was not religiously inspired) alone was responsible for at least 6 million deaths. The deaths caused by Pol POT, Hitler, George Bush, the Raj, the Taliban etc. were, if not actually a result of religious difference, certainly facilitated by them (the bely buckle of the German Soldier in WW2 contained the words “Gott Mit Uns or God [be]with Us”.
Stalin was expelled from a Georgian Seminary.
Muj, You seem to have a fixed opinion, which is fair enough. What is not right is that you continue to offer untested ancient writings as proof and then use twisted “facts” to soppurt a given point, rather than let the chips fall as they may.
That is the different between my view and yours. I am more than willing to change my point if reasonable evidence is forthcoming (and don’t even think of offering the crud you profess to believe in as evidence). Onthe other hand, you can’t even say that your view is your own-it is the views of others passed on and all the “facts” you glean are gleaned only to cement that pre-formed viewpoint.
Don’t bother trying to answer this post with the unprovable.
Comment by Jack Butler — May 30, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
Did you miss this Jack?
Jack: Thank you. You have demonstrated that you are very capable of engaging in civil dialogue and in this sense, we can continue our discussion. You have removed a barrier to understanding.
You said: [“why Muj have you rejected Christianity? Perhaps because of the inconsistencies?”] Correct, both Judaism and Christianity are replete with internal and external inconsistencies and that is indeed why I rejected them.
You said: [“Can you not see the very real inconsistencies in islam?…Its claim to be peaceful and the manner in which it is followed in most countries?”] This of course is an inconsistency of the people not the religion, and yes I’d agree very few Muslims adhere to the religion in the way they should.
[You ask “is there such a thing as offense”? “yes,” when hatred is vented against the person with the intent to physically harm, “No” when one chooses to take offense for the reason that one’s ideas are challenged. In other words, go after the person rather than the idea.]
That’s a very limited view of harm, surely you recognise that psychological harm can be as damaging. We legislate for all manner of harms that are not physically injurious. Does a person choose to be offended? Even if that were true, does that vindicate the right to be offensive? Should we now offend black people and retort, ‘well it’s their choice to be offended or not’.
[Muj, I have tried in this comment to explain in a non-threatening manner why I think that all unquestioning belief systems (including my own) can be evil where they are accepted in an unquestioning manner. ] Do you think it correct to assume that all people simply accept a belief system without investigation?
[I fail to understand how anyone who honestly questions any religion based on a god, can fail to realise that it’s all a load of bunkum, unless they are afraid to so do.] Afraid? Again Jack, could it not be simply that as believers we find the theories of origins based on speculative science simply unbelievable?
[Afraid of not surviving their death when death is a natural end that is not something to fear intellectually.] Again Jack you completely misunderstand the issue here. No true believer fears death, rather they embrace it seeing it as a release from the prison of this world. I put this to you, as Paul did to those who did not believe in his day, if all that is ahead of us is darkness then eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. However, as believers we believe that there is a hereafter, a recompense for this world and our time spent on it. If, according to you, we are wrong then we have still benefitted as our lifestyles have made us better people, living better lives. However if, as we wholeheartedly believe, we are right, then we have benefitted not only in this life, but also the next.
[Now I realise I’ve gone on here a bit, but I’m trying to show, in a non threatening manner, that religion is probably the single biggest threat to peace on the Earth at present.] Reality of course says otherwise. Stalin’s atheism that drove his pogroms saw more killed than ALL the religious wars in history combined.
[Having said that I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they wish, provided a) they do not attempt to coerce either me or anybody else into that belief and b) they do not blackmail others by way of social exclusion, teaching of religion as part of everyday schooling etc into conformity.] You can’t state that you have no problems with belief and then relegate it to the private sphere. You have no right to do that. Now, I believe some changes do need to occur to take into account non-believers, I do believe the current requirement to make an oath to a religion you do not follow is discriminatory and accordingly seek an amendment in that regard. Allah tells us, to you your religion, to me mine. Now that to me seems to be the way forward.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 31, 2009 @ 11:31 am
[Thank you. You have demonstrated that you are very capable of engaging in civil dialogue and in this sense, we can continue our discussion. You have removed a barrier to understanding.].
I would suggest that you’ve understood pretty well without it
[Correct, both Judaism and Christianity are replete with internal and external inconsistencies and that is indeed why I rejected them.]
Actually as you and I know you’ve been touring religions all your life and this is the latest in an line
[This of course is an inconsistency of the people not the religion, and yes I’d agree very few Muslims adhere to the religion in the way they should.]
And isn’t that always the excuse. These efforts are supposed to be the work of a divine being remember. And yet he succeeds with so few. He must be the ruprecht of deities. In any event are you willing to stay quiet about the distasteful aspects of your religion where it might cause “offense”? You build a rod for your own back with such reasoning
[That’s a very limited view of harm, surely you recognise that psychological harm can be as damaging. We legislate for all manner of harms that are not physically injurious. Does a person choose to be offended? Even if that were true, does that vindicate the right to be offensive? Should we now offend black people and retort, ‘well it’s their choice to be offended or not’]
Nobody ever died from being offended. Besides skin colur is not a choice. Choosing to be an adherent to a seventh century superstition is
[Do you think it correct to assume that all people simply accept a belief system without investigation?]If the investigative method is wrong then it amounts to the same thing
[Afraid? Again Jack, could it not be simply that as believers we find the theories of origins based on speculative science simply unbelievable?] What speculative science are you referring to? It’s the same science that allows you to post here I’m afraid
[Again Jack you completely misunderstand the issue here. No true believer fears death, rather they embrace it seeing it as a release from the prison of this world. I put this to you, as Paul did to those who did not believe in his day, if all that is ahead of us is darkness then eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. However, as believers we believe that there is a hereafter, a recompense for this world and our time spent on it. If, according to you, we are wrong then we have still benefitted as our lifestyles have made us better people, living better lives. However if, as we wholeheartedly believe, we are right, then we have benefitted not only in this life, but also the next.]
