Re: Religion in public life - criminal? : Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:39 am  

Him wrote: Spot on, Mintball. And personally I think that Christianity is feeling challenged in this country for the first time in recent history, by atheism, Islam and a general lack of respect for religion and Christianity. So some are trying to fight back and their true views on gays, women etc are brought to the fore from being hidden away when things weren't so bad and even if people didn't really turn up to church they still called themselves Christian. For the first time in their lives my parents didn't put themselves down as Christian on the Census. They've never attended church in their lives other than for weddings/funerals etc but have always hesitantly called themselves Christian. That's changed, and I think the more "devout" have noted this steady but gradual change over the last few decades and can see the end is nigh. I don't know whether it's the more "devout", Him, or just a certain type of devout people. I think that, post 9/11, it became clearer that the religious mainstream had pretty much faded away (certainly in terms of Christian attendance etc in the UK. Perhaps a vacuum in that part of religious life in the country has then allowed the more extremist or fundamentalist types to move into that space and effectively become much more mainstream? Perhaps it was also partly a defensive reaction to the extremism highlighted by 9/11, and the widespread response to that? I'd also throw into the mix that perhaps there's also an element of the general state of affairs in the world/country leaving people feeling that things are so bad they need an alternative – and this is perhaps particularly true when, for a long time, we have little in the way of a serious mainstream political alternative. It's an analysis I've heard of what happened in Middle Eastern countries after the death of Nasser seemed to herald an end to any meaningful, secular opposition to Western-style capitalist exploitation and power. It helped to boost an extremist form of Islam that was or became bound up with nationalism. I wonder if there's an element of that going on here, because although the mainstream has declined, more fundamentalist groups and churches are growing. I think that the Vatican certainly saw the gap – perhaps in terms of suiting its hierarchy as to wanting to take the church back to more 'traditionalist' attitudes. You see this in a number of things, but it includes the reintroduction of some older liturgy by the current pope. The Anglican church is in a different situation, with opposites almost pulling apart the Anglican communion. But perhaps there's also an element of prudery in the general population that gives the religious an easier time of it. Just look at this. But even non-religious people have difficulty with the issue – and indeed, often come down on similar lines as the religious, for a whole range of reasons, including an absolute terror of the idea of child sexuality (and there's a religious undercurrent, in seeing sexuality as something only for adults that remains essentially a bit naughty). So the religious get to have an easy run at things like this. Yet we know that poor sex education – including abstinence-only sex education – produce poor results. There are reasons that the Netherlands has lower rates of teenage pregnancy and single parenthood than anywhere else in western Europe (and the US). It has very good sex education – and also a lower age of consent. But religion is also about control. And I do wonder how many of the politicians of the last 20 years, who have sucked up to religion, actually share those beliefs or just mouth the correct platitudes. Actually, I wonder how many people do that in general – calling for the plebs to be more religious in order to be better behaved (obviously not them, because they don't need religion to be good – see Dally and Titan)? Well, anyway – just a few thoughts.