You see the world as a prison. How nihilistic. If nothing we do matters then all that matters is what we do. Your self centred reasoning is just that. Self centred. Existence is what it is. It’s nor going to be otherwise just because you wish it were so. Why make make yourself better if you are going to die? Take a look at your daughter and stop being self centred. You’ll do it for her
[eality of course says otherwise. Stalin’s atheism that drove his pogroms saw more killed than ALL the religious wars in history combined.]
It would seem his power hunger did. Plus you can kill more people withthe utilities of the 20th century USSR than a Napoleonic bayonet
You can’t state that you have no problems with belief and then relegate it to the private sphere. You have no right to do that. Now, I believe some changes do need to occur to take into account non-believers, I do believe the current requirement to make an oath to a religion you do not follow is discriminatory and accordingly seek an amendment in that regard. Allah tells us, to you your religion, to me mine. Now that to me seems to be the way forward.]
explain what you mean by “private sphere” vs “public sphere”. You can be as public or as private as you like. And when running in elections you will be judged on that basis
Comment by Garlandgreen — May 31, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Muj,
You’re a waste of space. There’s no point in trying to engage with someone who’se as blind to fact as you seem to be,
Bye
Comment by Jack Butler — June 1, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
Jack said:”That is the different between my view and yours. I am more than willing to change my point if reasonable evidence is forthcoming (and don’t even think of offering the crud you profess to believe in as evidence).” Irony is lost on fools. Cheerio Jack.
Comment by Mujaahid — June 1, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
Jack:
Mere rhethoric, little substance and ad-hominems. Not actually useful for any discussion to be had about religion.
Within the entire twentieth century in the USSR it had reached 100 million. Stalin probably wasn’t responsible for them all himself, but it was a pretty abhorrent time in history, if we are to exclude Hoxha, Mao, Pol Pot and numerous others.
Of course it wasn’t religiously inspired. It was an act of ethnic cleansing. Hitler’s private memoirs also show that he had quite the contempt for Christianity, and infact documents have been released from the Nuremburg trials which suggest that the Nazis had plans to destroy Christianity in Europe following World War 2. So I would ask you to refrain from spreading mistruths.
Pol Pot tried to enforce state atheism in Cambodia and you are blaming religion for it? That’s rather a curious tactic indeed.
So? He was an atheist afterwards during the time when he was persecuting religion in Russia. If you want a secular personality cult around yourself you can’t have people following God.
Comment by Gareth — June 1, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
Mujaahid,
I’m glad you used the analogy of women’s magazines, at least this is something concrete. First, I have to say that I don’t grant it as a perfect analogy, because we can identify the harm done: the images are directly held up to girls (and boys) as the only acceptable physique, and consequently people suffer from low self-esteem. You have not yet identified the specific harm done by blasphemy.
But to go on with the magazine argument, there is no law stopping this. And though I am very aware of the problem I don’t think there should be a law. What would the law be? Who would decide what is aesthetic and what is harmful? Modigliani’s women are fairly slim, aren’t they? And what if a very thin woman is interviewed about her writing or whatever? Is a magazine allowed show a photo of her?
So what do we do? Lots of things. Many books and cartoons, much art and photography, argue against this strict notion of what a woman should be. I don’t buy this kind of magazine, so that’s something to do too. I use my common sense – I see magazine covers in the shop with Cheryl (Cole?) and half of them say ‘Cheryl most beautiful woman in the world’ and the other half say ‘More heartbreak for Cheryl’ and like Aesop’s fox I say to myself, ‘well it obviously doesn’t make her that happy anyway’. I use my own experience – the most stunningly perfect-looking people are not necessarily those I would like most, or think attractive. I don’t think Yoko Ono would be unanimously declared beautiful, but John Lennon adored her.
Here, I think the analogy does stand. If someone publishes an image you find blasphemous, you can simply ignore it (like I don’t buy the magazines); you can laugh at it (like I laugh at the magazine covers) and you can argue with it, using your own writing or art.
‘In like manner there is NO moral justification in printing cartoons of a revered individual simply to cause offence, much less when the only stated purpose is to cause a riot.’
- Who decides if it is simply to cause a riot? As I said earlier, many religious people believed ‘His Dark Materials’ was blasphemous, and purposefully hateful of religion. I think it’s a really beautiful celebration of the here and now.
’shouldn’t we be asking why people want to grossly offend in the first place? Doesn’t the need to insult and offend people not smack of the schoolboy bully days, an immature and adolescent quirk?’
- It’s possible to feel offended when no offence was meant, or when offence was unavoidable for the sake of honesty. You can also end up being insulting if you feel strongly enough about something, especially if you fear it.
But do you believe that by telling people they can’t insult others that they then won’t want to? Do you think they’ll feel better or worse towards their opponents? If someone isn’t allowed utter a blasphemy, they can still think it.
And again, you have used the analogy of school bullying, but it doesn’t work. Children are bullied and the adult version of this is more than covered in existing laws.
Sadly I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere with this. You won’t give me an actual circumstance of this law’s being necessary. I suspect that your reason for wanting this law is that you, as someone who believes very strongly in your religion, simply want Allah to be accorded respect. If that’s true, it’s understandable. However, as you mentioned above, this law is not needed to protect deities. As I have demonstrated and you have failed to disprove, it is not needed to protect humans. And to have a law which swaps freedom of speech for the feelings of a select few, is not something I can ever be persuaded is a good idea. So I think we’ve reached a stalemate.
Comment by Sheena — June 2, 2009 @ 10:12 am
Gareth,
Quote, “If you want a secular personality cult around yourself you can’t have people following God”.
John Paul II, George Bush, Mohommed, Henry VIII, Eamonn DeValera, “Mother” Teresa, General Zia, Bennie the Rat (sorry Cardinal Ratzinger)………
Quote, the Holocaust “wasn’t religiously inspired. It was an act of ethnic cleansing”
So an act of ethic cleansing cannot be religously inspired? Care to tell that to the muslims in the Balkans?
The first pact the Nazi gov made was with the Vatican. Maybe tha’s not making use of religion either.
And your point about the massive death scale in the 20th centuary in the Soviet union disputing the figure of 20m I quoted and opting for 100m is misleadingas my point was not about soviet union deaths in the 20th centuary but of thost that Stalin was responsible for. The Soviet Union existed for approx 70% of the 20th centuary and Stalin was in power until 1953
Pol Pot was a Theravada Bhuddist
Comment by Jack Butler — June 4, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
Neither Islam or Catholicism are personality cults. Muhammad is seen merely as a messenger from God or a prophet. Both Popes are considered to be authority figures selected by the Church. I personally think they have too much power but that is just me I guess.
As for Henry VII, he was merely a figurehead who had the power to establish Protestantism in Britain. The Reformation in England had been happening for much longer with Reformers like Tyndale, and Cranmer. Please watch this documentary and educate yourself:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6101527704063312894
I never said that. I said that Hitler’s clearly wasn’t as he and the Nazis had plans (and documents to substantiate those plans) to destroy Christianity after the war. Please do not twist what I say for your convenience and then we will have a much better discussion
To cover his own hide. Hitler made many positive statements about Christianity, but then moaned that Christianity was too flabby a religion and he would have prefered Shinto or Islam as they were more power-encouraging religions.
Link? There seems to be a lot of contention about that.
Comment by Gareth — June 6, 2009 @ 6:34 am
Islam and Christianity not Personality cults? Do you really believe that Mohammad rode on a horse with a face like a woman (or was it a woman with a face like a horse?) into heaven to get “god’s” laws? if so maybe you believe that Islam is not a personallity cult(remember, islam is also refered as Mohammadism).
As for christianity, where does the “christ” come from.
The popes’ “authority” comes mainly from the necessity of the bewildered to follow either that into which they have been indoctrinated, or from their fear.
Quote fom #35 by you “Of course it wasn’t religiously inspired. It was an act of ethnic cleansing”. The “it” was the holocaust.
“Please watch this documentary and educate yourself:” Please. Don’t presume to know what my level of education is or that watching a video flagged by you will correct your percieved views on an individual you have never met’s level of education. How dare you.
Quote fom #35 by you “To cover his own hide. Hitler made many positive statements about Christianity, but then moaned that Christianity was too flabby a religion and he would have prefered Shinto or Islam as they were more power-encouraging religion”
Two points; first, when the concordat with the vatican was made, Hitler was in the ascendancy and certainly had no need to cover his hide. Secondly, from your quote, he seemed to choose another religion as it was “more power enhcouraging…” Note, he did not choose agnosticism ot atheism.
Quote fom #35 by you ” Pol Pot was a Theravada Bhuddist (my contention)
Link? There seems to be a lot of contention about that.”
OK so you accept it is a contention. When you contradicted my inclusion of POL Pot in a group of leaders who used religion for evil purposes you didn’t label it a contention. I could also have mentioned the spanish Inquisition, the colonisation of South America, Richard the Lionheart, the Indian Mutiny, Palestine today, St. Barts Day Paris 1572 the Kingsmill shootings Northern Ireland -indeed the whole Northern Ireland Question as well as a lot od the issues in the south.
Here in the south religion has cast its malign influence over the education system, the health system and the government. Its legacy can be seen in the manner in which the Irish Christian Brothers and other religious congregations are presently trying every subtle (and not so subtle) tactic to avoid their responsibilities for the evil prepetrated by their fellow gang members.
Ever wonder why they are still so intent on retaining a great influence in indoctrination or education as they would have it. Would the Eileen Flynn case go to court to day?
Probably.
Comment by Jack Butler — June 7, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
No, they aren’t personality cults. Muhammad was merely a messenger of God in Islam. Allah is the one to whom due praise is to be given.
I don’t believe in Islam at all, so asking me if I believe that Muhammad rode on a horse with a face like a woman is irrelevant. I personally am indifferent to what Muhammad looked like. I’m sure if you want inspiration for what Muhammad looked like a quick google search should suffice.
As for Muhammadism, or the term Muhammadans used to describe Muslims it is generally only used in the Western world.
I’m sure you know as well as I do where the word Christ comes from. It is the Greek tranlsation of the term Messiah or in Hebrew messiach. Now messiach means anointed one. Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah, hence why we refer to Him as Jesus Christ, or the Christ. He was the one who fulfilled the Jewish prophesy. I still don’t see it as a personality cult as due worship is given to all three on the Holy Trinity.
As a non-Catholic I’m quite happy to let you form your own theories surrounding this.
It wasn’t at all. Considering the Nazis had plans to destroy Christianity after WW2 I doubt that the Holocaust was religiously motivated. Again, I’m sure you know as well as I do that the motivation behind the Holocaust was to clean the German people of all unsightly races and demographics of people. Christian pastors who refused to accept Hitler’s ideology, homosexuals, Jews, Jehovahs Witnesses, and the disabled. The list goes on. The motivation was nationalism and racial purity. Hitler wanted the Ubermenschen (or the Aryans) to be cleaned of all the impurity of the other groups as he saw it. Let’s at least try to be honest what the truth is?
Look, I’m merely saying if you are going to spout nonsense about Anglicanism you are to be corrected. If you had watched that documentary you would have found out the truth concerning Henry VIII and his role in the foundation of the Anglican Church. If I am to be challenged by you, you are to be challenged by me
Note that Stalin did. It’s entirely irrelevant. I’m not claiming that atheists carry out more abuses than Christians. What I am saying is that all groups in history have carried out abuses and have abused their ideologies to pursue their own selfish goals. If you are willing to concede this, we can move on with more productive discussion.