Him wrote: Spot on, Mintball. And personally I think that Christianity is feeling challenged in this country for the first time in recent history, by atheism, Islam and a general lack of respect for religion and Christianity. So some are trying to fight back and their true views on gays, women etc are brought to the fore from being hidden away when things weren't so bad and even if people didn't really turn up to church they still called themselves Christian. For the first time in their lives my parents didn't put themselves down as Christian on the Census. They've never attended church in their lives other than for weddings/funerals etc but have always hesitantly called themselves Christian. That's changed, and I think the more "devout" have noted this steady but gradual change over the last few decades and can see the end is nigh. I don't know whether it's the more "devout", Him, or just a certain type of devout people. I think that, post 9/11, it became clearer that the religious mainstream had pretty much faded away (certainly in terms of Christian attendance etc in the UK. Perhaps a vacuum in that part of religious life in the country has then allowed the more extremist or fundamentalist types to move into that space and effectively become much more mainstream? Perhaps it was also partly a defensive reaction to the extremism highlighted by 9/11, and the widespread response to that? I'd also throw into the mix that perhaps there's also an element of the general state of affairs in the world/country leaving people feeling that things are so bad they need an alternative – and this is perhaps particularly true when, for a long time, we have little in the way of a serious mainstream political alternative. It's an analysis I've heard of what happened in Middle Eastern countries after the death of Nasser seemed to herald an end to any meaningful, secular opposition to Western-style capitalist exploitation and power. It helped to boost an extremist form of Islam that was or became bound up with nationalism. I wonder if there's an element of that going on here, because although the mainstream has declined, more fundamentalist groups and churches are growing. I think that the Vatican certainly saw the gap – perhaps in terms of suiting its hierarchy as to wanting to take the church back to more 'traditionalist' attitudes. You see this in a number of things, but it includes the reintroduction of some older liturgy by the current pope. The Anglican church is in a different situation, with opposites almost pulling apart the Anglican communion. But perhaps there's also an element of prudery in the general population that gives the religious an easier time of it. Just look at this. But even non-religious people have difficulty with the issue – and indeed, often come down on similar lines as the religious, for a whole range of reasons, including an absolute terror of the idea of child sexuality (and there's a religious undercurrent, in seeing sexuality as something only for adults that remains essentially a bit naughty). So the religious get to have an easy run at things like this. Yet we know that poor sex education – including abstinence-only sex education – produce poor results. There are reasons that the Netherlands has lower rates of teenage pregnancy and single parenthood than anywhere else in western Europe (and the US). It has very good sex education – and also a lower age of consent. But religion is also about control. And I do wonder how many of the politicians of the last 20 years, who have sucked up to religion, actually share those beliefs or just mouth the correct platitudes. Actually, I wonder how many people do that in general – calling for the plebs to be more religious in order to be better behaved (obviously not them, because they don't need religion to be good – see Dally and Titan)? Well, anyway – just a few thoughts.

Re: Religion in public life - criminal? : Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:42 am  

Mintball wrote:

... Actually, I wonder how many people do that in general – calling for the plebs to be more religious in order to be better behaved ...

Quite a few, I reckon.
There does seem to be a view out there that one cannot have a moral compass or decide for oneself what is right or wrong without the word of a deity to provide the rules.
I guess, once someone has accepted that the men (rarely women) who wrote it down were given the words direct from a deity, then it's not possible within the framework of their belief to accept a moral code that doesn't have that stamp of divine approval.
Hence, it's pointless arguing that issue with those who have that belief.

Nonetheless, despite my being an atheist, I do reckon that Jesus' philosophy was a decent one.
It doesn't actually matter whether it was god's word, Jesus' word or someone else's word written years later ...what matters to me is the validity of the philosophy and whether the rules seem right.
And, in general, they do.
Would that Christians would abide by them.

Re: Religion in public life - criminal? : Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:53 pm  

dr_feelgood wrote:

As an atheist but believer in free speech I have no objection to people preaching to those who wish to listen. They can say homosexuality is a sin, drinking is a sin, adultery is a sin or eating pork is a sin. It would be evident to all free thinking individuals that they are talking rubbish. The same would apply to a far right organisation campaigning for repatriation of immigrants. Where the line would be crossed would be if they urged violence to be used against sinners or immigrants.

As for people in politics making decisions based on their religious beliefs, I think this would be a very dangerous idea.

But to free thinking individuals no idea is rubbish otherwise it should be rephrased to 'any person that holds views and beliefs that do not contradict my own'. Most religions do not consider those things a sin. Apart from the pork thing (certain vegetarians and pig lovers aside) most secular societies consider drunken behaviour, homosexuality and adultery unacceptable social behaviour; so they are not exclusive beliefs to religion.

[Kosh]

Re: Religion in public life - criminal? : Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:09 pm  

Thoth wrote:

But to free thinking individuals no idea is rubbish

A common misconception promoted by people who don't understand what free thought or having an open mind actually means. For clarity, being a free thinker does not mean automatic acceptance of any and all world views.

Thoth wrote:

Apart from the pork thing (certain vegetarians and pig lovers aside) most secular societies consider drunken behaviour, homosexuality and adultery unacceptable social behaviour; so they are not exclusive beliefs to religion.