I asked you to cite where you have Pol Pot as a Buddhist. There are many sources that show that he is an atheist. I would like you to back this up before we get into further discussions about any of these events.
As someone who supports both secular and faith schools in education in Ireland. I am quite happy to say that people should have a free choice if they want their children to be raised with a religious ethos fine, if they don’t fine. The choice should be entirely free. Not being forced to pick religious schools, or being forced to pick secular schools. Would you mind clarifying what you think of this?
Comment by Gareth — June 9, 2009 @ 9:33 am
OK. If we have to, lets take it point by point with reference to your most recent post),
I don’t believe in Islam either, and I should perhaps have used the term “one” rather than you, but I was replying to your contention that Islam was not a personality cult. I still maintain it is as there is enough reflected glory from being as close to a deity as is possible while remaining human in the eyes of ones followers.
I just take Christ as another interchangable name/title for Jesus. I may be wrong within the finer points of christianity, and I don’t believe that there were any prophets either. As I dont believe in any of the old testament either (like Abraham being stopped from stabbing the sun he had trusses up and placed on an alter) the fulfilment of a prophecy dosn’t hold much water for me either.
Quote fom #35 by you “Of course it wasn’t religiously inspired. It was an act of ethnic cleansing”. The “it” was the holocaust.
It wasn’t at all. Considering the Nazis had plans to destroy Christianity after WW2 I doubt that the Holocaust was religiously motivated.
If there wasn’t the excuse of differences occasioned by religion, the holocaust could not have happened.
Please. Don’t presume to know what my level of education is or that watching a video flagged by you will correct your percieved views on an individual you have never met’s level of education. How dare you.
Look, I’m merely saying if you are going to spout nonsense about Anglicanism you are to be corrected. If you had watched that documentary you would have found out the truth concerning Henry VIII and his role in the foundation of the Anglican Church. If I am to be challenged by you, you are to be challenged by me
I never mentioned the Anglican Church. I did count Henry VIII amongst those who used religion for his own nefarious reasons, not the same thing as “sprouting nonsense” about that church. Actually I think the present day Anglican Communion is one of the least offensive religious organisations around today, but that does not mean I don’t think that its beliefs are nonsense.
You state that If you are to be challenged etc…. No, There’s an important point here. I NEVER CHALLENGED YOU.
I certainly challenged the ideas you posted, but never you.
With regard to stalin, I take much of your point, however, the fact is that many of those in the past used religion to “whip up the troops” as dit Stalin. The fact is that many theists point to Stalins atrocities as if to “lesten” the abominations carried out by religious adherents or otherwise, by implying “the’re all at it”.
With regard to Pol Pot, I seem to think he claimed to be what ever he found most expedient, but I’ll check him out more thoroughly and return to the issue. You ignore the other seven examples I gave.
You asked me to clarifymy stance on religious/secular schooling, so here we go;
I think you will agree that education is an obvious necessity for everyone regardless of religion. The unfortunate situation is that in Ireland, the state has handed over it’s duty to provide education for everyone to the religious. This has had the result that, as presently organised, the local education system while catering to the majority religions leaves everyone else in a very invidious situation. This forces (de facto)many non-believers and dissenters to engage with the dominent local religious so as to facilitate the education of their children. One cannot reasonably expect a system set up to deal with the specific requirements of its members to deal with the wishes of a small minority, and because of the cost implications, the minority is largely forced to use the system set up by that majority. We can only afford one education system nationally, and should one want a system that reflects their own rather than one that includes everyone, than those that want their own should pay for it along side an existing system open to all and welcoming all without requiring them to adjust their views.
A proper educational system to my mind should be just that, an education system. Not a system where the “added extras” of religious observence are imposed on the children, but one where those children can be indoctrinated in whatever way is legal and considered ethical by their parents, outside school hours and thereby have a system where education rather than propaganda is offered.
To my mind a child is a child, not a catholic child, an anglican child, a jewish child………
A far superior system would be for
Comment by Jack Butler — June 9, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Sorry Gareth for the way the post above looks. While I attempted to indent the comments of yours that I was peplying to the format did not translate into the posted copy.
Perhaps you could let me know how you managed to get the indentations in your posts. I fully admit I tried and failed. If you can explain I really would be grateful,
Jack
Comment by Jack Butler — June 9, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
Fair enough. Muhammad is held with a degree of respect like any prophetic speaker, or a teacher of wisdom is. Both of these claims are contentious in themselves no doubt. However from the point of view of a Muslim there is no reason to suspect Muhammads role as being near that of a deity. I’ll let you and Mujaahid slug this one out though. I’ve consulted the Qur’an very lightly in comparison to my study of the Bible.
Well, Christ is the Greek term for Messiah. Hence why it is used. It has become a title for Jesus over time. However, to a Jew, Jesus is not the Christ at all.
I don’t expect you to believe that there were any prophets. Your original point was concerning personality cults. If you contend that Christianity is a personality cult you need to assess it from a Christian point of view to clarify whether or not Christianity is one. I never said that the fulfilment of prophesy has much water with you, I never claimed that it would. What I did say is that Jesus of Nazareth (Y’shua ben Nazerat) was called the Messiah because Christians believed He fulfilled Biblical prophesy. You surely get me thus far?
That’s nonsense. I’ve explained to you that it was about ethnic cleansing rather clearly at this stage. Hitlers manipulation of Christianity failed, hence why he called it a flabby religion in comparison to Shinto or Islam. The church in Germany did not receive his message as well as he had anticipated. Seriously look it up. Hitler was more concerned with nationalism and purity than religion, I think that’s basically historical fact.
Expect your ideas concerning Anglicanism to be challenged by me
Look. Let’s get this clear. I think it is human nature to carry out atrocities. I think atheism or religion can be equally abused. The twentieth century is enough of an example to show that it works both ways. That’s where I am going to leave it. I’m not lessening the acts carried out by religious people. I don’t think the Inquisition, the Crusades, or any other abhorrent act carried out in the name of religion is acceptable, nor that it was in Jesus Christ’s vision to do so.
My question to you – Why should I as a believer who wants the very best for society and for mankind have to make an account for people who abused religion for hatred? Likewise why should you as a well meaning atheist have to make an account for Stalin. Do you get my point now?
Pulling out the Dawkins I see. I go one step backwards than you. I don’t consider religion to be propoganda. I think it has a meaningful role in public life and that parents should have the free choice on how they want to educate their child, whether in secular or faith schools. I take the genuine middle ground. Your views, and the views of the current Government are the views of the extreme. My views are the ones held in the USA, and in the UK concerning the matter.
No problem
Type in blockquote in these tags and then close it by typing
Comment by Gareth — June 9, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
Apologies:
Type “
“
Comment by Gareth — June 9, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
gareth,
We’ll have to agree to disagree it seems.
Just one point though, if education has to be provided for all (which I’m sure you agree) and the expense of providing it for all is affordable when society pools its resources to provide it for all, the majority imposing he teaching of their doctrine in a system paid for by society to my mind is wrong. This is particularly wrong when almost all schools attempt to reflect the views of those who were allowed to set them up, when there is nothing stopping the treaching of religion or any other doctrine outside of school hours. It is as a direct result of requiring that their viewpoint and ethos be reflected that real discrimination in the educationsystem is alive and well in Ireland. This discrimination is so all pervading that the perpretators are largely either ignorant of it od indifferent to it.
Thanks for the tip on indenting,
Jack
Comment by Jack Butler — June 10, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Look. If the educational system is paid by the people it should reflect the peoples wishes too.
If the majority seek to choose faith schools, the majority should be faith schools. However if there is a minority which seek secular schools, they should be also built as an alternative.
Likewise if the majority seek to choose secular schools, the majority should be secular schools. However if there is a minority which seek faith schools to raise their children with religious values, then there should be an alternative of faith schools to be chosen.
That sounds the fairest if we are going to have an educational system that reflects the constitutional rights of parents to provide for the moral and religious education of their child. OF course I as a Christian would consider it best for any (hypothetical) child of mine to be raised with Christian morals and with Christian religious principles. Understood? We should allow a free choice for all.
There is not a scrap wrong about this if there are alternatives. The Government has failed to provide alternatives. Hence I agree with you until there are secular alternatives this isn’t fair. However, if there are alternatives, there is no problem with this being done in school time in faith schools.
I found my education in COI ethos schools to be positive for my personal development, and it encouraged me to seek out Christianity for myself during my later years of secondary school. As such I am thankful for my time in such education. I’m going to be reasonable however, and say that unless there are alternatives, it is unfair to parents who want secular education to have to go to these schools.
However, that said. I don’t think anyone has the right to restrict people of faith to raise their children in faith schools, just as much as I don’t think anyone has the right to restrict parents who wish to raise their children secular in faith schools. I hope that makes it more clear.
Not a problem
Comment by Gareth — June 10, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
Gareth, like we said, we’ll just have to disagree. The schools we now have were set up with society’s resources that was under the control of the religious.
The religious controlled almost everything at the time, even the thoughts of the majority.
I believe that the education system’s task is to educate, not to indoctrinate. whether we like it or not (and I don’t) the system we have is still more interested in indoctrination and ensuring it’s clients the stucents) are, at least, amenable to that relgion when they are finished.
All religions atempt to take control of the education system. not for the better eduation of it’s clients, but to ensure the future of their religon.
They have gone as far as to ensure that almost every teaching post goes to a co-religionist ant that our laws not only permit this but are used to enforce this.
In Ireland the vast majority of schools are managed by a middle-ager male celebate with no idea of the stresses involved in bringing up a family and whose main job in life is to propagate his faith.
You state that you feel your COI education “ethos schools to be positive for my personal development, and it encouraged me to seek out Christianity for myself”
All very well, but the primary objective of education is to educate, not to assist one seek out a particular religion.
This objective is undermined in Ireland and in many oher soceities by the aften successful attempt by religion to stifle investigation and spin education to try and support their own mindset.
Comment by Jack Butler — June 11, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
I can disagree with you while continuing civil discussion. I think we’ve been both fair to eachother in this discussion so far. I think we have been both fairly reasonable too. Let’s keep talking about it for another bit longer
I think every school is to educate. I think that faith schools also serve a purpose of raising people with values of a particular religion. I see this as an important role for believers.
Look, let’s be frank here. Do you have a problem with religion being imparted to the children of religious people? I think that’s the main issue, but you’re not being forthright about it.
I don’t consider it indoctrination to teach your child about your faith as it is your constitutional right to provide for your childs moral and religious education. Indoctrination means that belief is forced. However in faith schools it isn’t at all. As I say to you, I went to two faith schools. Yet I did not come to faith until my late teenage years when I read the Bible and I found that it made sense. That was me applying my reasoning skills unto what I had learned to make an autonomous decision. Who on earth could have a problem with that?
I don’t believe an adult faith can be inherited by a child. Hence why I think it’s ridiculous when people tell me they rejected faith when they were 10. You cannot begin to understand a particular faith when you are that age. Most people who I have spoken to who are Christians and are adults, generally decide for themselves on faith from my experience during their last years at secondary school to their years in college.
The indoctrination argument is moot if people actually think about it for themselves. It’s also moot considering the research we have on the frontal lobe to suggest that belief is predisposed biologically to many humans.
I think faith works like this. Your parents are of faith A. They teach you about faith A and what faith A teaches. You as an adult become autonomous. You repackage what your parents have told you. You see if it makes sense. If you can find that it has personal value, and if you are convinced it is likely to be true, you repackage faith A as a rational being. If you are not, you reject faith A as a matter of consciousness.
Comment by Gareth — June 11, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
OK gareth,
Lets keep what I also think is a reasonable exchange og conflicting idaas going.