Really? I'd like to see some evidence backing that claim up.

Re: Religion in public life - criminal? : Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:13 pm  

dr_feelgood wrote:

If your religious beliefs are compromised by your job its time to change profession.

On a side note, i have never understood why homosexuals would seek to be in a religion which demonises their sexual orientation. All religions, like this forum, have their rules and if you don't like them don't join.

Likewise why would you choose to be part of a society which demonises your sexuality? Religion has in general been tolerant of homosexuality. The way certain factions within given religions developed negative attitudes towards homosexuality was mostly cultural and social not religious. Prior to the Romans arriving in UK women regularly held positions of power and influence. Importing the new religion of greece and rome led to women losing influence and being suppressed. Religious attitudes to homosexuality before this new religion were very liberal. Religions in south east Asia have often been tolerant to homosexuality also. Look at the ancient Greek and Roman religions plenty of tales of deities chasing around young boys.

Re: Religion in public life - criminal? : Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:18 pm  

Thoth wrote:

But to free thinking individuals no idea is rubbish otherwise it should be rephrased to 'any person that holds views and beliefs that do not contradict my own'.

I know Kosh has already covered this, but you're miles wide of the mark. Free-thinking is the ability to consider ideas and assess them critically, without the mental straitjacket of religious belief.

Thoth wrote:

Most religions do not consider those things a sin. Apart from the pork thing (certain vegetarians and pig lovers aside) most secular societies consider drunken behaviour,

The poster you responded to said 'drinking', not 'drunken behaviour'. The two are quite different.

Thoth wrote:

homosexuality [...] unacceptable social behaviour

'Secular societies' do not consider homosexuality to be socially unacceptable, bigoted wankers do.

[Kosh]

Re: Religion in public life - criminal? : Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:58 pm  

Thoth wrote:

Religion has in general been tolerant of homosexuality.

Erm, no. No it hasn't.

Oh, and homosexuality doesn't require tolerance. It requires acceptance.

Re: Religion in public life - criminal? : Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:03 pm  

Thoth wrote:

But to free thinking individuals no idea is rubbish otherwise it should be rephrased to 'any person that holds views and beliefs that do not contradict my own'.

Do not confuse "free thinking" with relativism. The two are not the same.

Re: Religion in public life - criminal? : Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:09 pm  

Kosh wrote:

A common misconception promoted by people who don't understand what free thought or having an open mind actually means. For clarity, being a free thinker does not mean automatic acceptance of any and all world views.

Dr. Feelgood dismissed an idea without reasoning simply that he considered the view wrong providing no argument to support his her view. That is the opposite of free thinking.

Really? I'd like to see some evidence backing that claim up.

Most religions have not considered homosexuality objectionable to their associated deities, if anything homosexual acts were often considered positively and encouraged including being active part of religious ritual. This was particularly the case in the various middle eastern cults. The religions of ancient Greece followed suit in this practice. Even earlyish Christian groups openly practiced homosexual activities this continued into the early medieval period. The campaign against homosexual practices occurred centuries after the religion was strongly established. The first real large scale move against homosexuality came from Rome in the sixth century. The biggest reason for homoseuality being a sin in Judaic texts appears to be as much about worshipping false gods as it is about the act itself. Most major religions in Asia have traditionally no problem with homosexuality, branches of Japanese Buddhism actively encouraged it, similar thing happened with Taoism in parts of China but to a lesser degree. Hinduism was largely accepting of homosexuality, Sikhism itself has no real issue with homosexuality.

Likewise most anti-homosexual laws put in place did not come from religious organisations, if they did there would be a plethora of sacred texts forbidding such practices.

Re: Religion in public life - criminal? : Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:24 pm  

Kosh wrote:

Erm, no. No it hasn't.

Oh, and homosexuality doesn't require tolerance. It requires acceptance.

Yes it has as I have already mentioned homosexual practices in religion was established a long time ago, most religions and their various factions have not persecuted people based on their sexuality.

Tolerance/acceptance, you are being pedantic. Context is very important, you are ignoring the context.