Your Quote (still can’t get the hand of the indent effort) “Look, let’s be frank here. Do you have a problem with religion being imparted to the children of religious people? I think that’s the main issue, but you’re not being forthright about it.”
No, I don’t have a problem with religion eing imparted to the children of religious people, -or any other people for that matter.
My problem is partly that in Ireland, without being consulted onthe matter, I am paying for it through the government.
I have absolutely no problem with for example, you imparting whatever belief you feel appropriate to your kids, but why do you need the state educational system to help you? I do not subscribe to the view that the state should hinder you in that wish, but to assist you using the organs of the state, I feel, is wrong.
Secondly, the provision of religious doctrine (which in my view is completely different from both fact and the nous required to be a decent human) can be provided by those religious bodies from there own resources.
I fully accept that the role of education is to allow a person to “round” themselves and progress as much as they can, but a serious debate arises, when the educational process becomes hijack by those who’s view of the process is to “spin” the system that takes the vulnerable mind, with the approval of existing society, and produces an adult that reflects in his/her mind the society has conspired to produce. This has the eminently forseable result of ensuring that the religious system is propegated.
The religious forethought and entry into the educational system was facilitated, in just about every countru that permits religious interference in education, in the repression of their client’s thought processes whereby the search for pure knowledge is subsumed by the effect that thet knowledge’s impact will have on the doctrine of thost providing the control of the education.
Quote, “Indoctrination means that belief is forced. However in faith schools it isn’t at all.”
Sory Gareth, Two points here.
Perhaps, but is it belief? True belief cannot be forced. One who does not believe in somethinf may, for very many reasonable reasons, pretend to believe in something, including the reason of remaining a member of the society into which they were born, through fear or for the physical advantages it bestows.
The second part of your statement is probably true, but the ethos, undoubted comradeship. membership of the crowd (society) is such that most will be seduced by the opinion of others rather than think forthemselves. If in thinking for themselves, why put their relationships on the line if they are considered a lesser person for speaking against the majority?
The word Indoctrination?
I am of the view that it describes the process by which views are inculcated into a person where the views supporting the indoctrinator ate emphacised, the views critical of him/her/it are reduced, ridiculed or eliminated and those expounding any alternative are attacked either personally or accuerd of having an ulterior motive.
Sure, Faith base schools do provide a certain ammount of education, but it seems to me that they provide it out of a fear that if they don’t, someone who is not committed to preserving that religion will, and that person may not have the religion’s best interest at heart, and may even let the facts interfere with the interpretation of religious indoctrination.
The simple fact is that Ireland is the only country in Western Europe where the religious have such a control over the education of the young within or withoyr the formal system.
We are only recently starting to acknowledge the extent of abuse that this system facilitated, though we all did know about it.
Perhaps the reason nothing was done about it was tha control the religious held over society.
To continue to permit a religious control over education is to continue to facilitate ongoing abuse.
Quote,
“I think faith works like this. Your parents are of faith A. They teach you about faith A and what faith A teaches. You as an adult become autonomous. You repackage what your parents have told you. You see if it makes sense. If you can find that it has personal value, and if you are convinced it is likely to be true, you repackage faith A as a rational being. If you are not, you reject faith A as a matter of consciousness”
1), Because your parents are so important in your life, as a young person, you accept almost unconditionally what they tell you. -faire enough. However as your parents teach what they believe, and particularly if they reflect the majority view, it is diddicult even as an adult to reject all that yo have been told by your parents as fact. Society colludes with your parents (or your parents collude with society) to reinforce these beliefs (and both parents and society lie to you as they do not tell you they are meerly beliefs, but present them as facts, -to my mind presenting theory as fact is a lie) whereby not to go along most often leads to some form of ostracision.
I’ll close with a cliche used by some athiests when engaging with a theist, “I reject only one more religion than you do”
Regards,
Jack
Comment by Jack Butler — June 13, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
Again, sorry for the double (triple?)post,but I hit tag or somthing and the post was sent without my knowing.
Michael, (and I’m being arrogant enough here to believe you read my posts) any chance of rearranging things so we can read our posts as they will appear and, if necessary change them as per Atheist Nexus?
Regards,
Jack
Comment by Jack Butler — June 13, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
Jack, do you mean have a preview of the posts?
When I get a chance, I’ll have a look at the software and see if it can facilitate that.
In the meantime I have deleted the first of your double posts.
For quotes, the commands are blockquote and /blockquote inside < and > tags
Comment by Michael Nugent — June 13, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
Apologies for the break Jack, I was pretty busy this weekend
We’re both grown ups. I can deal with your criticisms, you can deal with mine
Okay, that’s fine. However, if there are schools of every sort in Ireland. Secular, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and so on. Surely you are just contributing to the pot so as to be fairly distributed amongst all these groups.
Where I agree with your objection and I have made this clear at the start. There isn’t enough representations of other minorities within the education system. I think secular schools should be built if there is the demand. I think Muslims, Jews and others should have the freedom to provide religious ethos based education as Christians do. I think this is perfectly fair. All taxpayers pay for the general distribution of education to serve all minorities. Insisting that all schools are secular is unfair to the proportion of parents who want their children to be educated according to their own religious values. As such I think it is fair as long as there is equal opportunity in Government legislation and plans for all groups within our society to have representation. I do not however suggest that the Government should force secular education and have no other, I think that’s highly unfair.
Why should religious parents have to pay for an education that doesn’t serve their requirements?
See what I have said above.
I’ve been through two schools with a religious ethos, and yet I have not been “spun”. Infact I found it very hard to get my head around the idea of Christianity until I took personal investigation on the issue.
I don’t think anyone hijacks anything by coming in and discussing a religious text for an hour a week. Bear in mind other religious faith groups can opt out. If you are not a Christian and you find this objectionable your child does not have to sit through this. If there was no choice, I’d understand you. However parents who want to impart religious belief to their child should have the option to at least teach their child the basics about their faith and then let them decide for themselves later. Sounds fair to me.
This is where I differ with you. I don’t see it as “interference” or even unneccessary. I’m glad for the religious education I had because it helped me to grow as an individual and see the world differently than I ever saw it before. I didn’t appreciate this until my last two years in secondary school when I took religion as a subject and got quite interested in it. Not only Christianity, but Judaism and Islam also. For the non-believer it even has benefits to help people to understand what motivates their culture and their world to a large extent. I see religious education as welcome. You see it as unwelcome because you do not want parents to have a choice. Let’s be real here, that’s what it comes down to right?
From personal experience through my faith, I don’t think that belief can be forced. I think all religious education can do is open up a contact point for people to see Christianity and to explore it deeper if they are truly interested. It is up to the individual to decide for themselves in all situations.
Indoctrination means drilling into people ideas without critical thinking. I did however think critically about Christianity before adopting it. I believe the factors you mention are reasons why people pick faith A over faith B, but it doesn’t force anyone to faith. If it did you would be a staunch Catholic right now wouldn’t you? (due to where you were born) However you decided that it wasn’t true.
However, I can agree with you on one point. People can believe out of fear where it is restrictive. There were crypto-Jews all over Europe during the Inquisition. However, you cannot say in modern Ireland that there is any fear in denominational education. I never experienced fear. I decided to accept Christianity because it was relevant to me and it was realistic to me.
Undoubted? – Are you for real? I met very few people in my class in school who did not doubt the existence of God at some point through being educated in Christian education. You seem to have this ridiculous notion that kids somehow resolve their belief in God from the second they are in Junior Infants. That isn’t the way it works, and it’s a fallacy of atheist argumentation. Personally I think it shows how little atheists understand about the formation of faith.
People have told me before that they stopped believing in God when they were 8, and I cannot help but laugh at how ridiculous that is. You are 8 years old, and you have suddenly decided for sure on the biggest question that there is. Christianity also cannot be understood completely by an 8 year old. Other people don’t understand there is a difference between the faith of a child, and the faith of an adult. A radical difference infact.
I met nobody who was considered “lesser” for having a different view. Mind you I’m not sure what you mean by “speaking against”. Do you mean legitimate questioning or disrespectful slander of other people who have faith for having it?
I disagree with this form of education, I also don’t believe it occurs in Ireland currently, and I never experienced it in any of the schools I attended. Funny that your objection to schools in Ireland doesn’t seem to be all that valid, well, in Ireland.
They provide the same education as any other school, only they teach a religious ethos in addition. Infact they are educated more if you think about it. Schools provide religious education out of fear?
Ah come on Jack, let’s be a bit reasonable before we start making up conspiracy theories.
You have provided a definition of indoctrination that has never fit any of my experiences in a school with a religious ethos. You then expect me to believe that it is hugely widespread that the fallacious definition you have given occurs. Then you ask me to believe that schools teach it out of fear. Finally, you say that the “facts” disagree with “religious indoctrination” which you still haven’t confirmed how it happens in Ireland.
Then you imply that the facts interfere with Christianity? How? Christianity operates independently of the educational system in several countries. I’m just finding the stuff you are coming out here to be inaccurate or exaggerated.
Jack, I implore you to read my posts. I’ve said there should be more choice in the education system. You want to do the reverse and deny people of faith the choice to educate their children with a religious ethos.
I’d support distinguishing schools of COI ethos, Presbyterian ethos, or even other schools of Catholic ethos where this didn’t happen from the Christian Brothers and other orders. I agree that was a disgrace, however it is no reason to stop religious education it is merely a call to make teachers and management of schools, and indeed priests and pastors more accountable for what they say. Questioning can happen with religion too. I personally would regard myself as having an inquisitive mind. It seems that you don’t believe that theists can have a mind like this though.
I don’t support control. I support choice.
Not really. You accept what they say until a certain point, then you think about what they have taught you for yourself and examine if it is truly reasonable.
It really isn’t. I don’t think rejecting it should be key, but rather examining it. Reading for yourself, and seeing what other people think about it is important. I’m currently reading Hitchens’ – God is not Great myself. Why? To see what atheists and agnostics have to say about religion. I read Dawkins’ – God Delusion too but I found that dissapointing. There is nothing stopping people from examining the situation themselves. I accepted the faith I was taught because I found it to be rational. I never really accepted the faith of my parents at all before. I would have said that I went from unknowing what my beliefs were to accepting it. I just don’t believe people accept faith from birth or from their parents automatically. For me that isn’t how it works. Atheists continually argue this, but I cannot help but think they are wrong on this point.
I disagree with this view at all. People who have a deep faith in society are generally ones who have examined the Bible and other scriptures for themselves. Perhaps there are people who have never really taught about it who consider themselves faith A culturally, but not really that seriously. But anyone I have ever encountered who has been serious in a faith has consulted the text and thought for themselves about it. that’s why I cannot help but think that you are completely wrong.
I’ve heard all this before. I don’t want to reject Christianity because I don’t think it is rational to do so. I don’t think atheism makes sense.
Comment by Gareth — June 15, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
Sorry about the delay in respose, but I’ve been somewhat unwell this las week or so.
At this point I’d like to address only one of your points, many of which are valid, and I think we are halfway in agreement on this one.
You have made it clear in your posts, and I do read them, that you agree that there should be more choice available to minoritys in the Irish Educational System, and I can go along way with you on this.
Where we differ is that I believe that religious “education/indoctrination” can easily be dealt with as an ajunct to the educational requirements and reinforced by exposure the parents’ ethos anf lifestyle. In Ireland however, the de facto situation is that the state with the connivance of and with pressure from the religious, have relinquished responsibility for the educational system over the years, so that it is impossible to access a secular education.
You say that people have the right to have their beliefs reflected in the educational system?
Personally I believe that you have the right to do whatever you want, provided that you do not interfere with the rights of others. The problem starts when two conflicting “rights” occur. Again it’s just me, but I believe that conflict can be resolved by having the more fundamental demonstrable right take prescedent.
The exercise of the majority’s “right” to a religious education ensures that the right to an education without mixing up the facts with conjecture and superstision (which to me is what religion is), removes the right of an education free from such “balderdash”.
The fact that the religious aspect of the education/indoctrination could easily be provided by those wanting it, outside the educational system makes the system as we have it even more unfair. This is compounded by the “ethos” within the schools requiring that everything good that is percieved happens because of “God’s” intervention ensures that the formative mind is going to have a serious conflict with the parents who are foreced to send their child into the religiously controled system. A religious parent sending their child into a non-religiously controled system can still provide religious education outside of the system. I am not for one second suggesting that the schools adopt a stance where they contradict the views of the childs parents, just that they acknowledge that the religious facet is outside of their remit.
Comment by Jack Butler — June 19, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
Any support my campaign to have Dermot Ahern put on a North Korean rocket and fired in to space.
http://piratepartyireland.com/forum/index.php?topic=52.0
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — July 5, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Between getting the catholic newspaper spam “Alive!” in my post box to vigils at tree stumps and now a law to bring back notions of blasphemy.. I’ve had enough! The Catholic concentration camps (aka Industrial schools) may be gone but the church still has an icy grip on our country. I was baptised a catholic but do not wish to be counted as one! Soon certain books and films will be banned again. And if you’re gay? Good luck. How can i have my voice heard??
Comment by Colm Foley — July 14, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Reader, I just wished to ecpress this:
-Nobody has a right to be protected from offence.
-offence isn’t even a bad or good thing, even if it is bad for the offended.
-gross, sacred offence whatever.
-Religion is in large ways of farce and arse.
-Not to be glib, God is a lot like Santa Claus in that they are both made-up things that some people believe in: the difference being that it’s accepted when you are young that Santa isn’t real, but it’s accepted by too many people that religious Gods are real for it to be accepted for people to say it is not.
-Therefore not be able to say that you disagree with religion or to take the piss out of something because of blasphemy is all wrong, ja know.
Comment by Peter L — January 11, 2010 @ 10:17 pm
(I mean “express” and “religion is in large ways farce and arse”, sorry.}
Comment by Peter L — January 11, 2010 @ 10:20 pm
If there’s one thing you’d think humans should have learned by now it’s that government and law should never ever be mixed with religion. I am disgusted once again by the actions of people who are taking my money and supposed to be acting on my behalf. I’m a normal Irish citizen and this legislation does NOT reflect my views. I think I can safely say that we are all getting really sick of being laughed at by the rest of the world. Just as the eyes of many Irish people are opened to the fact that Religion can be used in very dangerous ways, we are stopped from expressing our views… what is happening to our “democracy”? The state of this country and this is what our government spend their time doing???
Comment by L Maher — January 12, 2010 @ 10:16 pm
Also, why is the focus always on Islam and muslims? Maybe because the main point of the religion, like many other religions, seems to be, as you can see above, that they are right and everyone else is always wrong (references to the fact that people are using the wrong word for god/ that there are flaws in all other religions) and any comment made which depicts the reality of what is happening in the world (I’m talking about the way extremist muslims are terrorising the world – and I know they’re not the only ones but others are not using religion as their grounds) is offensive to them. The whole idea behind freedom of speech is that if we were to ban everything which offends us, the world wouldn’t be workable. Why not try passing a law which inhibits people from taking things too seriously and makes everyone accept that we all have a right to our views! I know the references above to “injurious images or comment” are to those Danish newspaper images which, like many things, caused these religious extremists “injury” so they of course had to hold yet another bloody demonstration. Don’t you think that the views of the people who make the images and comments like this are that there is no such thing as a “god” or a “prophet” and so they have no idea that people would react in this way and did not intend to cause hurt. So why don’t their views get respect? Why are muslims, catholics, protestants etc allowed to tell others that they are living the wrong way and will go to “hell”? Don’t they think that causes insult to normal people who are not delusional?? Where do we draw the line and is the government to take sides?? This is dangerous territory and the Irish government should know better!
Comment by L Maher — January 12, 2010 @ 11:01 pm
Well if you believe in
- Baby convicts (genetically different or handicapped for example) are cursed by God to wear their religious ball and chain (like a full body Burka they can’t take off of which medicine tries to refit and dress up which seems illogical they do so in the name of God since you know God wanted them to be cursed) again as they did once before in the past then yeah God rocks lets go with him and his..
Abandon open discussion science and understanding and United Nations Human Rights Charter, of those 7 dignities now attainable in perception by everyone, Morals like for example you don’t have to join a church to get married or find work etc, or be blessed by God to eat and sleep in a house or such of your own choosing independently and open and free expression (within moral limits which borrows somewhat from Christianity as an example)
Lets go with the big stick that once beat us into accepting all forms of authoritarian rule over our desires and beliefs of once we didn’t like getting beaten with and others hit much harder than ourselves. Sure weren’t the KKK put in charge of Africans by God himself. Remember Dr. Martin Luther King Jr was commitng blasphemy standing on his soap box rejecting the authority of God and the authorities set before him, by denouncing and insighting God himself above them.
Course he got shot and didn’t survive but he saw a future were all children of colour would play together in harmony and certain equality couldn’t of seen that coming without blasphemy.
Abandoning both the book of Issac, and Romans 13:1 “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”
Wouldn’t bolded well for the Irish abandoning the English King or having a Boston tea party. Always open to discussion. but of course neither would the very opening of a Parliament where all sorts of blasphemies were first conceived by the English themselves. We got so jealous we wanted one ourselves and choose the church of Saint Peter the The Apostle Peter founder of the first Catholic Church. just adding my two cents, but abortion and such things should be avoided if you believe in God.
Comment by Burka Skin. — April 17, 2012 @ 4:03 am